dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Dogfather

Re: Nothing new

Lets get some facts straight.

First and foremost it is the courts that should decide if a case has merit or not. If it doesn't, then it should be tossed. EVERY lawsuit should be reviewed by a panel and have the "Duh!" factor applied to it before even considering any evidence to allow it to proceed.

Second, if a company wants to do it then there are 2 things for sure. First, it hurts the consumer more than them. Second, it adds to their bottom line.

Third, companies like Verizon have a full time staff of lawyers that are paid regardless of whether or not they are sued.

Fourth, companies like Verizon use arbitration because it restricts the consumer's right to bring a true hearing against them which would be public record and put the consumer on a somewhat even playing field.

Lastly, companies like Verizon use arbitration because they know without question they will win virtually every case.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits
Let's get some facts straight, juries, not courts decide awards and that is why corporations have to have arbitration.

Arbitration doesn't mean immunity or automatic victory for corporations. It just means that the chances of avoiding a multi million dollar payout for something stupid like losing a notebook is far less likely.

To some here at DSLR, anything short of $50 million for a fried laptop is the corporation screwing over the customer.

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
How about that study that showed that Comcast wins 97% of their arbitration cases? Remember, the arbitator is NOT neutral, they're hired by the company. If a high enough percentage of cases don't go their way, they can be replaced. That's not what arbitration is supposed to be.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
Just because Comcast won doesn't mean they weren't justified in winning 97% of the time and it depends on what is defined as winning. I would like to see that study if you have a link to it.

And arbitration is a far better solution than having a subscriber funded bottomless trough for the bloodsucking lawyers.

I'm no fan of corporations, I just hate the blood sucking vampire lawyers who are ruining this country.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
The study is here »www.citizen.org/documents/Final_wcover.pdf and it was 94%, not 97 - my mistake.

I have no problem with mandatory arbitration - if the company handling the arbitration doesn't have a relationship with either party.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
I wonder who funds that think tank.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes?

KraziJoe

join:2006-09-08
Limington, ME
reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.
Verizon will fix my notebook?


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

3 edits
reply to vpoko
said by vpoko:

Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes?
Cause I know who funds them (arbitrators) and its' easy to be neutral.

In my business I pay my worker's comp auditor, ISO auditor, and a few others and they tell me to fix stuff and I don't fire them for it.

Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit
reply to KraziJoe
said by KraziJoe:

said by Dogfather:

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.
Verizon will fix my notebook?
If they're responsible for destroying it. »www.macwork.com/2006/11/28/pics-···inferno/


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story.
No, you're obviously not following the money going to arbitrators. Why can an arbitrator remain neutral, even though it's in their interest to rule towards the company that hires them, but a think tank must have an agenda influenced by the source of their funding.

Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to following the money.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.

No double standard. I always follow the money. Arbitration is far better that subscribers giving millions to greedy bloodsucking lawyers because the ISP blows up a notebook.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
said by Dogfather:

As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.
Sure it's a problem, remember Arthur Anderson? That's why we have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act now, to try to prevent auditors from getting in bed with the companies they're hired to audit. We need the same thing for arbitration.

Would you be opposed to the consumer choosing the arbitrator, with the loser paying the costs?


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling.