I support HR 1020. When an industry or a company does repeat business with arbitrators there is going to be bias, and when that industry requires customers agree to pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration, you know that the industry expects there to be bias in their own favor. Too many consumer transactions now require either doing without the often necessary product or service, or giving up one’s legal rights. You can’t buy a house, car, phone, many services or other products, without arbitration clauses anymore. It’s time to put a stop to this abuse of the Federal Arbitration Act which never meant for businesses to to game the system and hide complaints.

HR 1020: too restrictive!
it limits my rights to enter freely a contract. governmental power is expanded at the expense of freedom + choice.
the government forces me to pay more for products and services. if all disputes are forced into litigation, these additional cost of inefficient dispute resolution will surely be shifted to me as consumer.
the bill disregards well settled principles developed by the third branch, the judiciary. is the purpose to flood the courts even more with unnecessary cases?
reputable arbitration organizations (AAA, JAMS, NAF) wouldn’t favor biased decisions just because someone is a “repeat player.”
it’s a myth that judges rule better than arbitrators. judges are often more stressed and have a higher case load. in small claims court you don’t get a reason why your claim is rejected. in arbitration, you can demand reason. also, in a consumer case, you can ask that the non-consumer side is paying.

I support HR 1020

Sorry homewood, but your argument does not fly. The reason arbitration clauses are inserted into contracts of adhesion are precisely because they favor the repeat player.

If you ran a company that dispensed arbitration, and on the one hand you could issue an award in favor of a large company that might continue to provide disputes to your company, and with no judicial oversight so that the award was not subject to review for its legality or wisdom, you too would tend to favor the repeater. It happens.

If you actually read the case law, there are no really well-settled principles, but rather statements taken from cases involving parties of relatively equal bargaining power misapplied to cases involving clearly unequal parties.

If the Lilli Ledbetter case, a case so outrageous that Congress passed the first law that President Obama signed, was subject to arbitration, the lack of review and confidentiality of the decision would have prevented Congress from even knowing about the problem.

Arbitration can be a good thing, applied in cases where the parties agree to it and have been able to be advised as to the exact nature of the rights given up. To enforce a law, an open court must be available to the aggrieved. If that party chooses not to e3nter, then so be it.

ALL mandatory arbitration clauses favor the writer of the contract and, by leaving neither party any alternative method of dispute, a contract of adhesion is created.

HR 1020 is a needed change to the landscape. Arbitration can be a good thing if both parties enter into it voluntary,

To be forced as a condition of employment strips each American of their right to bring disputes before the court and tilts all decisions to big business.

Arbitration is not about being fair it is protect the corporation and stack the deck against the individual.

I support The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009

I will be in arbitration over 3 years February with no end in sight. I was
sold a previously flooded out and rear ended vehicle and the dealer stuck
me with it. www.mossyscrewedme.com

VIDEO RELEASE: Used car nightmare — Mossy Toyota

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sCUmXfy03c