|
Yawgmoft posted:I still have absolutely no idea how signing away your rights is even remotely legal- especially if you're under court order to go to a program. This. I guess the smart move is to now go out and become an arbitrator who rules in favor of people instead of corporations. Why? Well, typically in these agreements both parties actually have to agree to an affordable arbitrator, so just refuse the corporate one and offer up your "affordable candidate" and take them to real court when they don't agree to the one you choose. I was under the assumption that the agreements often had a "voluntary" aspect to them, i.e. they're phrased in ways such as "an arbitrator that both parties agree to will be chosen" basically banking on the fact that no one would know enough about the system to try to challenge them. Is this at all true? Do both parties have to agree on the arbitrator and can I start a firm of arbitrators?
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
What's stopping us from forming our own, cut-rate arbitration firm that offers consumers a competitive alternative to arbitrators chosen by corporations?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Crigit posted:I assume that when corporations force you to agree to arbitration, they specify which arbitrating service will be used. They'd be crazy not to. Right, that's what I thought, but when I read the NYT article listed above there were no specific arbitrators or firms listed, just "one that both parties can agree to/afford." So if we started a consumer oriented arbitration firm why couldn't people request that those services be used and take them to court when the corporation disagrees with the choice? If someone knows more about the specifics on this, please chime in. My last post pointed out the language that seemed to required voluntary compliance by both parties, so if you just jam up this part of the system it seems that arbitration has no leg to stand on. Like you can just not agree to the ones they have and keep recommending affordable alternatives and eventually you'll both be forced into the regular court system to figure this out. I figured that was one of the ways arbitration was legal at all, is that there's some veneer of both parties voluntarily complying. Just give consumers a choice in arbitrators and the whole arbitration thing will disappear as quickly as it appeared.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
from here: https://www.workplacefairness.org/forced-arbitration-agreements 12. What is the standard for arbitrator bias? An area of unconscionability which courts are very sensitive to in general is any biased method of selecting the arbitrator. For instance, if the employer maintains complete control over selection of the arbitrator, most courts have found the agreement unenforceable. Unfortunately, this is a situation that is still somewhat difficult to discover, as employers often use what appear to be neutral or independent agencies to supply arbitrators. However, in many situations, these agencies actually advertise their services exclusively to employers and emphasize that they are a means of controlling the cost of employee claims. Also, there are times when arbitrators do regular business with an employer and depend upon the income from that employer's business. All of these are factors that can influence a court in deciding whether an arbitration "agreement" is unenforceable because it does not protect the employee's right to a neutral party as an arbitrator. Boom, consumer friendly arbitration firm idea born. If you can get into a legal fight about how arbitrators are selected then you can kill arbitration. Provide a "neutral," incredibly cheap service, marketed to individuals forced into arbitration. When there is a fight over arbitrator selection then you take it to court and we find out if the Justice system is well and truly hosed. I'm telling you guys, "voluntary compliance" is the key to this whole thing and its the pillar we must attack hardest. Once arbitration loses that credibility then it'll lose its legal standing too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1. You are a goon There are no legal requirements for being an "arbitrator." But hey, instead of discussing a topic, lets poo poo on it and then go back to complaining about the subject at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Will you rig arbitration in a corporation's favor? If not, what is their incentive to write you into their contracts? Because companies don't write in a specific arbitrator, and even if they did, the terms of the contracts require you to agree to the person they choose. So, you just say, "I don't agree to this arbitrator and instead offer up this cheaper one. Good luck fighting that in court." Voluntary compliance is the key to the issue. If you just don't agree to the ones they provide and instead offer a credible, affordable alternative what basis do corporations have for turning that one down and can either party go to court to find out exactly how an arbitrator is selected? Otherwise just continually decline the company suggestions and counter with offers of your own until a court is forced to rule on the issue. There is no way courts will rule that "Companies get to pick the guy and you're stuck with it." So long as your alternative is equally credible and equally, if not more so, affordable, then I don't see a legal reason for a company to reject your offer. Can anyone with experience in this talk about arbitrator selection?