Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed. You can submit a short question too.

Answered by a visitor on Aug 9, 2009 7:19 PM - This bill will remove an improper screen used by corporations in order to hide their misdoings. The current law is a perversion of the original FAF passed at the beginning of the century, whose original intent was to allow two business entities, of equal economic power an alternative forum to settle grievances outside of a courthouse. There were always provisions, in which a party could opt out and go to court. The pro business, corporatist Renquist court stretched the FAF and perverted its original intent in order to serve the Corporations' best interest in disputes with employees and consumers. Of course, as with anything the corporations can use to gain advantages, they misuse it. Arbitration, has now become a shield and a screen for corporations to hide the wrongs they inflict on workers and consumers. It's sickeningly unfair and needs to be changed.

Answered by a visitor on Sep 16, 2009 5:44 PM - The bill would not remove pre-dispute arbitration provisions from commercial entities: corporations and businesses of equal sophistication and bargaining power can still contract for ADR or arbitration. The bill would nullify pre-dispute arbitration provisions (that often include class waivers) from contracts between employees and consumers and employers and corporations selling goods or services. Often these provisions are buried in the agreement (which arrive by mail or are in an "Terms of Service" box on a computer screen), or handed up by an HR person at an employee's orientation. The bargaining power is uneven, and the option to "walk away" is illusory: since the arb clauses are so widespread, buying from another vendor or finding a different employer will not escape the arb provision. The class waiver functions as an exculpatory device for companies and employees. Consumers have little incentive to suffer through arbitration (where they have to pay a fee) to win small damages, and individual arb claims will not draw competent counsel to represent single plaintiffs. Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, 189 N.J. 1, 19-20, 912 A.2d 88 (N.J. 2006), Homa v. Am. Express Co., 558 F.3d 225 231 (3d Cir. 2009). The lack of precedential effect of arbitration decisions also permits the company to engage in misconduct, win or lose a few arbitration proceedings, and not fear any class decisions that might succeed in forcing them to stop their misconduct. See, e.g., District Cablevision LTD. Partnership v. Bassin, 828 A.2d 714, 717 (D.C. 2003) (Comcast forced to pay $13.7 million for imposing unreasonably high late fees). The waivers and arb agreements provide companies a "divide and conquer" strategy, outside of the public (arbitrations are confidential) and limited oversight from judiciary. One arb company, NAF, recently stopped engaging in credit card arbitrations after it was revealed (via the MN AG), that it sided ith the debt collectors 94% of the time and "deselected" as arbiters those who sided with consumers. (consent judgment with MN AG at www.lawblog.com/docs/nafconsentdecree.pdf).