 ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Yuck. In my opinion and experience arbitration is something you should always avoid. How is it possible you can be forced into it without signing documents agreeing to it? How can someone say, "If you don't say you don't want this by X date you agree?" How do you not have the right to go to court because someone mailed you a letter and you didn't respond? It's as rediculous as me mailing the grocery store a letter saying if they don't respond I have the right to walk in and take all the Sour Cream & Herring I want. Then expecting to be able to walk in, grab the goods and walk out... when approached I just say you didn't respond to my letter these goodies are all mine!!!
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
| Because they have a document called "terms of service" or "subscribers terms" or something like that. When you have your service installed you sign what you think is a work order, that document says in part "I agree to be bound by the Comcast subscriber agreement(s)..."
I agree with someone else above, that the real issue is how the arbitrator is chosen.... |
|
ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | The arbitration deal came out after people were aware of the terms of service. Yeah they probably also say these terms of service can change to whatever the heck we want at anytime. Can a term of service really be "You will give up your rights?"
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to LakeRat
Simplistically, you're right as far as your analysis goes. However a company cannot force unreasonable terms and then duck out via arbitration.
Comcast cannot, say, specify that in order to continue getting their service under their teaser rates (and not therefore be subject to the full retail rates they charge) you have to kill every kitten you see. If you protest this term and then sue when the rates increase beyond what you contracted for, under their terms you would be forced to abide by the decision of an arbitrator of their choice...one who hates cats.
That is an admittedly absurd example but it does illustrate the point. Sadly, when the arbitrator is being paid by one side of the dispute, there is no impartiality. |
|
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles:Can a term of service really be "You will give up your rights?" Not here in Washington state.
Best part is, this is now a president all other cases of this sort can reference. |
|
