Re: Respond to the Chamber of Commerce - Support Fairness in Arbitration

[Guest guest]

The biggest problem with arbitration is that the process is not transparent.

And, when you lose the power to go to the courthouse door and your Plaintiff v.

Defendant is public information, you have the sometimes helpful media who can

research injustices which might be kept under an umbrella of secrecy in an

Arbitration session.

>

> Respond to the Chamber of Commerce - Support Fairness in Arbitration

> On April 29th, people who were harmed by forced arbitration will travel to

> DC to participate in Arbitration Fairness Day and urge support for the

> Arbitration Fairness Act. In anticipation of next week’s event, the

Chamber

> of Commerce has inundated Capitol Hill with misleading paper opposing the

> Arbitration Fairness Act.

> Businesses oppose the Arbitration Fairness Act because the system of

> forced arbitration allows them to escape accountability for discrimination,

> harassment, gross negligence, fraud, and other corporate wrongdoing.

> Businesses aren’t looking out for the best interests of consumers and

employees;

> they want to protect their ability to force individuals into a system that

> they design. Who wouldn’t want to control the method by which claims

against

> them are resolved?

> The Truth: HR 1020, the Arbitration Fairness Act does not eliminate

> arbitration, it just makes it voluntary. In other words, big business can’t

force

> you to sign away your right to hold them accountable for their

> wrongdoings, but a consumer can still choose arbitration.

> Don’t listen to the hype. The Chamber knows full well that they must use

> scare tactics to try and defeat this bill because they are on the wrong side

> of this issue.

> The Chamber of Commerce thinks Americans won’t hold them accountable for

> spreading anti-consumer rhetoric. _Send a Letter to Congress_

>

(http://www.peopleoverprofits.org/c.ntJWJ8MPIqE/b.5108357/k.8422/Support_the_Arb\

itration_F

> airness_Act/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx) and tell them not to be

> fooled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their well-funded, big business

> allies. Insist that they put People over Profits!

> For more information on forced arbitration and the upcoming Arbitration

> Fairness Day, or to sign a petition please visit _www.fairarbitrationnow.org_

> (http://www.fairarbitrationnow.org/) .

> Contrary to what the Chamber of Commerce claims:

> Americans support the Arbitration Fairness Act. As the attached letter

> reflects, civil rights, labor, and consumer groups representing millions of

> Americans support the Act because it protects consumers and employees from

> discrimination, sexual harassment, negligence, and predatory lending by

> holding corporations accountable for their wrongdoings.

> The Arbitration Fairness Act would only restore the Federal Arbitration

> Act to what it was originally intended to do. Contrary to what the Chamber

> claims, forced arbitration has not been used for 80 years in consumer and

> employment contracts; it is business to business arbitration that has been

> used for 80 years. Corporations started using forced arbitration in

> consumer contracts beginning in the mid to late 1990’s, after court cases

held

> that there was nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act that limited the use

> of forced arbitration to only business-to-business disputes.

> Consumers favor voluntary arbitration and the bill does nothing to limit

> the use of arbitration after a dispute has arisen and both sides agree to

> it. If arbitration is so fair and efficient, as the Chamber claims, why

wouldn

> ’t consumers voluntarily choose it as a means to resolve their dispute?

> If consumers don’t choose it, it’s because it’s not fair.

> Forced arbitration is not better for consumers. The studies cited by the

> Chamber carefully select the cases and distorted numbers they want to

> report. For example, the Searle study actually shows that businesses win far

> more often than consumers in mandatory arbitration and in much higher

> amounts. Consumers win less, and when they do prevail, receive much lower

awards

> compared to their original claim. If a consumer is to claim $5,000 and only

> win $10, this counts as a “win†by Searle’s calculation, therefore

> inflating its 53.3% “win rate†figure.

> Consumers support the Arbitration Fairness Act. You only need to read the

> questions included in the Chamber’s poll to understand why the results

> that it cites are inaccurate. The Chamber’s poll, which purported to show

> that voters did not support the Arbitration Fairness Act, asked voters: “If

> you could choose the method by which any serious dispute would be settled

> between you and the company, which would you choose?†(Emphasis added.)

But

> what they didn’t tell these voters is that forced arbitration takes away a

> consumer’s choice. Under the current system, consumers are not allowed to

> choose which option is best for them. They are not allowed to choose to file

> a claim in court nor are they allowed to choose who the arbitrator will

> be, or even what state they will have to arbitrate the claim in. Instead,

> they are forced into an arbitration system that is set up to favor the

> corporation and trample on the rights of the consumer. When consumers are

given

> the choice to arbitrate after a dispute has arisen, they gain bargaining

> power and are better able to enter into an arbitration system that is fair.

> Thank you for Taking Action!

>

> Jill Burke

> People Over Profits

>

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

> **************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!

>

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http:%2\

F%2Fad.doubl

> eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi -

Sharon is correct. It is so helpful to get the message " out there. " But keep it

very simple so you don't lose the audience and emphasize the lack of

" transparency " in the process, and the need to also raise awareness about a

monstrous health issue.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the public is " shut out " of the

process, because this excludes the whole process of " checks and balances " which

is supposed to be one third of the Constitution.

This is not just about mold, but employment contracts, divorce agreements,

product defects, you name it. Big business has " bought their way out " of a

plaintiff taking them to a court, for the whole world to see. An " exclusive

remedy " (arbitration) may not make you " whole. "

Bonne chance (Good Luck!)

>

> >

> >

> > The biggest problem with arbitration is that the process is not

> > transparent. And, when you lose the power to go to the courthouse door and

> > your Plaintiff v. Defendant is public information, you have the sometimes

> > helpful media who can research injustices which might be kept under an

> > umbrella of secrecy in an Arbitration session.

> >

>