swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Wait for it......
That's different because you still have access to the courts. What the big businesses put in their consumer contracts is a provision for binding arbitration with no other option. Any access to the regular judicial system is explicitly removed, even to dispute the arbitration clause itself.
First it was credit card companies, now cable and telephone companies, tomorrow all kinds of businesses. The contracts are non-negotiable. So anyone who's not rich enough to have alternatives is subject to whatever terms they want to impose. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by swhx7  :First it was credit card companies, now cable and telephone companies, tomorrow all kinds of businesses. The contracts are non-negotiable. So anyone who's not rich enough to have alternatives is subject to whatever terms they want to impose. Soon, it will be every company will demand mandatory arbitration. There will be no alternatives and this will set a dangerous precedent.
My guess is most people don't realize that ALL the court TV shows (People's Court for one) are NOT courts but binding arbitration. There is no appeal. There is no recourse. You lose, that's it. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to swhx7
My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you.
For example, wrongful termination, harassment, violations of labor laws, etc etc they make you sign a document agreeing you will never ever sue and will always use binding arbitration.
Tell me, when a citizens legal rights to remedy have all been removed, what is left? Only the illegal ones. And of course those make the person a "Criminal/Terrorist."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
·Speakeasy
| said by KrK :My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review.
I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by KrK :True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well. DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!!!!
It's only a mere roadblock to those companies that have deep pockets and lawyers on retainer.  |
|
Burningbird
@swbell.net
| reply to tkdslr
"Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review."
Actually, this is not wholly correct. Enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements in employee contracts can typically survive judicial review, and has been enforced in cases of discrimination, including age, sex, and disability.
It depends more on the wording than anything else, as well as state where the suits are filed. See this article for more detail.
The arbitration companies will say that the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supports arbitration. What the EEOC supports is post-dispute arbitration processes, willing entered into by both parties after the fact, and with protections in place to ensure the process is fair and impartial.
The EEOC does NOT support binding mandatory arbitration agreements, which is what the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 would eliminate.
|
|
TheBigCheese
join:2002-08-05
Voorhees, NJ
| reply to tkdslr
said by tkdslr :said by KrK :My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review. I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment.
The arbitration clauses usually also forbid you to join or file a class-action suit so if the company cheats everyone out of a relatively small amount, you have no recourse whatsoever.
I remember the AT&T Wireless arbitration clause ... you are forbidden to sue or join a class action but AT&T had the right to choose whether to sure or use arbitration. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TheBigCheese :Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment. O.k. post a link to this case. This would almost certainly not hold up since the arbitration is in another country. |
|
