3 ms·
Arbitration clauses are explicitly not in everyone's favor and that is the sort of incorrect information companies like to spread around. Frequently the company
by lovich 8y ago
Arbitration clauses are explicitly not in everyone's favor and that is the sort of incorrect information companies like to spread around. Frequently the company is the one picking the arbitrator, which I hope has obvious problems with them being unbiased.
Even in cases where the arbitrator is a "neutral" party that both sides have to agree to, the companies are the ones bringing in the lion's share of work to the arbitrators and they are not going to agree to an arbitrator who rules against them in any significant quantities
- hcurtiss 8y agoThis presumes the company is frequently in arbitration. That is not frequently the case. With few exceptions, most companies want to (and do) avoid these kinds of disputes. My critique of arbitration is that, under AAA rules, it's not actually much cheaper than just going to court. The only real advantage is that it cuts off appeals, but that cuts both ways. These days I find clients are relatively ambivalent about whether to include arbitration in B2B contracts.
- lovich 8y agoThe company is going to be frequently in arbitration compared to the employees because they have an agreement with every employee and the employees only have an agreement with the company. Even in your statement here, there's evidence that the arbitration agreements are only in place because the companies can force it. B2B contracts usually have _actual_ negotiation involved instead of a take it or leave type of deal. Now that they can't force the agreements they are ambivalent about whether they are included. If the arbitration agreements don't survive in contacts when both parties are on roughly equal footing and only show up when one party is much weaker, doesn't that imply that they are abusive?