The actions of DOGE are nothing new to us. When he stirs up significant problems on platforms like Twitter, the responsibility to sort out the mess legally rests on him. In contrast, the techniques he employs with the government involve creating disruption and disorder. Once this is achieved, he moves on, leaving a mess that needs to be addressed primarily by taxpayers, who bear the brunt of the legal costs incurred. Dominating the government is beyond his authority, although he may think otherwise.
Let’s view the situation involving federal workers who agreed to DOGE’s proposal to quit their jobs and receive severance after the ‘fork in the road’ email. The government’s ability or even willingness to honor the commitments made to these workers remains uncertain. There was a significant internal uproar amongst the federal workers, with many refusing to leave their positions.
However, an understandable desire for a different working environment led quite a few employees to take up the offer. Many of those who opted to test their luck are yet to ascertain whether the commitments will be upheld. It has always been a tough battle for workers to stand their ground due to the perceived stacked odds and a legal system that makes it daunting.
This difficulty is a driving factor behind me dedicating my career to this specific area of law. There are numerous commendable laws in existence, but their effectiveness is questionable if they can’t be implemented. During my career, arbitration clauses have proved to be the most significant hurdle in this regards.
I first noticed issues with these clauses in the late 2000s. Companies began employing arbitration clauses to impede class action lawsuits, a trend I observed growing. Initially, we managed to dismiss quite a few of them.
However, around 2011 there was a massive shift following a decision by the Supreme Court. The ruling essentially handed over a powerful tool to employers, allowing them to utilize arbitration clauses to prevent class actions and ultimately go against the law for their entire workforce, virtually without any consequences.
Workers bound by these arbitration clauses would have to individually seek legal representation to file a claim. While they might manage to get compensation for themselves personally, this approach does not offer a solution for changing an organization’s practices.
When we began to lose some cases due to arbitration, I turned to a different strategy. Our approach was to meet the employers on their chosen field, accepting their preference for addressing cases individually. So, I initiated mass arbitrations, stating that if they preferred case by case solutions, they would receive them.
Now, my workload is heavily skewed towards conducting numerous arbitrations, moving away from class actions. We’re in the process of conducting thousands of such cases currently. While the system may seem stacked against workers, adoption of these new strategies can help push forward the cause of justice.
The post DOGE’s Disruptive Tactics: Who Foots the Bill? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
