 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to vpoko
Re: Nothing new 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. |
|
 vpokoPremium
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. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I wonder who funds that think tank. |
|
vpokoPremium
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? |
|
|
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | 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. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | 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. |
|
DogfatherPremium
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. |
|
vpokoPremium
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? |
|
DogfatherPremium
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. |
|
