Congress Investigates Carriers' Debt Collections 134
Julie188 writes "'Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier. Next up: a congressional committee will be looking into a debt collection practice that prevents customers from filing lawsuits. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will be examining a contract clause that forces customers to waive their right to sue and instead agree to forced arbitration. He is hot on the tails of the carriers after a similar investigation of credit card companies lead to nine banks removing the forced arbitration clause from their contracts. This follows the week's earlier news that the FCC was going to try to come up with new rules to prevent wireless bill shock."
If you need an honest man (Score:5, Informative)
I think Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.
Re:If you need an honest man (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard he once told staffers of Nanci Pelosi and a pair of AIPAC lobbyists to get the hell out of his office and not come back. Word has it now he's denying it happened, but its the kind of thing he'd do, and really raised my estimation of him from that of cooky communist elf man to someone who also wants to tell AIPAC to go to hell.
I met him once by accident, briefly. However, he had wondered off before I could ask him to be in a short video clip saying "they're always after me lucky charms." His ears are slightly more pointed in person than they are on TV.
Re:If you need an honest man (Score:5, Informative)
He's no communist, and he's definitely not a kook. He's my congressman, and I've spoken with him at several public events. The thing is, he has throughout his career taken stands that upset the rich and powerful, so they often do their best to portray him as a kook.
For instance, the most famous episode from early in his political career (as mayor of Cleveland) was refusing to sell Cleveland's municipal power company to the private company that controls most of Ohio's electricity market. The electric company's pals at the banks then threatened the city with default rather than rolling over the debt as they had been doing for decades. Dennis stood his ground, the banks made good on their threat, and Kucinich lost his reelection bid. But in the long run he saved residents and businesses in Cleveland millions of dollars in electric bills.
His more recent exploits include:
* Refusing to support the Patriot Act.
* Refusing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He consistantly votes against appropriations for those wars, and has been doing so since before they started.
* Introducing articles of impeachment against both George W Bush and Dick Cheney.
* Acting as one of the leaders of the backbencher holdouts for a public option in the health care reform bill. Unfortunately, Obama was able to convince him that HCR without a public option was better than no HCR, so he eventually voted for it.
The Democratic leadership doesn't give a damn what he does, though, because he's not good at getting oodles of lobbyist dollars (gee, I wonder why). So when he was running for President in 2008, the questions he got during debates were about whether he'd seen a UFO, not about his plans for reforming health care without mandating that everyone buy insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Dennis rocks. A few more like him and we would actually have representative government. Go Dennis!
Re:If you need an honest man (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I saw them on television recently, discussing all the things they had in common. For example, both think the Federal Reserve (central bank) is a business monopoly that screws the customers by devaluing paper money, and should be audited at least once per decade to find out where the money is being spent, and possibly dissolved.
BTW binding arbitration doesn't mean much. Paypal tried to include that in their TOS but when they later were sued by State AGs for stealing money from customer accounts, the justice quickly nullified the clause as being in violation of consumer protection laws. He said that users cannot sign-away rights already protected by superior laws. Same applies here with the wireless carriers.
The Fed (Score:4, Informative)
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I saw them on television recently, discussing all the things they had in common.
How they are both fringe loonies that few people take very seriously? I've met Dennis Kucinich in person. Not a guy I'd vote for.
For example, both think the Federal Reserve (central bank) is a business monopoly that screws the customers by devaluing paper money...
A retarded notion. First off, only a tiny percentage of the money in the economy is actual paper/coin currency. We're talking single digit percentage. Second, the fed adjusts the amount of money in circulation both up and down to respond to the needs of the economy. Devaluing (usually called weakening) the currency is not necessarily bad because it makes exports more competitive. This is exactly what China has done with their currency - they hold it below its natural market value because it makes their exports cost less in other markets. Conversely, if you strengthen the dollar (take dollars out of circulation) you make imports cheaper but you hurt exports.
