dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to ross7

Re: What should the percentage be, if not 95%?

said by ross7:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

What in your mind would be a fair percentage?

How would you justify this?

How do you know 95% isn't "fair"?

By the way the linked "95%" story is unrelated to AT&T arbitration.
Like most statistics, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The referenced article doesn't judge whether an outcome of arbitration is "fair", or not "fair". What is obvious, and stated, is the outcome goes against the consumer, and in favor of businesses, 95% of the time (in California cases, specifically):

"The report focuses on the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the go-to arbitration forum for the credit card industry and a major player in the California arbitration business*. Between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, arbitrators working for the Minneapolis-based NAF ruled for businesses in 95 percent of the California cases examined. In fact, 90 percent of the NAF cases were handled by just 28 arbitrators, who awarded businesses $185 million. One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day – an average of one every seven minutes, assuming an eight-hour day – and ruled for the business in every case, awarding 100 percent of the money requested." *(emphasis added)

It is also irrelevant as to what percentage of California cases involve AT&T.

The concern is not what would be considered a "fair" percentage, but, rather, whether arbitration is an equitable process at all. The fact is that arbitration is stacked against the consumer, and in favor of business, especially corporate businesses, as Public Citizen's study shows.
What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?

How do you justify that number?

How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?


jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit
said by MyDogHsFleas:

What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?
0%. The mere fact that big corps want to erode consumer rights by trying to impose binding arbitration by a company they PAID says enough.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you justify that number?
How do you justify 95% in favor of the business?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
So you're saying the reviewer that averaged 7 minutes a case was being objective? Common sense dictates otherwise.

The fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit agreed to give up that part of their business rather than let the AG investigate them should tell you enough.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
said by jhboricua:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?
0%. The mere fact that big corps want to erode consumer rights by trying to impose binding arbitration by a company they PAID says enough.

Wow. Just wow.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you justify that number?
How do you justify 95% in favor of the business?

I don't have to. I was commenting on a supposed "news report" that ASSUMED that 95% was biased. My simple question is: how do you justify that? Still no answer.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
So you're saying the reviewer that averaged 7 minutes a case was being objective? Common sense dictates otherwise. The fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit agreed to give up that part of their business rather than let the AG investigate them should tell you enough.
You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?


jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

2 edits
said by MyDogHsFleas:

You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?
You don't know either, but you must be pretty naive or just a shill to believe that a 95% judgement award to the company paying the arbitrator is fair.

That's part of the problem with the system too. There was no way to verify the fairness of the process by the regular Joe since the system is designed to prevent exactly this.

But again, the fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit decided to give up such lucrative business as soon as the Minnesota AG started requesting documentation for their investigation speak volumes about the so called 'fairness' of their process. As one columnist put it, is the equivalent of McDonalds agreeing to stop selling burgers.

It took 3 days from the moment the AG filed suit against the Minneapolis NAF unit to reach a settlement.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?
And I suspect this is the conversation between a corporation and the arbitration service they hire.

Corporation: "We are going to hire you as our arbitration service with a guaranteed amount of business."

Arbitration service: "Great!"

Corporation: "Just one thing, for us to keep you as a service, you need to decide at least 95% of the cases in our favor."

Arbitration service: "No problem."

Arbitration is nothing more than paid judges and when one side pays for it, their neutrality has to be questionable.

ross7

join:2000-08-16

1 edit
reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:

What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?

How do you justify that number?

How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
It is irrelevant. I don't care how many cases should have been decided in favor of the customers, or the businesses. The facts are 95% of cases were decided against the customer. It is preposterous to maintain that farcical outcome is statistically probable if the process were equitable. Ergo, some factor is corrupting the process. If the outcome percentage were reversed, how many unilateral forced binding arbitration clauses do you think you would see in service agreements? I'm guessing ZERO!

Sometimes things are as OBVIOUS as they seem.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to MyDogHsFleas
You could also flip this around. The fact they are so hot and heavy to limit you to binding arbitration is they know they can reduce their expenses through binding arbitration because the consumer will almost always lose, whereas in Court, more often Justice will be done.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
said by KrK:

You could also flip this around. The fact they are so hot and heavy to limit you to binding arbitration is they know they can reduce their expenses through binding arbitration because the consumer will almost always lose, whereas in Court, more often Justice will be done.
I think it's more that the cost of going through arbitration is much, much less than the cost of going to court. I don't think it has much to do with win/loss percentages. Basically, if you're a business and you have to go to court to deal with an individual consumer, you've already lost.

I also think you're naive about Justice with a capital J. Do you really think a court is a place where you get justice?

By the way, the 95% figure cited in the original news item has nothing to do with AT&T. No one knows what the win/loss stats are on AT&T arbitrations.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by MyDogHsFleas:

I think it's more that the cost of going through arbitration is much, much less than the cost of going to court.
That's a given... however if you can control the process to force consumers with grievances to play the game your way it pays off. Consumers can win big when a company gets hit with punitive damages to punish them for wrongdoing. That isn't going to happen in binding arbitration.

I also think you're naive about Justice with a capital J. Do you really think a court is a place where you get justice?
No, I'm not. I know that Courts and "Justice" often have little to do with each other... but I'm POSITIVE that your chances of "Justice" being done in binding arbitration are infinitesimally smaller. If you have to play the game, why play under their rigged rules.
By the way, the 95% figure cited in the original news item has nothing to do with AT&T. No one knows what the win/loss stats are on AT&T arbitrations.
Right. It's just in general. However AT&T is Gung-Ho for arbitration, so It's safe to assume their wining percentages are right in line.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini