I'm not sure why this post is downvoted. Analemma's right. Civilized countries don't routinely redefine civil rights as the US does. Binding arbitration is no substitute for the lack of law enforcement. This is a simple violation of statute, not contract. No arbitration should be needed.

For example, Germany actually asserts a civil right requiring that every employee have access to at least 4 hours of daylight every day. In the US, no such law would be respected or enforced, given the latitude granted corporate misbehavior.

Even if an explicit amendment to that effect were asserted in our Constitution, still our courts would gladly entertain the redefinition of every part of that statute, from "employee" to "daylight" to "4 hours".

This widespread institutional tolerance of legalistic weaseling by haves to overwhelm civil rights of the have-nots is quite uncivilized, there's no better word for it.

In this case, IBM's malefactions toward elders is a perfect illustration of civil abuse. For this and the sundry other ways the company has victimized its staff and customers for decades, IBM richly deserves no less than a death sentence.

Would you mind sharing reference to Germany's rule about 4 hours of daylight? (even if it is German)

I'm very interested, but my google-fu is not good enough apparently.

There is no strict four-hour-rule but adequate access to daylight is indeed required.

Most rules are available at https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-R... and a good summary is at http://publikationen.dguv.de/dguv/pdf/10002/i-7007.pdf

It took a couple of minutes with Google and the phrase "binding arbitration in $X" for $X in {Canada, Japan, France} to determine that this is not accurate.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up binding arbitration with something else?

Edit: it sounded like you were talking about arbitration in a more general context than just employment contracts. If you are just talking about employment contracts than you are probably right (except possible for Canada, where there seems to be case law going both ways, so it seems to depend on the particulars of what is in dispute and how the contract is written).

I think GP meant forced binding arbitration, where you can permanently sign away your right to sue in advance of an actual dispute. I believe this is a fairly unique issue to the US. Or are you stating that you can do the same in e.g. Canada?

Id agree in the UK its common to settle out of court (well employment tribunal) and employers must pay for your selected lawyer to check the "compromise agreement"

Your employer cant say ah you must use my mate Saul the solicitor that did my last house purchase who I know from the golf club.

Uhm, are you sure? https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law...

"In France, as a general rule, arbitration concerning individual employment contracts is prohibited. This holds true even in cases where the parties have included an arbitration agreement and a valid choice of law clause designating that foreign law applies to the entirety of the employment contract. Such a strict interpretation is seen as a public policy measure intended to protect employees who are considered to be in a necessarily weaker bargaining position compared to their employers. By giving Labor Courts the unique competency to adjudicate such matters, France can effectively safeguard its workforce.

Similar interests motivate protective regulatory schemes in most European Union (EU) nations where, as we will discuss, the prevalence of arbitration in labor and employment disputes remains limited and political weariness towards the practice pervades. "

It wasn't clear if he was specifically referring to employment arbitration or binding arbitration in general.

Not sure why you were downvoted. As far as I know you are correct, at least for Europe, in the area of workers' rights.