|
|
|
|
|
by josh_fyi
961 days ago
|
|
The points in the article seem quite obvious. I wonder then, why do arbitrators ever rule against the companies that pay their fees? I asked on Law Stack Exchange, but the answers were not quite convincing. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87589 |
|
If you had your hand cut off by your manager for being 5 minutes late to work and sued your company only to find out it had to be dealt with by binding arbitration, and in the course of discovery you found an email from the CEO and the board telling managers to start cutting off people's hands if they are 5 minutes late to work, and then the binding arbitrator said that the company did no wrong, then they have exposed themselves to a potential lawsuit without the protection of a binding arbitration agreement.
So, just like a fiduciary financial manager, they have a responsibility to act and judge in a way that will stand up to possible external scrutiny.