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:I think arbitration has its place in certain religious situations. If a member of a church or mosque has a minor dispute with another member and that can be solved to the satisfaction of both parties, ok then. But something like the case in the OP, or a case I recall in Texas (I think) where a woman was told by a religious arbitrator from her church that she had to stay in an abusive relationship, that's definitely not ok. In the context of certain churches arbitration is sometimes used to defend spousal abusers and child molesters. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it seems to me that any situation involving a death. physical harm, or money over a certain amount should by default be handled by the court system and not a arbitratior. Seems to me like we have a justice system for a reason and forced arbitration should be illegal. "But then all arbitration would be illegal!" Yeah. So?  Remember, most of the issues with the justice system come from being underfunded. Not enough attorneys and judges on staff to hear cases. If we just funded the loving thing, like most of our floundering civil institutions, it'd work better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Um, corporations are great at fighting things in court, and it isn't hard for corporate sponsored arbitration to compete on costs with "consumer friendly" arbitration since they stand to materially gain more from favorable outcomes. And all of that ignores if the justice system simply rules in favor of the corporations without much fight. The assumption that you simply do not have to agree and that you could find favorable arbitration does not seem to mesh with the horror stories I have been reading about arbitration, including the article in the OP. Hey, great points! Its true that corporations are great at fighting things in court, I never said this was "1 weird trick," but it seems to me to be a chink in the armor. Worth exploring. And good point about competitive pricing. Its all stuff that needs to be looked into more. The link I posted had something about courts ruling that contracts are the foundation of arbitration law in the first place. It said something about both participants being equally represented and I think there is a lot of room to explore and push on that front. I think a lot of the worst abuses of arbitration are against people most ignorant about it, and just consulting a lawyer once or twice isn't going to give you any edge. Its just that if this is the system and its only legal because of voluntary compliance then there is an avenue to exploit. It won't be easy and it won't change the landscape, but I think there's a market and room for growth. The limits and rights of all parties needs to be tested. edit: the fact that there's no discovery in arbitration just goes to show how skewed the system is. How can you demonstrate anything when the company can just legally hide poo poo? RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Being able to possibly select the arbitrator does nothing to change the really damaging effect of these clauses, which is that they essentially remove the consumer's right to participate in a class-action lawsuit. This allows companies to get away with a lot of bullshit, because no one's going to go to arbitration over $50, but if they take $50 of of 100,000 customers (for example), they've made an extra $5mil. This is also true. Totally right. What we can do is try to lobby for the repeal of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act which is the legal foundation for all of this. That or a new law altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Although the background and outcome of the case and the family being barred from suing is absolutely atrocious, this guy wasn't FORCED to go to this place. He was given the option as an alternative to jail time. This. People are given the "choice" but I think we can agree there's a touch of coercion sandwiched in there
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I wish one of our legal goons with knowledge in this area would chime in on this. And arbitrator selection, please? Plaintiff/defendant rights?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Trent posted:In addition to the other problems listed with the goon arbitration firm, corporations could just provide free arbitration, denying any argument about affordability. They could even make it a "good PR" move while they bend you over. This would happen as soon as the idea got any traction at all because they know drat well paying for the arbiter is cheaper than going to court. I'm not defending my whole idea, but an in-house arbitrator would not be "neutral" so the rulings would be unenforceable (or at least challengeable in court). There are rules to this, we all just clearly don't know them. Couldn't a lawyer (or some other professional) just have a side business of "arbitrator?" I get that there's nothing perfect about a random solution thrown out there yesterday (goon firm), but having read some of the arbitration agreements in articles and such, and going to the that website I posted that was all about arbitration, I think there are chinks in the armor in that in arbitration you both still have to be equal parties and there must be some form of leverage or control or input that makes you an "equal party in a contract" and not a private prisoner in a private justice system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 00:03
|
|