, and should be audited at least once per decade to find out where the money is being spent, and possibly dissolved.
While there are limits which are deserving of criticism, the Fed is regularly audited by the GAO. There are as we speak transparency laws and some (recently successful) lawsuits that should address some of these issues.
As for dissolving the Fed, you'll need to first address how you are going to resolve the issues that the Fed currently exists to handle including check clearing, being a lender of last resort, managing nation wide payment systems, balancing the interests of private for-profit banks with that of government, keeping reserve funds for the banking system, adjusting the money supply, providing liquidity to lending institutions, reducing the chance of and impact of bank runs, controlling systemic financial risk and more. While the Fed is hardly a perfect institution (far from it), it serves a number of vital purposes. I have yet to hear anyone who proposes eliminating the Federal Reserve System actually address in any detail a replacement system. Central banks exist for some very good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Not a guy I'd vote for.
So who did you vote for? Bush? Obama?
.
>>>only a tiny percentage of the money in the economy is actual paper/coin currency.
Uh. Irrelevant to the point. The point is the money, whether paper or numbers in a computer, is easily devalued because it's fiat currency. If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.
Put another way, if my grandfather had own
Re:The Fed (Score:4, Informative)
If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.
You're confusing devaluation with inflation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>You're confusing devaluation with inflation.
They are two sides of the same coin. Like addition and subtraction. Or multiplication and division. What you call "inflation" is CAUSED by devaluation of the fait currency, because the Central Bank increased they money supply by approximately 100 fold.
Put another way: If they had held the money supply constant, as they did in the 1800s, then a candybar would still cost just 1 penny. A man's business suit would still be just $5. And so on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put another way: If they had held the money supply constant, as they did in the 1800s, then a candybar would still cost just 1 penny. A man's business suit would still be just $5. And so on.
If they'd held the money supply constant, things would be pretty out of whack by now simply due to the population expansion.
76 million people in 1900 with all the currency distributed amongst them... 300+ million people now... that means the currency is going to be distributed a lot more thinly... better hope a business
Re: (Score:1)
>>>currency is going to be distributed a lot more thinly..
I have no idea what you're talking about. You think people benefit because now they have to spend $500 to get a business suit instead of the $5 it cost in 1910? Or ~$200/week on food instead of the ~$2 it used to cost? If you do think that's beneficial, then you're no better than the corporations.
Re:The Fed (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea what you're talking about
Its simple. If you hold the money supply constant while the population quadruples you create a currency shortage. No different than if you held anything else constant... housing for example.
Bottom line, you can't hold currency constant.
You think people benefit because now they have to spend $500 to get a business suit instead of the $5 it cost in 1910? Or ~$200/week on food instead of the ~$2 it used to cost? If you do think that's beneficial, then you're no better than the corporations.
I didn't say this benefits people. I just said holding it constant doesn't. So to sum up: Not expanding it causes problems. Expanding it to much causes problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> 76 million people in 1900 with all the currency distributed amongst them... 300+ million people now... that means the currency is going to be distributed a lot more thinly...
Ahhh.. the Fed is the Capitalists way of "distributing" wealth.
Say, I have $1000 and there is 100,000 in circulation. That means my share of the total wealth is 1/100. Now if the Fed pumps in another 100,000 my share is suddenly 1/200. The other way to achieve that same effect would have been to tax me 50% on my savings. But then t
Re:The Fed (Score:4, Interesting)
Say, I have $1000 and there is 100,000 in circulation. That means my share of the total wealth is 1/100. Now if the Fed pumps in another 100,000 my share is suddenly 1/200.
That's why wealthy people don't have a lot of cash. Wealth is measured in dollars, but only a fool would keep his wealth IN actual dollars. Dollars are not a store of wealth, they are convenient for transactions.
A plot of land, a herd of cattle, a gold bar, a factory,... if the fed pumps in another 100,000 the valuation of these assets just goes up in dollars. Your real wealth is unaffected.
