Re:In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’
by DannyBee on Sunday November 08, 2015 @09:24PM
(#10531073)
Most arbitrations are binding.
That means they can't appeal the facts and the result.
If the arbitration process was unfair, they can appeal that. But if the process was fair, ....
Re:In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’
by wfo on Monday November 09, 2015 @02:52AM
(#10531819)
For a definition of "fair" set by the arbitrator.
Re:In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’
by microcolonel on Sunday November 08, 2015 @06:32PM
(#10530525)
If you read the line carefully, they don't say that they lack an appeals process. They just want to paint the picture that that's the case without saying it.
Note that they say "nearly".
It's odd that they do this in their writing, even though their own style guide advises against it.
> When plaintiffs have asked the courts to intervene, court records show, they have almost always lost. Saying its hands were tied, one court in California said it could not overturn arbitrators’ decisions even if they caused “substantial injustice.”
This seems like a really serious problem. If arbitrations are, as they are claimed to be, generally better on the average (cheaper, faster, better compromises, etc), one could tolerate even "forced" arbitrations (by way of fine print that few people read). But the lack of avenues to appeal (if true) seems to me a fatal flaw.
Is this generally true of all arbitrations? Or is this only a few unusual cases?