Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 No. I haven't shifted away from that at all. Binding arbitration purchased from the company demanding ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 07:32 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,530
Thanks: 8,390
Thanked 9,089 Times in 5,597 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No.
I haven't shifted away from that at all.
Binding arbitration purchased from the company demanding it has been proven to be more consistent in favoring the company.

So, "getting off scott free" will definitely increase.



Sure.
Does the Treasury report say that they have research which shows binding arbitration provides more "water" to consumers in general?
Yes or No.



You are tedious with this mindless hyperbolic crap you spew.
Class action lawsuits aren't working as well as they could / should.
The solution to that problem is not to mindlessly obliterate that option and ignore whether the alternatives are actually any better...



You fail to acknowledge why I even mentioned that...
It was to demonstrate companies like Equifax [b]are not learning from their mistakes.



Again, you rant without regard to the other person's actual position.
I never said the class action is perfect.
My position is that allowing corporations to dictate arbitration requirements which the corps pay for is worse.

There is no intelligence in removing class action. No intelligence in providing corporations a legal protection that actual citizens never get anything remotely resembling.
Do we see private citizens being able to others who could sue that they cannot sue and instead must submit to arbitration?
IF we look at the CPFB study on arbitration it exposes the false claims made in the editorial rant you cite as proof.

Arbitrators are not lackeys hired by the company to deny the consumer a fair hearing .

Quote:
Arbitration clauses commonly specify a firm (or a choice of firms) to administer the arbitration. This administrator is not the arbitrator per se, although as discussed below, the administrator may select the arbitrator. The administrator generally sets out the procedural rules governing the arbitration. In some cases, the rules may be modified by the terms of the applicable arbitration clause. Administrators, however, may deem some rules not to be subject to contractual modification. Each of the two main administrators of consumer arbitrations in the United States has due process or minimum procedural fairness protocols, and their respective rules state that they will not administer arbitrations except in accordance with those core provisions.87 The administrator also offers other administrative services, such as docketing or providing hearing locations.
The arbitration administrator most commonly named in the clauses we studied was the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)
Emphasis added.

Arbitrator fees are shared between the company and consumer.

Quote:
In consumer arbitration, administrative and arbitrator fees are first assessed to the parties at filing. We refer to this as the “initial fee” allocation. Under the consumer arbitration rules of the AAA and JAMS, the business pays a higher initial fee than the consumer
Quote:
the administrator’s rules may bar the parties from contractually allocating a greater share of fees to the consumer. The AAA’s rules, for example, do not permit it to administer a case in which the consumer is required by the applicable arbitration clause to pay more at filing than the maximum amounts stated in the AAA’s consumer fee schedule.
Businesses generally pay more of the arbitration fees but they do not hire the arbitrator. In addition there is nothing barring the consumer from having an attorney represent them in arbitration proceedings.

In contrast to the breathless prose of the editorial rant arbitration clauses are often not hidden in the fine print.

Quote:
Most of the arbitration clauses studied described differences between arbitration and litigation in court. They typically highlighted some combination of four differences. First, no jury trial is available in arbitration. Second, when parties have agreed to arbitrate, they cannot participate in class actions in court.142 Third, discovery typically is more limited in arbitration than in court litigation. Fourth, appeal rights are more limited in arbitration than in court.143 Often, this descriptive language was capitalized or in boldfaced type.
Emphasis added.

The report found that only a minority of consumer filed arbitration actions were decided on the merits, consistent with other forms of resolution.

Quote:
As with other systems of dispute resolution, only a minority of consumer financial arbitrations reached the point where there was a decision on the merits of the parties’ claims. Specifically, arbitrators resolved less than a third (32.2%) of the consumer financial arbitration disputes on the merits.
The remainder of the consumer brought cases were thought to have been settled by agreement between the parties.

The newspaper rant cited as proof arbitration cheats the consumer in favor of business excludes a salient fact in the claim that businesses win 93% of arbitrations.

