4 ms·

> Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overl

> Ok, so the reason we have arbitration at all is to save the courts time. This makes sense. Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. > This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator. > The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by the company, so they have a strong incentive to favor the company. Arbitration wouldn't be so bad if the inherent bias is removed. I think these are good ideas, but I think there's another very big one to consider: why should anyone be allowed to choose arbitration before the dispute at hand arises? I simply think it should be disallowed. I always here people supporting arbitration say stuff like "it's better for both parties", but if that's actually the case then both parties would choose the arbitration at the time of the dispute. Allowing people to tie themselves to arbitration ahead of time entirely removes the incentive to actually provide a fairer and better process to both sides.

pc86 8y ago
I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. I don't think that's enough of a reason to disagree with your point but it's certainly one to consider, especially if one side has a lot more resources and jurisdictionally each side will need to pay their own legal fees.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  > I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. Honestly I think that you shouldn't have any inherent right to arbitration. You should have a right to access to a court. Arbitration should only there if both parties agree to it. If one party doesn't agree because they want to make it more expensive for you, so be it. I mean I can't really see what's fundamentally different than someone deciding they want to force you to a court trial for that reason versus them forcing you for another reason. It's just a legal strategy at the end of the day. If they are truly acting in bad will, they should be assessed court fees down the road. I know that that's difficult in the US court system, but that is a problem that should be fixed with the court system not by just side-stepping it with arbitration.
  - ambulancechaser 8y ago
    You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it. Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      > You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it. I know this is the case and I believe it is generally the way it should be (ecxept of course the fact that the agreements can be entered into prior to the disputes). I was responding to the devil’s post by basically pointing what you wrote here. > Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement. I’m not sure what point you’re making here. I think that agreements by parties to restrict themselves to arbitration regarding disputes that have not yet arisen should be legally unenforceable. I think it would improve the arbitration system in every way. (This was essentially the argument of my first post.) Are you disagreeing with me?
    - learc83 8y ago
      >Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement. Unless because of career specialization, location, imperfect markets...whatever, you only have access to employers who insist on arbitration as part of the terms of employment. One side agreed to it, and one side was coerced into agreeing to it.
coryfklein 8y ago
> If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. This is certainly true, but many parties are mutually benefited by resolving some disputes via a neutral arbiter rather than the courts. It's just another example of where private companies can be more efficient than legal bodies. There are just more inherent costs in a legal court of law.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  I don’t disagree, but I don’t believe this is an argument against my claim that the choice of whether a dispute should go to arbitration should not be made before the dispute arises.

pc86 8y ago

I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. I don't think that's enough of a reason to disagree with your point but it's certainly one to consider, especially if one side has a lot more resources and jurisdictionally each side will need to pay their own legal fees.

CogitoCogito 8y ago
> I agree with you on all counts, but just to play devil's advocate if you had to mutually agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, odds are likely in bitter disputes one side will refuse only to cost the other side more money in legal fees. Honestly I think that you shouldn't have any inherent right to arbitration. You should have a right to access to a court. Arbitration should only there if both parties agree to it. If one party doesn't agree because they want to make it more expensive for you, so be it. I mean I can't really see what's fundamentally different than someone deciding they want to force you to a court trial for that reason versus them forcing you for another reason. It's just a legal strategy at the end of the day. If they are truly acting in bad will, they should be assessed court fees down the road. I know that that's difficult in the US court system, but that is a problem that should be fixed with the court system not by just side-stepping it with arbitration.
- ambulancechaser 8y ago
  You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it. Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    > You don't have any inherent right to arbitration. You _do_ have a right to access to a court. Arbitration _is_ only there if both parties agree to it. I know this is the case and I believe it is generally the way it should be (ecxept of course the fact that the agreements can be entered into prior to the disputes). I was responding to the devil’s post by basically pointing what you wrote here. > Your perfect world is captured by current employment contracts. Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement. I’m not sure what point you’re making here. I think that agreements by parties to restrict themselves to arbitration regarding disputes that have not yet arisen should be legally unenforceable. I think it would improve the arbitration system in every way. (This was essentially the argument of my first post.) Are you disagreeing with me?
  - learc83 8y ago
    >Both sides agree to arbitration and then both sides stick by that agreement. Unless because of career specialization, location, imperfect markets...whatever, you only have access to employers who insist on arbitration as part of the terms of employment. One side agreed to it, and one side was coerced into agreeing to it.

coryfklein 8y ago

> If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them. This is certainly true, but many parties are mutually benefited by resolving some disputes via a neutral arbiter rather than the courts. It's just another example of where private companies can be more efficient than legal bodies. There are just more inherent costs in a legal court of law.

CogitoCogito 8y ago
I don’t disagree, but I don’t believe this is an argument against my claim that the choice of whether a dispute should go to arbitration should not be made before the dispute arises.