3 ms·
One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies. Basically, once a company picks arbitration, it can’t ever go b
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies. Basically, once a company picks arbitration, it can’t ever go back. Then make it so someone other than the company picks the arbiter. This would go a long way towards removing perverse incentives.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> One thing that could fix this would be making the decision for arbitration binding on companies This is how arbitration works. Non-binding arbitration is called mediation, and is basically glorified group therapy.
- hopler 8y agoYou denigrate it but it works well in many situations where parties want to rea b a profitable agreement.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoI should have phrased it better. I am not talking about an arbitration case itself, but the decision to use arbitration as the means for settling disputes. If company decides to use arbitration in 2018, then in 2020, they are not allowed to change their mind to not use arbitration. Deciding to use arbitration locks the company in. Thus, the various arbitration providers don't have any concern that if their decisions are not friendly to the company the company will stop using their services.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoThis is how every arbitration clause I've seen is structured. I think it's a good idea to write that restriction into law, given anyone deviating from the norm is probably tryin to game the system to their advantage.