The use and abuse of mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts has come under increased scrutiny by Congress with the recent filing of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week the gang rape allegations by Halliburton employee, Jamie Leigh Jones, and how she must submit to arbitration through Halliburton was discussed.This brings up an interesting point. Halliburton and many contractors who make their living and profits off of government contracts have been given the right to deny employees their Constitutional rights as a prerequisite to employment. This includes NASA contractors.
It seems odd that a company doing business with the government, with our tax dollars, would be allowed by our government and by NASA to do this. Of course, the arguments in support of arbitration are old, stale, lame, and deceiving, as stated by the Vice President of the American Arbitration Association, Richard Naimark, who makes a 6 figure income from the continued abuse of arbitration:
Arbitration provides a fair, efficient, and cost-effective mechanism for the resolution of disputes when implemented fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process protocols:Yea. Right. Fairness is not the point. What would happen if the same NASA contractor, to protect their employees, and provide a safe environment decided that as a prerequisite to employment the employee must not own a gun? Think Charleston Heston of the NRA would be interested in this?
The supporters of mandatory binding arbitration are either ignorant or making money off the continued abuse. It is that simple. The best line in the testimony at the hearing came from Richard Alderman of the University of Houston:
To me the question is simple, it is not whether arbitration is fair or benefits consumers, it is whether the more powerful party to a bargain should be able to deny the other access to the courts.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. It really is that simple.
3 comments:
"Of course, the arguments in support of arbitration are old, stale, lame, and deceiving, as stated by the Vice President of the American Arbitration Association, Richard Naimark, who makes a 6 figure income from the continued abuse of arbitration:
Arbitration provides a fair, efficient, and cost-effective mechanism for the resolution of disputes when implemented fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process protocols"-
If this were true why are we having Congressional hearing's on this? I don't think Mr. Naimark has any intention of giving up his 6 figure salary while victims loose the shirt off their backs. One lady told me the AAA asked for her credit card # to start making charges-carte blanche. Of course she denied them that pleasure.
Non-profit huh?
Thanks again to Professor Alderman, Paul Bland and the others who are awakening people tothe injustices of MBA, in my opinion.
Dude.
Don't get yourself reprimanded or fired or shot at or anything.
while victims loose the shirt off their backs
Well, sometimes those shirts get a little tight. Why not undo that top button?
Post a Comment