The case against arbitration - Democratic Underground

Veilex

(115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-22-09 01:12 AM
Original message

The case against arbitration

Source: MSN

Grumblings about mandatory arbitration -- the requirement that people settle a dispute before an arbitrator rather than go to court -- are common. That's because arbitration is often a closed process, and according to one study, consumers usually lose.

But now a series of incidents has brought the system under additional scrutiny

Congress is considering the Arbitration Fairness Act

Read more: http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Arbitration.aspx?cp-searchtext=Arbitration%20Law

For the first time in a long time, people are starting to fight the Arbitration system. The system is designed to make employees and consumers fail in any dispute... somthing so one sided should never have been allowed to start with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sasquatch

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-22-09 01:21 AM
Response to Original message

1. Yeah, arbitrators since the Reagan revolution have been as crooked as hell

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Q3JR4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-22-09 03:38 AM
Response to Original message

2. Seriously,

f$%! mandatory arbitration.

Q3JR4

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Downwinder

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-22-09 06:13 AM
Response to Original message

3. By definition you can not win in Arbitration.

Arbitration is a negotiated settlement. The best outcome that can be expected is to lose less.

Arbitration is one of the RW methods of Tort reform designed to deny people access to the justice of the Courtroom and a jury trial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

caseymoz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-22-09 10:42 AM
Response to Original message

4. Encouraging right now, but I bet it doesn't go anywhere.

There's too much at stake for companies to allow Congress to pass this. Though if you call your Congress creatures, they might be much more inclined.

Fact is, the constitutionality of arbitration has to be fought in court (I don't know if this has been done yet). The courts, I would think, would not be sympathetic to curtailing their power to allow something that circumvents their general powers to hear suits. Or I would think. Courts go by their own logic, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:16 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.