Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| 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. | |
|
 |
 | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
| | |
| | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new 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 | Re: Nothing new I wonder who funds that think tank. | |
|
| | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: Nothing new 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? | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: Nothing new 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 | Re: Nothing new I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. | |
|
| KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
 ·Comcast
| Verizon will fix my notebook? | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
·
·
·