Arbitration Fairness Act

[Q3JR4]

The Arbitration Fairness Act is set to ban binding mandatory arbitration clauses from consumer, employment, and franchise contracts. Why is this important?

Instead of a lawsuit manditory binding arbitration forces you, the consumer, to submit to arbitration. The finding is final and binding on both parties. This may seem like a good idea but consider the following. Arbitrators rule against the consumer 98% of the time. This happens because those arbitration companies that don't rule in favor of the company are no longer retained by that company.

There are numerous scary stories about these clauses, and the worst part is that if you have a credit card, home mortgage, ever bought a car from a dealership, or have family who are in a nursing home odds are good that the fine print on that piece of paper you signed forces you into binding arbitration without a chance to have your cases heard in the court system.

The Arbitration Fairness Act being considered in congress right now mandates that companies give the consumer a way to opt out of binding arbitration.

If you haven't yet emailed your senator and/or representative to support this legislation I urge you to do so now.

For a more in-depth overview of what I'm talking about go to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088072611398.htm

Q3JR4.
Fight the man.

[Q3JR4]

1. So like this is pretty important,

I therefore have no choice but to kick my previous post.

Q3JR4.

[Q3JR4]

2. And once again. n/t

Q3JR4

[jody]

3. Agree, shame that more DUers don't understand the issue. Auto dealers successfully lobbied congress

to pass a law banning binding mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts between dealers and auto manufacturers.

Dealers I know however oppose banning binding mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts between dealers and consumers.

[Q3JR4]

5. That's what I'm saying.

Even in grievous cases where indisputable negligence caused early death or injury in a nursing home, there is no guarantee that an arbitrator will rule against the company. In fact there is a 98% chance that they'll rule against you.

More info. ---> http://www.peopleoverprofits.org/site/c.ntJWJ8MPIqE/b.2897793/k.5282/Nursing_Home_Arbitration_Stories.htm

Q3JR4.

[jody]

7. There was one instance several years ago where a business actually owned the independent arbitration

group that ruled in a case in which it was the defendant.

[Q3JR4]

9. I didn't hear about that,

but it's not really all that surprising.

Q3JR4.

[jody]

4. H.R. 1020 Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, link to bill particulars below.

H.R. 1020, Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009

[Q3JR4]

6. 9 reasons to ban manditory binding arbitration....

High cost: You have to pay a bunch of money, usually at lest $750, just to start a claim.

Biased Arbitrators: Companies are the only repeat customers of arbitration firms so guess who the arbitrators usually find in favor of?

Limited discovery: Good luck getting the necessary evidence in the room.

Prohibition of class actions: Arbitration clauses routinely don't allow you to participate in a class action lawsuit, "only effective remedy for wide-scale scams that rip off individual consumers or farmers in small amounts."

Inconvenient locations: Gas dollars rack up as you trek to their out-of-the way offices.

One-way requirements: The company still gets to sue in a real court if it wants, you however have to go through arbitration monkey court.

No public record: Only businesses requiring arbitration agreements have access to the body of previous arbitration findings — and which firms ruled in their favor.

Limited judicial review: Decisions can only be overturned in cases of fraud or "manifest disregard of the law," very difficult legal positions to establish.

Limited remedies: "Injunctive relief - a court order compelling the offending party to do something, or prohibiting that party from taking some action - cannot be obtained through arbitration. Arbitrators often split the difference between the two sides in awarding damages instead of determining the true costs of injuries. As a result, arbitration awards to consumers and employees are substantially lower than court awards."

Q3JR4.
Curtousy of consumerist.com

[Q3JR4]

8. One more thing...

A study by a professor at the University of Illinois has shown that if you, as an employee, took your employer to arbitration and the arbitrator rules in your favor, there is a high probability (86.7%) that when the employer appeals your case in court it will be overturned. On the other hand if the arbitrator rules against you, in the highly unlikely case that you get to appeal the decision in the court system the probability that the court rules against your former employer is around 56.4%.

Q3JR4
Source

[jody]

10. Are you sure a decision in a binding arbitration case can be appealed in court? n/t

[Q3JR4]

11. From the source listed in the post it

seems as if that might just be Illinois.

Q3JR4.

[Q3JR4]

12. Reading further,

which I should have done before both of the last two posts, it seems that we're talking about court review of arbitration awards.

If the court rules against the employer, they have to start back over at the beginning with more arbitration.

Q3JR4.

[jody]

13. I thought the adjective "binding" meant it could not be appealed. n/t

[Q3JR4]

14. The decision is final,

but if there was some kind of issue in the arbitration a court can issue a ruling overturning the award and sending it back to be re-arbitrated.

You can't really appeal what the arbitrater gave you, but if worse comes to worse you can always start back at the beginning, pay another filing fee and go through the whole thing again....but only if the decision gets vacated...which happens rarely.

Q3JR4.

[jody]

15. What many people ignore is NAFTA requires binding arbitration that can overrule SCOTUS. There are a

few cases already where local and state laws were overruled by international arbitration panels making the US subservient to international law or treaty law as interpreted by an appointed (anointed?)panel.

Of course that destroys the sovereignty of the US but at least it is a painless step toward a New World Order.