Re: (Score:2)
If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.
Is it really all that obvious? The costs associated with producing a candy bar will have changed over that time, and the amount that people earn has also changed for sure. It's better to scale things by average salary so that you're looking at how much stuff people can afford.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh lordie, do they teach kids nothing in school these days?
Inflation is where prices rise in the economy at a somewhat variable rate. If that rate is small but appreciable it means that storing your money in a mattress (where it does nothing for anyone) means that you effective LOSE spending power. Thus, inflation encourages people to INVEST their money, in shares, bonds, the money market, or even a good old savings account. This means that the money is USED, which grows the economy.
So, to carry on your g
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, inflation isn't necessarily "good" -- but deflation is *deadly*. When the most profitable thing you can do with a million dollars is put it in a safe and wait, business and economies grind to a halt and go down in flames. Especially things that cost a lot of money and have long supply chains. Would anyone knowingly and intentionally spend $250,000 to buy land and build a house that they'll only be able to sell for $180,000? Or spend $20,000 to build a car that will only be worth $18,000 wh
Re: (Score:2)
>>>issues that the Fed currently exists to handle
Let the Congress do it, per the Constitution, rather than a private company.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are state laws. I think it's a great idea to make it federal. Goddamned corporations are all thieving bastards who need to be kept on a tight leash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW binding arbitration doesn't mean much. Paypal tried to include that in their TOS but when they later were sued by State AGs for stealing money from customer accounts, the justice quickly nullified the clause as being in violation of consumer protection laws. He said that users cannot sign-away rights already protected by superior laws. Same applies here with the wireless carriers.
Sounds plausible. From a broader perspective one has to ask whether a corporation that tries to make customers sign contractual agreements that make them think they've forfeited inalienable legal rights is bargaining in good faith. It ranks up there with usury and breaking people's legs to make them pay up. It also ought to run right into our constitutional right to due process.
Re: (Score:1)
> He caved in a big way on health care
Here's his explanation:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210 [esquire.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. He stood firm on many important topics, and then compromised on a single topic because he thought it was for the greater good. If you're going to criticise him for that record, then you won't be happy with anyone.
I don't know if he was right to give in on Obamacare, but I can't think of any other US politician I'd trust as much.
eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Hmm this word you keep using... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier
That is the worst kept secret EVER. They are all evil, every last one of them, and if you don't know this by now then you must not have ever had a cellphone before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>A fraudulent 360$ bill made me simply stop paying for those services
I hope you did not pay. So can we hear the rest of the story? What happened that they charged you fraudulently? I was charged a similar amount for roaming calls, but it was not fraudulent - it was perfectly legal.
Your story reminds me of the Verizon customer that was charged 76 dollars when it should have been 76 cents. He eventually was given a full refund, although it took a month and an embarrassing website to get it. .00
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm this word you keep using... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
>>>Subsidizing all those "smart phones" that are worth $500 to $800 (more?) by scamming the public into accepting expensive two year contracts.
I don't see anything wrong with that. All you need to do is multiply 24 months by the rate, to see how much you will be spending, and decide whether or not it's a good bargain. Like when Dish Network installed a dish in my neighbor's house for ~$32.50 over two years. If he had to buy the dish and hire his own installer, it would be much more expensive th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything wrong with that. All you need to do is multiply 24 months by the rate, to see how much you will be spending, and decide whether or not it's a good bargain. ... If you disagree, well then just sign-on with one of those pay-as-you-go companies that sell the phone and service separately. .
Nothing wrong with that. But, after 24 mo the phone is paid for and the rate should be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, the phone should be unlocked so you have alternatives other than buying another phone and starting over at square 1. In effect, the equipment subsidy portion of the plan should by law be factored out as a separate financing article, with a stated APR and term.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, the phone should be unlocked so you have alternatives other than buying another phone and starting over at square 1.