Quote:
As for companies, we could determine the terms of arbitrator awards relating to company claims in 244 of the 421 disputes involving company claims filed in 2010 and 2011. (This includes cases filed by companies as well as cases in which companies asserted counterclaims in consumer-initiated disputes.) Arbitrators provided companies some type of relief in 227, or 93.0%, of those disputes.
Emphasis added. Notice that the 92% in favor of the company uses a subset of company filed claims not the total number of arbitration proceeding implied by the so-called proof.

Here is the URL for the report.

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2...gress-2015.pdf


as for your pathetic attempt at a leading question. No, the Treasury report does not provide information on the efficacy of binding arbitration at providing consumer relief. That is outside the scope of the report.

As usual you throw a tantrum insisting someone else must take some action or provide you with information disproving your demagogic rhetoric or we must accept your vapid nonsense as fact. I have provided reference and information from the Treasury exposing the shortcomings of class action and a report from the same CFPB that promulgated the rule effectively barring arbitration exposing the false populist claims against arbitration in the article you cite as proof. . Is this really the best you can do?
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

Last edited by AZRWinger; 11-11-2017 at 07:40 PM.. Reason: Fix quotes
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2017, 04:56 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,119
Thanks: 9,936
Thanked 15,027 Times in 9,110 Posts
Post Re: Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
IF we look at the CPFB study on arbitration it exposes the false claims made in the editorial rant you cite as proof.
Arbitrators are not lackeys hired by the company to deny the consumer a fair hearing .
Emphasis added.
Arbitrator fees are shared between the company and consumer.
This is pretty well irrelevant.

Scenario:
Mark (and only Mark) picks the vendor that will be supplying the candy machine.
Mark, Jenny and Jesse pay for the supplies.

In such a scenario, it's obvious that Mark is the lynch pin that the vendor needs to make happy.
It does not matter if Jesse and Jenny are not happy. They're stuck paying the bill for Mark's choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Businesses generally pay more of the arbitration fees but they do not hire the arbitrator. In addition there is nothing barring the consumer from having an attorney represent them in arbitration proceedings.
It's funny how you just got finished deriding attorneys and their fees, but now you want to claim that's a benefit out of this scenario...



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
In contrast to the breathless prose of the editorial rant arbitration clauses are often not hidden in the fine print.
Emphasis added.
Pointless non-sequitur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The report found that only a minority of consumer filed arbitration actions were decided on the merits, consistent with other forms of resolution.
The remainder of the consumer brought cases were thought to have been settled by agreement between the parties.
The newspaper rant cited as proof arbitration cheats the consumer in favor of business excludes a salient fact in the claim that businesses win 93% of arbitrations.
Emphasis added. Notice that the 92% in favor of the company uses a subset of company filed claims not the total number of arbitration proceeding implied by the so-called proof.
You have a boring habit of pointing out meaningless minutia and trying to pretend it was somehow problematic...
"implied" is your own failure at looking at the details.
Doesn't take away from the actual significance of the figure.

Basically what you've argued is that a smaller number of plantiffs get some undocumented value of relief if we switch to arbitration where 92% is decided in favor of the company...



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Here is the URL for the report.
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2...gress-2015.pdf
as for your pathetic attempt at a leading question. No, the Treasury report does not provide information on the efficacy of binding arbitration at providing consumer relief. That is outside the scope of the report.
And you don't see a HUGE GAPING PROBLEM with that???

Basically, a "study" was put together to try to attack the lawsuit approach.
But it completely fails to look at the reality of what will be left if these lawsuits are removed.

