7 ms·

Forced arbitration is a terrible policy and terrible for consumers[1]. I remember when Al Franken fought to amend the "forced arbitration" policy in the Departm

by debt 13y ago

Forced arbitration is a terrible policy and terrible for consumers[1]. I remember when Al Franken fought to amend the "forced arbitration" policy in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act[2]: "Jamie Leigh Jones is a courageous woman who stood up to KBR and Halliburton when they tried to force her into arbitration after she was allegedly gang-raped by fellow employees in 2005." It's a way for corporations to avoid being held legally liable for criminal behavior against consumers and employees. So if Atlasssian screws you, either as an employee or a consumer, you're forced into arbitration instead of being able to challenge them in court. [1]http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=211 http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=211 [2]http://www.naca.net/issues/forced-arbitration http://www.naca.net/issues/forced-arbitration

ams6110 13y ago
Arbitration is not applicable in criminal behavior. It's for civil disputes.
- debt 13y ago
  I'd say gang-rape by fellow employees and KBR/Halliburton attempts to cover it up both fall under criminal behavior; at least it seems criminal to me. Who knows how many untold "civil" cases like that one have never seen the light of day due to forced arbitration.
  - frankydp 13y ago
    Jurisdiction would be the pressing issue in that specific case. I do not believe bases were sovereign at that time, and as the parties are not military they would not be prosecutable under the UCMJ. I am not certain on the process to charge someone with a crime while in a different country and outside US jurisdiction. I am not making excuses for KBR, but I do not know how else a corporation can protect itself from the actions of its employees in a scenario where jurisdiction is not enforceable in its host country. In other words what court would have heard this case, presumable it would have been Iraqi, in which case she would have had a much more difficult case. Sorry if this was a ramble, but the issue is very complex and has little to do with arbitration requirements, and more to do with vague international prosecution policies inside a war zone.
DannyBee 13y ago
NACA is not exactly unbiased, since it's mainly consumer class action lawyers. They also make some claims that are not really true: "Individuals often have to pay a large fee simply to initiate the arbitration process. " Please pick any large company you desire to ever sue (amazon, ebay, general mills, etc). I challenge you to find a single one that requires you pay for the arbitration process in all but frivolous cases. Let's take Amazon's: "Payment of all filing, administration and arbitrator fees will be governed by the AAA's rules. We will reimburse those fees for claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Likewise, Amazon will not seek attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. You may choose to have the arbitration conducted by telephone, based on written submissions," Paypal goes further, in fact: "If the value of the relief sought is more than $10,000 and you are able to demonstrate that the costs of arbitration will be prohibitive as compared to the costs of litigation, PayPal will pay as much of the filing, administration, and arbitrator fees as the arbitrator deems necessary to prevent the arbitration from being cost-prohibitive" NACA's next complaint is that you don't get an in-person hearing, but at the same time complains about the expense of arbitration? This is non-sensical. Naca also makes some more falsehoods: "Forced arbitration clauses generally bind the consumer—not the company. The way many forced arbitration clauses are written, the seller retains its rights to take any complaint to court while the consumer can only initiate arbitration. " Again, i've yet to see any of these. Amazon's doesn't. Maybe paypal, that bastion of horribleness, says something here: " You and PayPal each agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and PayPal shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement to Arbitrate." Whoops, nope, they agree to arbitration bilaterally too (they also agree to pay the fees) They cite exactly zero examples of any of these claims, btw. Part of my life is reviewing TOS'en, and i've got to have reviewed thousands. I have not seen any that are either unilateral, or where you would pay fees. All I ask is for one example :) I also doubt such a thing would be upheld even under current supreme court precedent. The rest of the NACA complaints basically come down "you can't take them to court". Which is yes, the point of arbitration. To avoid the cost of court. The truth is, NACA doesn't like arbitration because the lawyers involved in it are class action lawyers. Shocking.

by debt 13y ago

ams6110 13y ago

Arbitration is not applicable in criminal behavior. It's for civil disputes.

debt 13y ago
I'd say gang-rape by fellow employees and KBR/Halliburton attempts to cover it up both fall under criminal behavior; at least it seems criminal to me. Who knows how many untold "civil" cases like that one have never seen the light of day due to forced arbitration.
- frankydp 13y ago
  Jurisdiction would be the pressing issue in that specific case. I do not believe bases were sovereign at that time, and as the parties are not military they would not be prosecutable under the UCMJ. I am not certain on the process to charge someone with a crime while in a different country and outside US jurisdiction. I am not making excuses for KBR, but I do not know how else a corporation can protect itself from the actions of its employees in a scenario where jurisdiction is not enforceable in its host country. In other words what court would have heard this case, presumable it would have been Iraqi, in which case she would have had a much more difficult case. Sorry if this was a ramble, but the issue is very complex and has little to do with arbitration requirements, and more to do with vague international prosecution policies inside a war zone.

DannyBee 13y ago

NACA is not exactly unbiased, since it's mainly consumer class action lawyers. They also make some claims that are not really true: "Individuals often have to pay a large fee simply to initiate the arbitration process. " Please pick any large company you desire to ever sue (amazon, ebay, general mills, etc). I challenge you to find a single one that requires you pay for the arbitration process in all but frivolous cases. Let's take Amazon's: "Payment of all filing, administration and arbitrator fees will be governed by the AAA's rules. We will reimburse those fees for claims totaling less than $10,000 unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. Likewise, Amazon will not seek attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous. You may choose to have the arbitration conducted by telephone, based on written submissions," Paypal goes further, in fact: "If the value of the relief sought is more than $10,000 and you are able to demonstrate that the costs of arbitration will be prohibitive as compared to the costs of litigation, PayPal will pay as much of the filing, administration, and arbitrator fees as the arbitrator deems necessary to prevent the arbitration from being cost-prohibitive" NACA's next complaint is that you don't get an in-person hearing, but at the same time complains about the expense of arbitration? This is non-sensical. Naca also makes some more falsehoods: "Forced arbitration clauses generally bind the consumer—not the company. The way many forced arbitration clauses are written, the seller retains its rights to take any complaint to court while the consumer can only initiate arbitration. " Again, i've yet to see any of these. Amazon's doesn't. Maybe paypal, that bastion of horribleness, says something here: " You and PayPal each agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and PayPal shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement to Arbitrate." Whoops, nope, they agree to arbitration bilaterally too (they also agree to pay the fees) They cite exactly zero examples of any of these claims, btw. Part of my life is reviewing TOS'en, and i've got to have reviewed thousands. I have not seen any that are either unilateral, or where you would pay fees. All I ask is for one example :) I also doubt such a thing would be upheld even under current supreme court precedent. The rest of the NACA complaints basically come down "you can't take them to court". Which is yes, the point of arbitration. To avoid the cost of court. The truth is, NACA doesn't like arbitration because the lawyers involved in it are class action lawyers. Shocking.