Mandatory arbitration is unfair. The EFCA grants 90 days, for both sides to come to an agreement. Thirty days later, if the parties have not settled on a contract, the Federal government will impose a contract on both sides that is binding for two years, regardless of whether the contract is desirable, fair, or even workable. Under current law, workers can vote down a union contract they do not support. Workers also can strike or refrain from striking. All these rights give workers a degree of control over the union and their workplace. With government imposed contracts in place these rights disappear. An arbitrator’s word will be final, so a vote to reject a union contract is out of the question. With government imposed contracts, workers would lose all say in the workplace. They could not even ask their employers for a raise for good performance. Likewise, the employers could not give them a raise. EFCA deprives workers of all choices regarding union issues. The arbitrator’s decision does not even have to get the two sides to agree. Thus, the conflict is never actually solved; It is simply delayed for two years, while the government seizes control of the union, workplace, and employees.
For this reason, I urge a negative Ballot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst off the argument is solved b/c arbirtration is the quickest way to relize that the union either asks to much or the employer is not doing enough or both so the way that arbitrators solve is to find a middle ground the can be workable for the union and the company
ReplyDeletethe bill requires mediation and then binding arbitration for first contracts in cases in which the union
ReplyDeleteand management can't reach agreement within a reasonable time period. This provision is designed to ensure that
workers get a contract. Some employers thwart collective bargaining by refusing to negotiate in good faith or by dragging
out legal appeals regarding the election process so that even after winning an election, a union might never achieve a first
contract. Under current law, after one year employers can claim that they have reached an impasse at the bargaining table,
and then they are legally free to withdraw recognition of the union.
Without mandatory arbitration arguments take to long and with arbitration things get done and without mandatory arbitration the two sides are arguing and the status quo is still being upheld this means the two sides will be arguing for as long as the employer chooses for when the union says $14 and the $16 then they will never reach a middle ground. That is when an arbitrator is sent in to say that the union workers will be paid $15 because the business has the ability to just does not want to.
ReplyDeleteArbitration of employment claims can be an effective form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that benefits the employee and employer alike. When it works well -- and regardless of whether the employer ultimately is found
ReplyDeleteliable -- both parties can realize cost savings and efficiencies without sacrificing the ability to present your case or the quality of that presentation. Certainly, these are the benefits that make arbitration attractive to companies. However, whether this continues to be the reality of arbitration today is an entirely separate question.
Any company that has or is considering having a mandatory pre-dispute employment arbitration program must balance risks and rewards that are very specific to that particular company. Depending on the size of your workforce, your location, the industry you are in, the industry's history (if any) with arbitration, your prior litigation experience, the specific types of claims you have experienced, legal costs, and an assessment of the types of claims that may fit your risk profile, you may decide for or against using a mandatory arbitration program. But there is much more to consider about the arbitration process itself.
As an employer, you should consider, for example, the current state of the law in the locations where you seek to enforce the arbitration agreement. That's because the courts in some places have shown themselves to be more willing than courts in other areas to compel arbitration. For example, an employer may be more successful trying to compel arbitration in Texas than in California, depending on the content of the arbitration agreement. Also, the courts are greatly influenced by the actual content of the arbitration agreement. These are important factors as you consider the costs and benefits of a mandatory arbitration process.
Also, what forum would you use for arbitration? Would you contract with the American Arbitration Association, JAMS, or another established ADR provider and use their arbitration rules? Or would you write your own rules and assemble your own arbitration panels? There are pros and cons to both approaches, and your choice also affects whether a court would enforce your arbitration agreement.
Regardless of the forum, what about the quality of the pool of arbitrators? Are they lawyers? Do they have backgrounds that indicate they understand the subtleties of complex employment laws? This is a concern because some ADR organizations do not require their panel arbitrators to have any employment law expertise. As a result, an employer may be found liable even though the case may have been dismissed much earlier on, had it been filed in court.
Do your arbitrators have a reputation for applying the law to the case in front of them or are you concerned about arbitrators "splitting the baby?" In other words, you should consider the likelihood of whether you will be found liable on some claims in more cases but ordered to pay less money than a jury might otherwise impose. Do you feel protected by the discovery process? Sometimes, arbitrators are less inclined to allow the type of discovery an employer may desire even thought the arbitrators allow the claimant a bit more latitude.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/arbitration/3779096-1.html
The bill doesn't involve Mandatory Arbitration
ReplyDeleteMandatory Arbitration is needed because it speeds the process of when a decission is made without it who knows how long it would take to actually reach any kind of agreement
ReplyDelete