4 ms·

Also the way cases will be brought seems like it would create perverse incentives on the rulings. > The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resol

Also the way cases will be brought seems like it would create perverse incentives on the rulings. > The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, or C.P.R., was willing to allow DoorDash to arbitrate “test cases” and avoid having to pay the fees all at once. C.P.R. also took feedback from Gibson Dunn on the proposed new rules, though it did not consult with the dashers’ lawyers.

g_p 7y ago
> Also the way cases will be brought seems like it would create perverse incentives on the rulings. > > The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, or C.P.R., was willing to allow DoorDash to arbitrate “test cases” and avoid having to pay the fees all at once. C.P.R. also took feedback from Gibson Dunn on the proposed new rules, though it did not consult with the dashers’ lawyers. Very much so! And this seems to be why Alsup wanted the discovery documents made public, so people could draw their own conclusions on the lack of independence of the CPR. I must confess I don't like the whole model of arbitration, as it feels full of perverse incentives to begin with - an arbitrator gets selected, so one that finds against the big company too often won't be getting much work!