Appeals court sides with employers on arbitration

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) - Employers can require their workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving all rights to class-action lawsuits over workplace grievances, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a National Labor Relations Board decision last year that found such agreements conflicted with federal law giving workers the right to pursue collective action to complain about workplace conditions.

The court's ruling is a win for businesses that want to limit legal exposure from the rising cost of class-action lawsuits over unpaid overtime and other wage violations. But it's a blow to workers who find it easier to band together when challenging the policies at a large company.

The case considered a policy in which D.R. Horton Inc., a Fort Worth, Texas-based homebuilder, required all its employees to sign agreements to resolve any workplace disputes in individual arbitration proceedings rather than sue. The agreements prevented an arbitrator from granting relief to employees as a class or group.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131203/DAAF4VSG0.html

[mdbl]

1. Some arbitrators are real morons

It's too bad this federal court is so misguided. Now companies can find paid off arbitrators to give them the judgements they want so they can be as slimy to their employees as they want. What a great country this is!

[Swede Atlanta]

2. Whether subject to a collective bargaining agreement or not...

I don't consider master-slave (i.e. employer - employee) relationships to be analogous to other types of "business" relationships.

I don't believe it should be possible for an employer to cut off an employee's rights to pursue claims in a civilian court by way of a contract or other agreement.

Use of arbitration may be an appropriate mechanism to avoid the cost and delay of litigation. My concern is employers pay for the arbitrator's services and likely select them. This creates a conflict of interest with the arbitrator. If he or she are deciding an issue independently and fairly, the result might conflict with their relationship with the employer.

Basically this ruling is that while we no longer call it slavery, when you go to work for someone you lose all rights to pursue justice in our civil judicial system. All your rights are held and decided by someone selected by and paid for by your employer.

[mtasselin]

3. justice

There is no justice in America, this is only the beginning, the chamber of commerce wants this on any product you purchase. So get ready because we are all going to get screwed because the American people just don't give a shit.

[rurallib]

4. This is a big deal

as I understand it this leaves a single employee to fend for themselves against a corporation.
About as fair as me against an ant.