4 ms·

Arbitration is always an option if mutually agreed to between both parties though. I don't think anyone want to completely outlaw arbitration, just prevent com

by munk-a 3y ago

Arbitration is always an option if mutually agreed to between both parties though. I don't think anyone want to completely outlaw arbitration, just prevent companies from restricting customers from pursuing regular lawsuits (especially of the class action kind). Voluntary arbitration is an excellent tool in resolving a dispute as the costs are dramatically lower than a lawsuit and it is a much speedier process.

pauldenton 3y ago
Voluntary Arbitrary is a lot cheaper than a traditional Divorce
BizarroLand 3y ago
That's not a bad idea and pretty simple to implement, and it would save everyone a lot of hassle. "We can go to court if you want to, just know that we will spend half of what we think your case could go for if you win defending ourselves and use every tactic in our arsenal to drain your war chest until you are financially unable to continue the lawsuit, so unless you've got big bucks to burn or a darn good case and a lawyer willing to fight for you you are better off choosing an arbitrator and getting a simple and just settlement in 3 months vs 3-8 years from now even if we did wrong"
- munk-a 3y ago
  Sorry, just to clarify, arbitration isn't a new concept or one that would need implementation - it has always been an option for any legal dispute. In fact a lot of divorces go through a mediator instead of a judge since the difference in cost is so extreme.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > In fact a lot of divorces go through a mediator instead of a judge since the difference in cost is so extreme. Mediation is not the same as arbitration. Mediators are negotiators. Arbitrators pass judgments. PROTIP: It's not "mediation" if the mediating attorney represents the other party, nor is it arbitration. That's an Interrogation held under the pretense of "being reasonable." Like talking to the cops, it's a trap-- GTFO of there immediately and don't come back without your own attorney. (My wife's ex pulled this one.) Mediation is two parties sitting down with an attorney (who represents neither of them) to work something out and have a judge sign off on it. Both parties have the right to select or reject the attorney involved. This is done to save court time more than anything. You always retain the right to flip the table and take the dispute to court. (IANAL, just former staff for a district ADR program.) By contrast, I was involved in one arbitrated dispute around the time the concept first hit the scene. It was a kangaroo court where they made the rules up as they went. There is a formal process to it but the rules and procedures are completely foreign to you, and you can't hire an attorney to represent you. Mine was a wage dispute where they inexplicably wouldn't let me introduce timesheets as evidence. Instead, I pled my case orally and got a letter a few weeks later stating I lost because I couldn't prove my claims (lol), and helpfully reminding me that was as far as I could go with the issue. I was set up to be completely railroaded. To be fair, while I was undeniably wronged, I'm not saying I was unquestionably entitled to recourse-- I'm saying I have no idea who's really in the right or who should have done what since it's not like the proceedings can be reviewed by anybody or conclusions were based on any case law. My impression of it is that companies found a way to get the more-disarming parts of magistrate court to apply to claimants that could otherwise claim significant losses or become class-action, to divert them from the legal pipeline altogether to Judge Judy, who has no qualms admitting she's ruling against you because despite the merits of your case, she just doesn't fucking like you and her word is final.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you can't hire an attorney to represent you Which arbitrator required this? To be clear, this is unconventional and should be illegal.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        I don't remember; this was over a decade ago. It was whoever the Georgia Department of Labor arbitrates with, since at that point unemployment claims were involved. The other side had their attorney present, but he was not a participant in the proceedings, if that makes it any clearer. On-record it was just me, my former boss and the arbitrator.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  You have to agree ex ante. If I know I have liquidity and you don’t, and I’m willing to be ruthless, I will deny arbitration knowing I can bankrupt you with legal fees. Moreover, once I know the specifics of a dispute, I may no longer want to arbitrate for purely precedent-setting reasons. There is mediation. But it’s non-binding.

by munk-a 3y ago

pauldenton 3y ago

Voluntary Arbitrary is a lot cheaper than a traditional Divorce

BizarroLand 3y ago

That's not a bad idea and pretty simple to implement, and it would save everyone a lot of hassle. "We can go to court if you want to, just know that we will spend half of what we think your case could go for if you win defending ourselves and use every tactic in our arsenal to drain your war chest until you are financially unable to continue the lawsuit, so unless you've got big bucks to burn or a darn good case and a lawyer willing to fight for you you are better off choosing an arbitrator and getting a simple and just settlement in 3 months vs 3-8 years from now even if we did wrong"

munk-a 3y ago
Sorry, just to clarify, arbitration isn't a new concept or one that would need implementation - it has always been an option for any legal dispute. In fact a lot of divorces go through a mediator instead of a judge since the difference in cost is so extreme.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > In fact a lot of divorces go through a mediator instead of a judge since the difference in cost is so extreme. Mediation is not the same as arbitration. Mediators are negotiators. Arbitrators pass judgments. PROTIP: It's not "mediation" if the mediating attorney represents the other party, nor is it arbitration. That's an Interrogation held under the pretense of "being reasonable." Like talking to the cops, it's a trap-- GTFO of there immediately and don't come back without your own attorney. (My wife's ex pulled this one.) Mediation is two parties sitting down with an attorney (who represents neither of them) to work something out and have a judge sign off on it. Both parties have the right to select or reject the attorney involved. This is done to save court time more than anything. You always retain the right to flip the table and take the dispute to court. (IANAL, just former staff for a district ADR program.) By contrast, I was involved in one arbitrated dispute around the time the concept first hit the scene. It was a kangaroo court where they made the rules up as they went. There is a formal process to it but the rules and procedures are completely foreign to you, and you can't hire an attorney to represent you. Mine was a wage dispute where they inexplicably wouldn't let me introduce timesheets as evidence. Instead, I pled my case orally and got a letter a few weeks later stating I lost because I couldn't prove my claims (lol), and helpfully reminding me that was as far as I could go with the issue. I was set up to be completely railroaded. To be fair, while I was undeniably wronged, I'm not saying I was unquestionably entitled to recourse-- I'm saying I have no idea who's really in the right or who should have done what since it's not like the proceedings can be reviewed by anybody or conclusions were based on any case law. My impression of it is that companies found a way to get the more-disarming parts of magistrate court to apply to claimants that could otherwise claim significant losses or become class-action, to divert them from the legal pipeline altogether to Judge Judy, who has no qualms admitting she's ruling against you because despite the merits of your case, she just doesn't fucking like you and her word is final.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you can't hire an attorney to represent you Which arbitrator required this? To be clear, this is unconventional and should be illegal.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      I don't remember; this was over a decade ago. It was whoever the Georgia Department of Labor arbitrates with, since at that point unemployment claims were involved. The other side had their attorney present, but he was not a participant in the proceedings, if that makes it any clearer. On-record it was just me, my former boss and the arbitrator.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
You have to agree ex ante. If I know I have liquidity and you don’t, and I’m willing to be ruthless, I will deny arbitration knowing I can bankrupt you with legal fees. Moreover, once I know the specifics of a dispute, I may no longer want to arbitrate for purely precedent-setting reasons. There is mediation. But it’s non-binding.