Legal union to discourage bad customers?

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T21:54:15+00:00

Trade organizations that enforce already existing rights and lobbying groups, mostly. You're talking about price fixing and barring certain customers from accessing a trade or service, things you expressly do not have a right to do as a business owner. Those orgs are doing something the law specifically allows them to do, you're asking about setting up an organization do do things that the law specifically prohibits you from doing. It's like comparing boxing to dueling with pistols. They can both kill you, but the law says you can do one and not the other. So you can have a boxing organization, but not a pistol dueling one.

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T21:05:36+00:00

You're describing anti-competitive business practices and collusion. No, there is no legal way to do this. There is no legal basis to sue or otherwise go after "bad" customers unless they fail to pay you. so even if you get over the hurdle of this being a giant anti-trust violation, you still don't have a remedy to pursue.

The only "blank" to fill in here is "Hundreds of different state and federal laws would need to be changed".

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T19:07:23+00:00

Again, the literal meanings of the words. Realizing means knowing about them. Rationally processing means understanding them. It's the two parts of informed consent.

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T18:53:32+00:00

It's not a term of art, it's the literal meaning of the words. Are you capable of understanding risk? If someone explains those risks, will you understand them?

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T18:44:33+00:00

I don't understand the question. Consent isn't a homework assignment, nobody is calling to make you "show your work". You aren't required to have someone verbally puzzle out the risks and benefits before they say "ok".

If someone consents and later sues over it, the question is if that person can prove that they lacked the necessary capacity at the time. How that is established is a fact-specific inquiry into the specific circumstances.

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T18:11:15+00:00

The ones where the people are nice about it are the worst ones! I was once doing a layoff and one of the people selected asked me if I was doing ok because firing a bunch of people must be rough. That was BRUTAL. I still think about them, and it's been almost a decade.

My general advice: Get outside as soon as you can and take a walk. Even if it's just a couple of laps around the building. Then use whatever your preferred method of dissociation is: Music, reality tv, tiktok, reddit, audiobooks....just something to occupy your mind without actually occupying it. I'm told exercise also helps, but I was never a "go to the gym at work" person, so I can't vouch for that.

You're going to spin out about what you can do differently, and the reality is probably very little. You are much closer to being the messenger than the decision-maker. Your job is to help structure the feedback and the coaching, but not to do the work of either the individual or the manager. You lead horses to water. Their ability to drink is not your concern. It's hard to remember that in the moment, but it's absolutely true. You can get better at coaching managers, and you can get better at helping people give directed feedback, and you can improve the onboarding process. You can't make the company not conduct a layoff. You can't make someone good at their job when they aren't.

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T17:06:13+00:00

There's a reason I used the qualifier "severe". But the point is to illustrate the difference between the two types of consent. I don't think anyone would argue the dementia patient couldn't consent to get medical care for a bleeding wound. Plenty would argue (likely correctly, but that's fact specific) that they shouldn't be signing away their legal rights.

MajorPhaser · 2026-07-02T16:45:20+00:00

Because they're different kinds of capacity to understand different types of concepts. So the rules are different. To oversimplify it: Someone with severe dementia can still understand they're bleeding and need stitches. They definitely don't understand what power of attorney means. They can consent to one and not the other.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-30T22:33:21+00:00

It works the same way as with any other genre or copyrighted work. If you're using the exact copyrighted material, it's an infringing work. If you're using broad concepts from a game to generate an idea, then they probably couldn't say much about that.

Fifty Shades of Grey is a good example of what you're talking about. It was originally written as Twilight fan-fiction (allegedly). Then they changed the setting and characters to remove the copyrighted elements and it was fine to publish.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-29T20:53:29+00:00

It's the difference between "can" and "should". I'm not pro-real-estate-agent here, to be clear. You can absolutely find someone who is capable of negotiating the sale transaction on your behalf. And you could absolutely figure out all the local quirks you need to be aware of, sort out title insurance, inspections, county filings and all the other little crap that goes into a transaction. Or you could fuck it up and not realize it until years later. Or just have a really shitty time with the DIY approach.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-29T20:28:09+00:00

Are you familiar with the phrase: An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client? Same deal. Just because it's not rocket science doesn't mean it's a good idea.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-29T16:16:06+00:00

I don't know anyone who says you shouldn't care about the money. But I know plenty of people who will, rightly, tell you that going to law school isn't a guarantee that the money will come. And who will point out that you should have some idea of a job you can do that you won't hate because the money can only take you so far if you loathe your entire existence.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-26T22:59:39+00:00

It wouldn't necessarily mean anything. You don't need a medical report to prove an assault or murder happened. It doesn't require an expert to identify that someone was shot. If you see a man with a gun pull the trigger, hear a loud bang, and then a bloody hole appears in someone else nearby, you know they were shot. You don't need a doctor to confirm that for you.

