ARBITRATION

[Marv Tripp‏]

NOTES from THE HIGHTOWER LOWDOWN (March, '13) on BINDING MANDATORY ARBITRATION   Most of us have signed a non-negotiable "forced arbitration proviso, usually secluded in the tiny type of pre-printed take-it-or-leave-it BINDING MANDATORY ARBITRATION agreements.."   COVERAGE?  "Everyone of us who:  takes a job, gets a credit card, subscribes to cable T.V., buys an insurance policy, rents an apartment, purchases nearly any new product (from a cell phone to a house), enters a nursing home, enrolls in a for-profit degree mill, becomes a franchisee or corporate supplier, or signs up with a landscaping service"   CLAIMS:  "If you seek justice because you've been gouged by your bank, discriminated against, sexually harassed, unfairly fired, cheated on wages, sold a shoddy product, denied health coverage, or otherwise been harmed by a corporation -- you'll most likely find that you're barred from the courthouse door.  To your astonishment, you'll learn that the indecipherable legalese on that piece of paper you unwittingly signed ("It's just a standard form." you were assured at the time) has shackled you to the corporation's own privatized court."   YOUR CHANCES IN ARBITRATION:  "Since these things are written by corporate lawyers, it's no surprise that they stack the deck, load the dice, and grease the skids in favor of corporations.  But --WOW! --the percentage of rigged wins is flabbergasting, damning .... and disgusting."  A 2000 Washington Post survey of cases revealed that  arbitrators ruled 99.6% of the time in favor of First U.S.A. Bank.  In 2007, a Public Citizen report found that the National Arbitration Forum hired out its private adjudicators to hear some 34,000 consumer-versus-bank cases in California during the previous 4 years, and they ruled in favor of  the financial giants 95% of the time.  In 2008, San Francisco found that of 18,045 cases, the National  Arbitration Forum judges decided with the corporations 100% of the time.   DENIAL OF CLASS-ACTION SUITS:  If you and others share a common grievance, it is helpful to bunch them together into a class-action suit.  Corporate legal departments sought to gain advantage by eliminating class-action suits and a case went before the Supreme Court.  The right-wingers on the Court prevailed to side with corporate America.  Now, nearly all BINDING MANDATORY ARBITRATION agreements ban class-action suits.  Thus each claimant must hire his/her own lawyer and go it alone.  The rationale of the S. Court is the "Mutuality of assent"  that assumes the parties in agreement have read and comprehend the agreement. How many of these agreements have we read and have the ability to comprehend?  And worse!  Most contracts have a provision whereby the corporation can change the terms of the contract at any time for any reason.   Under the current arbitration system, who is favored?