3 ms·
Much cheaper, faster, and more private for all parties, plus I believe it prevents class action lawsuits. And don't forget the possibility that the arbitrators
by mLuby 8y ago
Much cheaper, faster, and more private for all parties, plus I believe it prevents class action lawsuits. And don't forget the possibility that the arbitrators (who are paid by the company) favor their benefactor…
For example, you mention sexual harassment; the victim (and certainly the accused) might not want all those details in the public record.
- vertex-four 8y agoThe thing is, if the employer and the employee both wanted arbitration, neither would need to be forced into it - something along the lines of "arbitration is always available as an option with consent of all parties" written into the contract would be perfectly fine.
- mehrdadn 8y agoIt wouldn't even need to be in the contract would it? They'd just both agree at the time of the dispute.
- cma 8y agoIf it is such a huge benefit to everyone then both parties will simply always agree to it in the pre-lawsuit negotiation phase, and you don't need a preexisting agreement to mandate it. Corporations often insist on adding it to their employment contracts and employees almost never insist it be added to an employment contract that was missing it, so you can guess who it benefits.
- Spooky23 8y agoMany union contracts call for arbitration. The advantages in that scenario is that it is faster and more definitive. Usually unions and management have some sort of process to pick the arbitrator in a manner deemed acceptable. Advantages are speed, privacy and cost. You also avoid the political risk of the court district that you are in. In an individual vs company situation, it’s always better for the employer, unless the employee can hire the arbitrator. If the company hires the person, that arbitrator may find it difficult to get future work if they side with the company.
- anth_anm 8y agoNot having forced arbitration doesn't mean you can't agree to arbitration voluntarily.