Posted on 05/21/2018 11:36:50 AM PDT by freedumb2003
I think Yahoo or Rueters is link only. Bottom line: a contract willingly signed by an employee to eschew class-actions suits is actually a contract willingly signed by an employee to eschew class-actions suits.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
>>Class actions only enrich the lawyers, one BOTH SIDES. <<
That is so the truth.
When I am sent one of those “you are a member of a class” forms I just throw them away” understanding I am forgoing the $2.00 on my next purchase of a laptop of a dime on a lime Squishee.
Class action lawsuits create people like John Edwards (the politician scam artist not the cold-reader scam artist).
Arbitration boards can be stacked in favor of a big client.
Class-Action suits, on the other hand, are almost always corrupt and a vehicle for lawyer enrichment or liberal policy promotion, or both.
How much arbitration goes against the person paying the arbitrator?
For a while it was a scandal in the brokerage business. If your stockbroker screwed you, your contract for services with the broker left you little recourse but to use a financial industry approved arbitrator, and the arbitrator reportedly tended to find for the broker, or at least to minimize the damages assessed for the customer. I don't have figures.
In the industrial situation, I don't even know who pays for the arbitrator. I doubt that it is the injured worker; he wouldn't be able to afford it. I don't know if its the company on a direct per case basis, or its government involved, or there's some common association.
"Who pays" is very important. It's part of "following the money.".
Supreme Court sides with employers in class action arbitration cases
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/supreme-court-nlra-arbitration-gorsuch/index.html
What that's... that's just... CRAZY talk!
;-)
My problem with this us that CEOs are typically just hired hands. They get all the benefits of employees as they are oddly covered by special gold plated employment contracts. Union employees get contracts too but much lesser.
If anyone should be at will employees the CEOS should be. They control the corporation. They are not employers.
Employees at large need parity with hired hand CEOs.
Those contracts exist, and have been held enforceable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.