"no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights dispute."So what's the problem with arbitration?
The proposed Act cites several reasons including the general lack of understanding on the part of employees/consumers (as compared to big employers), the lack of transparency, the lack of judicial review, and allegedly "unfair provisions" in the contracts. Or as The Consumerist describes it:
"mandatory binding arbitration is patently unfair to consumers. It is a joke of justice; a fake tribunal where injured consumers will almost always lose to corporations at the hands of a biased arbitrator."Well, OK then.
So, what's right with arbitration? Or is it just a way for big business to suppress the little guy? In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Michael W.(not J.) Fox from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. cited some positive statistics:
- Plaintiffs prevailed 46% of the time in arbitration versus 34% in the Courts;
- Median monetary awards were approximately equal ($100,000 in arbitration versus $95,554 in litigation); and
- Arbitration results were 33% faster.
Opponents are no doubt thinking, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I think both sides would agree, however, that arbitration is faster and cheaper. That doesn't really address the problems identified above though.
While the debate rages on, the pre-dispute arbitration clauses are generally enforceable for the time being. Congress has at least started the process of changing the game.