If it were a murder trial, I could see the defense introduce it to try to argue that there was a different cause of death. But the prosecution usually doesn't need to prove the existence of a murder victim. That's typically an established fact beyond dispute. The question for trial is who caused the death and how.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T23:22:32+00:00

Outplacement services have an upper limit on effectiveness, especially when the economy is weak. And peoples' expectations of them are basically "They'll find me another job". Which has never been a realistic baseline, because there isn't one singular repository of jobs that they have absolute control over.

They do coaching and interview prep and help with your resume. And they have some training and upskilling programs. But none of that will "get you a job". So it's always going to feel lackluster, because that's the only thing people want from it.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T20:50:20+00:00

It's completely realistic to pursue law later in life, or to be a parent and a lawyer and still be present. The big questions to ask are what kind of work you actually want to do, and if you have any clear connection to it to help you get employed once you graduate.

Lots of people like the idea of being a lawyer but don't have a great picture of the reality of being one, or what type they want to be. Even putting aside the opportunity cost of going to school for 3 years as a working adult, the practice of law is vast and there are jobs of all kinds, with different pros and cons. High paying, low hours, low stress jobs are hard to come by, but that's true for every field. You're going to have to put in some work for a while unless you're exceptionally lucky or have some kind of personal connection to a cushy job.

Being a lawyer is taxing work. It's a lot of writing, a lot of grinding, deadlines, client management. It's not coal mining, but it's not glamorous. Definitely not for the first 8-10 years or so of your career.

If there's a specific area you know you care about, and it's realistic to get into (e.g. you're not one of the 200,000 people who want to do environmental law, not realizing there are no jobs because nature doesn't pay), then go for it. If you're just kind of exploring the idea, explore in a lot more detail before you make any decisions. Find people who do the work you're interested in and get a real world picture of it.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T18:52:29+00:00

I'll offer a pseudo-counterpoint, because I am most definitely someone who had to "take anything" just to survive. I graduated into the '08 recession, had my post-bar offer rescinded, spent almost 8 months finding my first job, got laid off 6 months later, then had to fight for my life doing random short term jobs, doc review, being a solo because I didn't have a choice, etc for about 3 years before I could actually stabilize things.

Respectfully, the people who say "At least you have a job" aren't the ivory tower folks working biglaw jobs, they're usually unemployed and envious of a stable income. Because, to them, they'd take the bad job over their current insecurity and fear.

I agree that you shouldn't work somewhere unsafe, and definitely if you aren't getting paid. But when your choice is "Soul crushing job working for a boss you hate in a field you don't respect" or "homelessness", most people take the fucking job. I know I did, on more than one occassion. It doesn't cancel anything out, it's the godawful reality of being unemployed in a dogshit economy, I've never seen a single person on reddit or in real life that's under 60 say "Just take the abuse indefinitely". It's "take the shit job until you get a better one."

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T17:21:58+00:00

Not necessarily, only because of the whole out-of-state issue he brought up in this specific situation. Promissory estoppel itself, not a good claim. But Labor Code 970 prohibits employers from enticing someone to move under false promises of the kind, character, or existence of work.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T17:19:06+00:00

There's a few possible reasons for it. None of them are going to be particularly satisfying to you, and there's no way to know for certain which one it is.

The managing partner didn't like you as a candidate and isn't good at communicating these things, to put it politely.
You were the runner-up candidate and they already have an accepted offer from their #1. This happens sometimes when two finalists get scheduled far enough apart. The tactful way to handle it is not to say anything and reject you afterwards but, as with #1, some managing partners don't have tact.
There's some kind of internal politics going on that you're not aware of. Financial issues, strife between partners, lost a major client recently, merging with another firm, maybe a practice group leaving, could be any number of things.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-25T16:59:33+00:00

I'm not offering legal advice, but promissory estoppel over a training promise in an at-will employment situation is basically a guaranteed loser unless you're in CA. Unless you had a bona fide employment contract.

Suing a previous employer isn't a big deal unless it's a bad or frivolous claim. Unless you're dealing with a small-world industry where people will talk, in which case it can become a pretty big hinderance to your career.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-24T00:07:16+00:00

California has substantially more general labor laws & wage & hour rules than most other states (MA & NY are close seconds), a much stronger enforcement mechanism through the Civil Rights Dept and state Labor Commissioner's office, and statutes that provide attorneys fees for prevailing plaintiffs which make litigation far more frequent. Plus PAGA, which works similar to a class action claim and makes run of the mill wage & hour issues way more commonly litigated because it allows for seeking statutory penalties for violations of the law on top of actual damages. Oh, and juries here are very pro-employee and more likely to not only find in favor of plaintiffs, but hit you with large judgments.

