5 ms·

> but arbitration rules don't work that way. They work exactly that way. If the arbitration company doesn't produce results that favor my company we will dump

> but arbitration rules don't work that way. They work exactly that way. If the arbitration company doesn't produce results that favor my company we will dump them as a service provider. Each year, we can run an A-B test, randomly assigning cases to two arbitration companies, and whichever one has a higher win rate for us will stick around next year, and the other one gets fired. After a few years of that we should have a provider that performs really well for us. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1586&context=articles http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

NotSammyHagar 11y ago
Exactly right! Businesses use arbitration because it works better for them. They are the ones hiring the arbitrators. How about the other way, why can't regular people say I won't sign your contract unless you agree to use my arbitrator if there is a problem - people can't because they don't have that power.
beobab 11y ago
Are you happy with your customers knowing this?
- jellicle 11y ago
  All my customers will ever know is that their disputes are required to be arbitrated by "Super Fair Arbitration, Inc.". They won't know that Super Fair has a 99% corporate win rate, and that we pay them a bonus every year the win rate for us is over 95%.
DannyBee 11y ago
"e: (1) the employee win rate amongst the cases was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation; " These key findings are of course, completely irrelevant to whether this is the right outcome. IE they are not good or bad in and of themselves. " (6) the mean amount claimed was $844,814 and 75 percent of all claims were greater than $36,000." The likelihood that this amount claimed is sane seems low when viewed over a group of 1200 people, and particular, people who pretty much all make < 100k a year. "The results also indicate the existence of a significant repeat employer-arbitrator pairing effect in which employees on average have lower win rates and receive smaller damage awards where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration" The conclusion aout fairness does not follow from these facts of course, in any way. It may be the arbitrator now has a better perspective on the way various folks may be trying to game the system or whatever else. You will also find very similar pairings in state vs federal venue win rates for employees and class action lawsuits. Yet i don't see anyone here screaming that this is unfair
- jellicle 11y ago
  So given the evidence that arbitrators are substantially more biased towards corporations than regular courts are, your argument is that it's actually the courts that are biased in favor of individuals and the arbitrators are actually perfectly fair and impartial. I suppose that isn't ruled out by the evidence at hand. But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?" In my experience, no ;-) Also, they are paid by one side of the dispute - you pay judges salaries ;-) In a lot of states, they are directly elected, too.

NotSammyHagar 11y ago

Exactly right! Businesses use arbitration because it works better for them. They are the ones hiring the arbitrators. How about the other way, why can't regular people say I won't sign your contract unless you agree to use my arbitrator if there is a problem - people can't because they don't have that power.

beobab 11y ago

Are you happy with your customers knowing this?

jellicle 11y ago
All my customers will ever know is that their disputes are required to be arbitrated by "Super Fair Arbitration, Inc.". They won't know that Super Fair has a 99% corporate win rate, and that we pay them a bonus every year the win rate for us is over 95%.

DannyBee 11y ago

"e: (1) the employee win rate amongst the cases was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation; " These key findings are of course, completely irrelevant to whether this is the right outcome. IE they are not good or bad in and of themselves. " (6) the mean amount claimed was $844,814 and 75 percent of all claims were greater than $36,000." The likelihood that this amount claimed is sane seems low when viewed over a group of 1200 people, and particular, people who pretty much all make < 100k a year. "The results also indicate the existence of a significant repeat employer-arbitrator pairing effect in which employees on average have lower win rates and receive smaller damage awards where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration" The conclusion aout fairness does not follow from these facts of course, in any way. It may be the arbitrator now has a better perspective on the way various folks may be trying to game the system or whatever else. You will also find very similar pairings in state vs federal venue win rates for employees and class action lawsuits. Yet i don't see anyone here screaming that this is unfair

jellicle 11y ago
So given the evidence that arbitrators are substantially more biased towards corporations than regular courts are, your argument is that it's actually the courts that are biased in favor of individuals and the arbitrators are actually perfectly fair and impartial. I suppose that isn't ruled out by the evidence at hand. But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?" In my experience, no ;-) Also, they are paid by one side of the dispute - you pay judges salaries ;-) In a lot of states, they are directly elected, too.