This is the equivalent of saying that the road between Smallville and Gotham is in bad shape. We have a report showing this.
So Trump's administration wants to destroy the road before asking the question of WHAT WILL COMMUTERS BE LEFT WITH if the road is destroyed?
If it's not in the scope, then no intelligent action should be taken on the situation until these questions are answered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
As usual you throw a tantrum insisting someone else must take some action or provide you with information disproving your demagogic rhetoric or we must accept your vapid nonsense as fact. I have provided reference and information from the Treasury exposing the shortcomings of class action and a report from the same CFPB that promulgated the rule effectively barring arbitration exposing the false populist claims against arbitration in the article you cite as proof. Is this really the best you can do?
Your responses are really boring when you devolve into blatant lying.
I've documented that binding arbitration favors the companies.

Quite frankly, you have provided no justification for why this option should be removed from consumers in the first place. If a consumer wants to kick themselves in the balls before seeking redress for their grievance, then that's the consumer's choice.
The Republicans repeatedly tout "free market" as the supposed cure for all ailments...
... until it becomes inconvenient for the companies, in which case it's more than adequate for the government to cater to the whims of the companies.

Why shouldn't the free market sort this out?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2017, 07:47 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,530
Thanks: 8,390
Thanked 9,089 Times in 5,597 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This is pretty well irrelevant.

Scenario:
Mark (and only Mark) picks the vendor that will be supplying the candy machine.
Mark, Jenny and Jesse pay for the supplies.

In such a scenario, it's obvious that Mark is the lynch pin that the vendor needs to make happy.
It does not matter if Jesse and Jenny are not happy. They're stuck paying the bill for Mark's choice.



It's funny how you just got finished deriding attorneys and their fees, but now you want to claim that's a benefit out of this scenario...




Pointless non-sequitur.



You have a boring habit of pointing out meaningless minutia and trying to pretend it was somehow problematic...
"implied" is your own failure at looking at the details.
Doesn't take away from the actual significance of the figure.

Basically what you've argued is that a smaller number of plantiffs get some undocumented value of relief if we switch to arbitration where 92% is decided in favor of the company...




And you don't see a HUGE GAPING PROBLEM with that???

Basically, a "study" was put together to try to attack the lawsuit approach.
But it completely fails to look at the reality of what will be left if these lawsuits are removed.

This is the equivalent of saying that the road between Smallville and Gotham is in bad shape. We have a report showing this.
So Trump's administration wants to destroy the road before asking the question of WHAT WILL COMMUTERS BE LEFT WITH if the road is destroyed?
If it's not in the scope, then no intelligent action should be taken on the situation until these questions are answered.



Your responses are really boring when you devolve into blatant lying.
I've documented that binding arbitration favors the companies.

Quite frankly, you have provided no justification for why this option should be removed from consumers in the first place. If a consumer wants to kick themselves in the balls before seeking redress for their grievance, then that's the consumer's choice.
The Republicans repeatedly tout "free market" as the supposed cure for all ailments...
... until it becomes inconvenient for the companies, in which case it's more than adequate for the government to cater to the whims of the companies.

Why shouldn't the free market sort this out?
Another pointless rant from you.

After being shown that arbitrators are not the company lackeys you claimed but rather they are chosen by an independent agency according to a code of ethics you babble on about a candy machine vendor.

After being shown the 92% of arbitration cases resolved in favor of the company applies only to cases brought by companies against consumers you continue to mindless whine as if this number applies to all arbitration cases.

After being shown that arbitration cases end in settlements not decisions of the arbitrator, at a rate comparable to other methods of resolution including the precious class action lawsuits, you stubbornly insist arbitration deprives the consumer of justice.

After being shown the significant shortcomings of class action lawsuits, they are basically a golden pipeline for tort lawyers and the Democrat politicians they support with contributions, all you can manage is to stubbornly repeat the nonsensical demand for so-called proof that arbitration is better. You refuse to engage in an honest discussion of arbitration, just sputter out the same disproven talking points attacking it.

