
In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’ - Futurebot
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privatization-of-the-justice-system.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
throwaway2048
Companies that insert mandatory arbitration clauses that get to pick and
choose arbitrators. Why should an arbitrator rule against the company that is
employing them, especially as it virtually ensures the company will not do so
in the future?

Arbitration is really only fair and effective between equal peers that can
choose to split the costs of the arbitration, and agree upon an arbitrator
together.

In cases of arbitration between a large entity and a single small customer,
the large entity wins virtually every single time. The top 10 arbitration
firms in the USA only rule in the favor of the consumer/employee 1.6% of the
time [1]

There's not a single health plan available in many states that does not
require agreeing to binding arbitration for coverage. None of them allow you
to opt out, even if you're willing to pay more. Sign away your right to sue,
or no coverage for you. Consider that under health care reform, one is
required to purchase one of these plans. There are dozens of industries that
are like this, where it is virtually impossible to receive a service or a good
of that class without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration, such as
residential ISPs.

Add into the fact there is almost no way to appeal decisions, make no mistake,
Companies are not doing this for your benefit.

The term "kangaroo court" comes to mind.

[1][http://consumerist.com/2007/07/26/support-the-arbitration-
fa...](http://consumerist.com/2007/07/26/support-the-arbitration-fairness-
act/)

------
imh
>For many people, when the choice is between giving up the right to go to
court or the chance to get a job, it is not a choice at all.

This is the worst part. There's really no choice for 'the little guy' on
whether or not to sign these things. But this article and others demonstrate
it to be an unfair system people should be able to keep out of (that's what
those rights are for!) So how do we solve it?

It seems like legally requiring the option of going to court should work. When
there is no other option but to waive your rights, the rights may as well not
exist.

------
kevin_b_er
All supposed "rights" are ones that restrict the behavior of government. It
does not restrict the behavior of a private corporation. Once you privatize
something, the protection of god given rights no longer applies.

When everything is privatized under libertarian philosophy, what basic rights
do you have left other than the power of money?

~~~
scrupulusalbion
In the present discussion, the increase in usage of arbitration is not
necessarily motivated by libertarian philosophy. It would seem simpler to
assume that the companies that include binding arbitration in their contracts
are simply making what they believe to be a good move. Further, unless the
corporate executives or lawyers come out as libertarians, then I think it is
putting thoughts into their heads to treat this issue as anything other than
an apolitical, pragmatic move.

------
lintiness
arbitration offers quick dispute resolution in an insanely litigious country.
the "small guy" faces extraordinary legal expenses in the public justice
system.

~~~
FussyZeus
If it's such a good alternative then why are companies requiring it per terms
of contracts rather than the company and the individual agreeing to it
mutually once a dispute has arisen?

And are you just entirely ignoring that the company effectively holds all the
cards in this poker game? What power does the individual have?

~~~
lintiness
companies recognize the cost of litigation and want to mitigate the risk. the
individual has the power to omit the clause and / or not sign the agreement.
what do you mean, what power does the individual have?

~~~
throwaway2048
Contracts of adhesion offer no ability to modify. When the choice of "not
signing" means not getting a job or internet access, or medical coverage
that's not much of a choice at all...