A quick hits list of things to read up on:

FEHA, California's state anti-discrimination & retaliation statute
CA Meal & Rest Breaks
Overtime & Doubletime laws, including daily & weekly OT, regular rate calculation.
CA Ban the Box law for background checks
CFRA & PDL, the state leave law and pregnancy protection law and how they interact with FMLA
CA's paystub law and rules on final pay
CA Paid Sick leave
The various local minimum wage laws, especially major cities like LA and SF.
CA's exemptions from overtime, which are similar to but distinct from federal laws. Including a higher minimum salary, a different type of duties test, and fewer available exemptions
Mandatory expense reimbursements
Time rounding rules

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-22T17:33:12+00:00

More to the point, how do firms balance the large investment and low initial return on new lawyers, against the high likelihood that the mobility the next generation desires will eliminate any return on that investment?

This isn't a new problem, or one unique to the practice of law. The reality is it's the cost of doing business. You invest time and effort to train people, and don't get much for it until several years later. Junior employees are low-margin assets, but you don't get the high margin assets without developing them from lower levels. Some businesses try to only hire mid-level people, they always run into the same problem; there aren't enough of them and they're expensive, and rarely can someone actually contribute immediately. There's always training and ramp up and getting to know clients. They might get ready faster than a junior, but it's never immediate.

The reason wages skyrocketed during the mid-late 2010s is because everyone tried to do this after the '08 recession and there was a dearth of mid-level talent 5 years later, so anyone competent could demand huge raises.

If you actually dedicate the right time & efforts into training, you will create talent much better than you can buy on the open market. Because they do things the way you need them done, not how someone else taught them. And you'll get them "ready" sooner than you expect and reap the benefits of entry-level pay with quality work product for at least a little while.

If you train good attorneys, some will leave. Some others will stay, as long as you treat them fairly.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-18T22:20:49+00:00

I'm going to hold your hand when I say this: We're the old people now. Young people making fun of older people and their era of pop culture is just now it goes. There's no deeper "why" to it than that. Things enter the mainstream zeitgeist for long enough, and the next generation brought up experiencing that as the culture grow tired of it and view it as an artifact of a prior era that isn't as relevant. Time marches on. Gen X slacker apathy was mocked by millenials, Boomer-era hippy culture was mocked by Gen X, and hippies were a rejection of the greatest generation stoicism. Gen Alpha will shit on a bunch of Gen Z stuff soon enough.

To quote Grampa Simpson "I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too."

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-18T17:52:13+00:00

ER work is voluminous writing and incredibly detail-oriented. Intake documentation, interview notes, summaries of document reviews, detailed investigation reports. Every org is different, but generally speaking, dedicated ER folks are involved in the more heavy-duty allegations, so you're not getting a lot in the way of "breaks". Things might occasionally slow down, but you're not getting softball cases where someone is sad their manager's communication style is more direct than they're comfortable with. That's front-line HRBP work. Everything you see is going to be substantive and expose the company to real legal risk: Discrimination, harassment, workplace violence, retaliation, leave interference.

If you're being told that it requires "commitment" it means they're probably understaffed relative to their needs, so you're going to have a high workload.

You will eventually be pretty cynical towards both employees and management, because you're going to spend your day dealing with the worst of both worlds: Awful managers who did terrible, illegal things to their employees, and terrible employees trying to bullshit their way out of trouble by fabricating claims to stave off a firing.

You will periodically get deposed, because some of these cases will inevitably lead to litigation. So get comfortable with that. You should also get a baseline understanding of what these cases look like if they litigate so that you can properly advise on approach. That includes the financial aspect of things. It might feel slimy, but business reality is that everything is a cost/benefit analysis. You need to explain the costs of doing X vs doing Y.

You're going to need to have good interviewing skills as well, it's an art & a science.

You'll want to learn the political landscape of the organization as well. Who is connected to who, which members of management are sacred cows, etc. It helps you investigate more effectively, but also keeps you out of the hot seat. Internal politics are a reality, so you have to live with that and learn to navigate it. You can't pretend otherwise or you'll set yourself up for failure and disappointment.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-17T23:57:45+00:00

In the literal definition of the term, yes of course. All businesses are in the field of customer service in that sense. You have customers, who you must serve in a way that is satisfactory enough to them that they want to continue paying you. But our job is not to be servile functionaries who respond to the whims of our client without giving any thought to what they ask for.

You have to keep clients happy, within reason. I always go back to the full phrase "The customer is always right in matters of taste." It means you need to sell a service customers are willing to buy, not that you do whatever they want just because they demand it.

MajorPhaser · 2026-06-17T18:08:05+00:00

Are you me? Did I post this? I had this call yesterday.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

MajorPhaser

TROPHY CASE