The perversion of the free market by class action lawyers is why we ought to allow the consumer to choose if they want to do business with a company that requires arbitration for dispute resolution. As the Treasury department study shows the consumer is an afterthought in many class action lawsuits whereas individual arbitration focuses on the consumer. Often times as the Treasury report points out the consumer's share of class action settlements is so insignificant it is not worth claiming. But let's keep class action as the only viable alternative by shutting out arbitration because Democrats love class action attorneys campaign contributions.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2017, 11:11 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,119
Thanks: 9,936
Thanked 15,027 Times in 9,110 Posts
Post Re: Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Another pointless rant from you.
This is predictably how I feel about your replies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
After being shown that arbitrators are not the company lackeys you claimed but rather they are chosen by an independent agency according to a code of ethics you babble on about a candy machine vendor.
And you predictably can't figure out a simple analogy to address the underlying point.
The fact that the two parties both pay the fees is irrelevant.
What is truly important is who picks the arbitrator. And thus, if the company thinks another arbitrator will be more inclined to decide cases in their favor, then the company can abandon the first arbitrator group.
THAT is the important mechanism here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
After being shown the 92% of arbitration cases resolved in favor of the company applies only to cases brought by companies against consumers you continue to mindless whine as if this number applies to all arbitration cases.
The analogy pointed out why that observation was meaningless.
You have no response other than apparent failure to comprehend the point being made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
After being shown that arbitration cases end in settlements not decisions of the arbitrator, at a rate comparable to other methods of resolution including the precious class action lawsuits, you stubbornly insist arbitration deprives the consumer of justice.
Is this yet another dumb lie on your part?
You just got finished saying: "No, the Treasury report does not provide information on the efficacy of binding arbitration at providing consumer relief. That is outside the scope of the report."

And now you claim that you have shown that the resolutions are equivalent?
DOCUMENT WHERE you showed this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
After being shown the significant shortcomings of class action lawsuits, they are basically a golden pipeline for tort lawyers and the Democrat politicians they support with contributions, all you can manage is to stubbornly repeat the nonsensical demand for so-called proof that arbitration is better. You refuse to engage in an honest discussion of arbitration, just sputter out the same disproven talking points attacking it.
No.
You didn't "show" that.
And me sticking to my position is not "dishonest".
Your replies become more and more feeble as time goes on.

I've documented that binding arbitration favors the companies.

Quite frankly, you have provided no justification for why this option should be removed from consumers in the first place. If a consumer wants to kick themselves in the balls before seeking redress for their grievance, then that's the consumer's choice.
The Republicans repeatedly tout "free market" as the supposed cure for all ailments...
... until it becomes inconvenient for the companies, in which case it's more than adequate for the government to cater to the whims of the companies.

Why shouldn't the free market sort this out?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The perversion of the free market by class action lawyers is why we ought to allow the consumer to choose if they want to do business with a company that requires arbitration for dispute resolution.
HOW is this a "perversion" of the free market?
I thought it was the right-wing mantra that if an inferior product was presented, the free market would sort it out.
Governmental interference is supposedly frowned upon.
But that's exactly what you dictate here, proving yourself a hypocrite.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
As the Treasury department study shows the consumer is an afterthought in many class action lawsuits whereas individual arbitration focuses on the consumer. Often times as the Treasury report points out the consumer's share of class action settlements is so insignificant it is not worth claiming. But let's keep class action as the only viable alternative by shutting out arbitration because Democrats love class action attorneys campaign contributions.
Again, getting back to the fact that the point of class action lawsuits IS MORE than just the amount of money that the people involved get.
It's about sending a message to the companies involved to fix their act.

I've already documented that in the Equifax case, THEY WERE WARNED OF THE PROBLEM months in advance and did nothing. They had no concern over the risk to their customer data.
They've got multiple execs dumping stock before the announcement, and after an internal investigation they have concluded they did absolutely nothing wrong.

This is why companies like Equifax need the reality of a class action lawsuit to come knocking at their door.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
are, equifax, getting, hand, huge, present, ready, republicans

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0