Consequently many employers are turning to alternative dispute resolution methods that cost far less. Many contracts require employers and employees to take legal disputes to arbitration. There an outside arbitrator evaluates the claims and imposes remedies. Arbitrators award employees fair damages in cases of actual injustice while quickly dispensing with merit-less nuisance suits. Instead of legal bills running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, however, arbitration usually costs only a few thousand dollars. That saves employers the money they need to create jobs while giving rogue employees no leverage to win undeserved settlements. Arbitration protects employees’ legal rights while keeping the economy moving. Everybody wins. Except the trial lawyers.
So, I'm doing some research on HR 3326 and come across this really quite amusing opinion piece on Heritage.org. The above quote refers to the cost-cutting decision to contractually-force lawsuit-seeking employees to agree to a much cheaper "arbitration," rather than going to actual trial where said corporation would have to spend tens of thousands in court and lawyer fees even if the case is thrown out. According to James Sherk, the author of the blog post at Heritage.org, arbitration is a win-win for both sides.
Except that it isn't. Arbitration is not a legal proceeding. If your employer has broken the law, arbitration keeps things off the legal record. So, saying "Everybody wins. Except the trial lawyers." is a fallacy. The loser is the plaintiff and justice, itself.
The real truth is that the corporations win because they can keep this stuff out of the court system, save buckets of money and without a judge on the plaintiff's side, no chance for real justice should a crime actually have taken place.
This kind of apologism is despicable.
The opinion piece goes on to talk about how letting "unscrupulous employees" take their employers to court means job creation is hampered--as though all employers o is sit around thinking of new ways to hire people. Also, Sherk forgets the part where employers (executives) can take pay-cuts. OH NO, NOT PAY CUTS!!
You'll never see anyone talk about executive pay-cuts. No, no! But job cuts--no problem!
So, because we need to protect the almighty job-creators of America, we must ban the ability of employee/victims of fellow-employee crime from suing.
Forget that the company may very well be responsible for creating an unsafe workplace--no, the company's right to make as much money as possible MUST BE PROTECTED!!
Why slow the economy down for just one person?
Assholes.
Why do corporations even exist? To make money. So, why the hell should I give a crap about their rights?
Job creation, huh? HIRE ME. Where's my job?
GIMME.
NOW.
Yeah, didn't think so....
And don't forget the Franken Amendment in HR 3326 doesn't ban anything but the USG hiring companies that put clauses like this in their contracts with employees. It does not stop non-government contracted companies from leaving these clauses in. So these amoral "conservative" pretenders are getting hyper about losing a piece of their pie, rather than just thanking "God" that they live in such a great country as America.
;)
No comments:
Post a Comment