You're gonna have to serve somebody

As readers of this column know, I like to have clear rules. Sometimes the rules don't make perfect sense to me, but that's OK—tell me what the rule is, and I will follow it. Just show me the path.

Here's an example in the employment context: You might have a rule that qualifies employees for a cash award when they recruit friends and family, or you might have a rule prohibiting nepotism in the hiring process. Either rule could make sense in the appropriate circumstances. But you can't encourage an employee to solicit family members to work for you and then attack the employee for engaging in nepotism. In other words, you can change your values and rules going forward, but it's wrong to look at past conduct through the lens of a new rule. We seem to be doing that a lot these days, though.

The rules they are a-changin'

Arbitration presents one example of our shifting attitudes. Arbitration was first envisioned as a cheaper, simpler way for individuals and small businesses to right a wrong when the formal legal process was too expensive. But big corporate interests had the money to hire lawyers and go to court, and they opposed arbitration.

The Federal Arbitration Act was passed in 1925 to protect arbitration in the name of the public policy promoting a reasonable process toward the simplified resolution of disputes. The current public mood and legislative policy has again shifted, and companies are under pressure from lawmakers, customers, and the public to eliminate most employment arbitration agreements.