3 ms·

We should really pass a federal law prohibiting arbitration in contracts of adhesion.

gpm 8y ago
We should just ban arbitration outright. It's a clear violation of the right to a fair and public trial (seventh amendment in the US, but more generally the human right), no matter what the courts say. Even if you believe that arbitrators attempt to be fair and correctly apply the law, there are numerous public policy issues with them, for some examples: - The well known principle that it's not enough for the system to seem fair, it must appear to be fair. - The lack of an appeals system. Real courts screw up all the time and there is 0 evidence to believe that arbitrators are better. - The lack of case law developed, leading to re litigating issues and no clarity for future controversies. - The lack of checks and balances, regardless of how fair arbitrators are today there is no way to stop them from becoming corrupt in the future.
- xur17 8y ago
  We should specifically ban forced arbitration. If both parties are okay with using arbitration I see no reason to restrict that.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    There's no forced arbitration. Both parties do agree to it in employment contracts. The problem is the balance of power is overwhelmingly with employers, so if you don't agree, you don't get a job... anywhere.
    - krageon 8y ago
      You've just described force.
    - secabeen 8y ago
      That's a contract of adhesion, where one party (the employer) writes the standard employment contract, and the employee can either sign it (and take the job), or not. Yes, you can rarely get small one-off changes applied, but significant re-writes of any company's standard employment contract are off the table if every job I've ever taken. Aribtration seems fine if it's business-to-business, and both sides have full-time counsel on staff, a contracts department in accounting, etc. etc.
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  Also, the intense secrecy surrounding arbitration proceedings. If I have to give up my right to talk about how I’ve been wronged in order to even seek a remedy, then that is reason enough to ban the practice. This makes it a first amendment issue, but it’s more than that. We as a society lose out when cases are settled behind closed doors with no public record. We cannot make informed decisions about employment if we don’t know who the bad actors are.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    The secrecy is so the corporations know all the arguments that work and on which arbiters, and you don't.

gpm 8y ago

We should just ban arbitration outright. It's a clear violation of the right to a fair and public trial (seventh amendment in the US, but more generally the human right), no matter what the courts say. Even if you believe that arbitrators attempt to be fair and correctly apply the law, there are numerous public policy issues with them, for some examples: - The well known principle that it's not enough for the system to seem fair, it must appear to be fair. - The lack of an appeals system. Real courts screw up all the time and there is 0 evidence to believe that arbitrators are better. - The lack of case law developed, leading to re litigating issues and no clarity for future controversies. - The lack of checks and balances, regardless of how fair arbitrators are today there is no way to stop them from becoming corrupt in the future.

xur17 8y ago
We should specifically ban forced arbitration. If both parties are okay with using arbitration I see no reason to restrict that.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  There's no forced arbitration. Both parties do agree to it in employment contracts. The problem is the balance of power is overwhelmingly with employers, so if you don't agree, you don't get a job... anywhere.
  - krageon 8y ago
    You've just described force.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    That's a contract of adhesion, where one party (the employer) writes the standard employment contract, and the employee can either sign it (and take the job), or not. Yes, you can rarely get small one-off changes applied, but significant re-writes of any company's standard employment contract are off the table if every job I've ever taken. Aribtration seems fine if it's business-to-business, and both sides have full-time counsel on staff, a contracts department in accounting, etc. etc.
BonesJustice 8y ago
Also, the intense secrecy surrounding arbitration proceedings. If I have to give up my right to talk about how I’ve been wronged in order to even seek a remedy, then that is reason enough to ban the practice. This makes it a first amendment issue, but it’s more than that. We as a society lose out when cases are settled behind closed doors with no public record. We cannot make informed decisions about employment if we don’t know who the bad actors are.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The secrecy is so the corporations know all the arguments that work and on which arbiters, and you don't.