Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received...
by dragonwriter on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @05:06PM
(#19030280)
> The sovereign state of Washington laws are superseded and invalidated by mandatory binding arbitration.
No, they aren't; binding arbitration is a venue for resolving disputes about the application of laws, it doesn't supersede the laws, and manifest disregard for the law is one of the few reasons for courts setting aside a binding arbitration decision.
Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received...
by sokoloff on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @05:09PM
(#19030312)
Washington state law certainly does apply. The state did not sign a mandatory binding arbitration agreement. The employee/contractor may not have the right to bring suit against Instacart, but the state maintains that right.
Thought experiment: could Instacart assault, kidnap, or murder a delivery driver and claim that arbitration is the only venue for redress?
Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received...
by dabockster on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @05:39PM
(#19030557)
And even then, the worker does have the right to petition the court to review the clause itself. So the worker can still sue with the knowledge that it will be thrown out if the judge decides to uphold the arbitration clause.
Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received...
by FireBeyond on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @07:16PM
(#19031316)
Washington state law is very clear that Labor laws cannot be superceded by arbitration clauses, and that employees, including contractors, cannot waive their labor rights.
Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received...
by 8bitsrule on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @12:19AM
(#19032904)
This 'sovereign state' is the same state that uses a (regressive) sales tax to generate revenue, rather than an income tax. Maybe it'll grow up and be an adult state one day.
Any dispute will go to a monkey court instead.