On T-Mobile, at least, after some number of months (six in my case, and I had a two-year contract) if you call and ask them they'll give you the unlock codes right over the phone and tell you how to do it. Don't know about other carriers' policies.
It doesn't matter in most cases. You can go online to any number of sites that will sell you a calculated unlock code for your handset for maybe ten bucks or so. I've unlocked half a dozen different handsets that way (all GSM phones, of course, not much point i
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you think a text actually costs a company?
SMS? Nothing. They're part of the management packets transmitted between the phone and the towers anyway, and the bandwidth consumed is inconsequential.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The scam is that there's absolutely no real competition. (e.g. text messages should cost virtually nothing, so why does EVERY provider sell their "unlimited texts" plan for an extra $15 a month?)
Find a way to make the US cell phone market competitive, and you'll find better deals. Until then, I'd much, much rather have gov't intervention than the un-free-market solution we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Blocking local governments from building the infrastructure that the phone companies don't want to build anyway.
Proof please.
.
>>>Sending out zillion dollar phone bills without ever even questioning the crazy amounts.
Computers don't question. And humans don't look at these bills. It's all handled automatically, so if you get one of them, all you need to do is point-out the error and it will be corrected. I've done this several times over the years, and it's really no big deal.
.
>
Re: (Score:2)
2. Your partially correct there. The small packets sms uses are pretty light compared to voice or data usage. However, these "sms packets" are actually using the dead space in control packets. These packets, if sent to often, can negatively impact base station switch performance. This is why your texts will go through when you can't make a data or voice connection as well. If the tower gets overloaded with sms, it can crash.
So, the charges are to keep people (and software, which has crashed towers) from
Re: (Score:2)
Because the carriers "subsidize" everything down to a price people are willing to pay, they can put extreme markup on the off-contract phones, thus forcing everyone into cont
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh just shutup you stupid corporate troll. No one likes to read your drivel nearly as much as you do.
I dunno ... I think he's pretty much dead-on. Were you replying to the person to whom you thought you were replying?
I also dumped Comcast, and went to U-Verse as soon as I could, just because I got substantially better service for considerably less money, better tech support, and no billing errors. Delivered more than my rated line speed, so far as my Internet connection is concerned, with none of this "Power Boost" crap that Comcast foists on its customers, and I have a 2+ mbit/sec backchannel, which is
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the technology? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
Go ahead, ask around, I will wait.
I know I don't, and anyone with a smartphone is lucky if they are under the 100 mark (god help them if they have a family)... Smartphones are the new geek gold standard, and I for one want to keep an eye on carriers. They are up to some sneaky shit.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Verizon Droid: $40 voice, $30 "unlimited" data = about $85 after fees, insurance and taxes.
Re:Where's the technology? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what AT&T charges above the advertised rate for my wireless:
Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges:
* Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge: 0.66
* Federal Universal Service Charge: 1.04
* TX Franschise Tax Recovery: 0.30
* Texas Universal Service: 0.65
Taxes:
* 911 Service Fee: 0.50
* Tx State Telecom Tax: 2.72
* City Telecom Tax: 0.44
* City District Telecom Tax: 0.29
The important thing to note here is the "Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes. They are fees with names made up by AT&T to sound like taxes so customers won't complain. In reality this section is just an additional $2.65 monthly charge not included in the advertised rate. They should clearly state a rate for everything that is not taxes. But, of course, they are evil and regulation is weak so that will never happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Universal Service Fund really is a tax. The bill was written specifically to make the phone companies look bad (ha ha I know) by taxing them above and beyond normal federal tax rates, then giving them the option to pass the charge onto their customers. Every business on the planet is going to pass that tax on, but congress can look good by saying "Hey your evil phone carrier is not voluntarily taking this tax out of their profits!"
When possible, politicians try to have someone else collect their taxes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>"Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes.
Uh, yes, yes they are taxes (and all it took was a google search to find this shit):
- "The Federal Universal Service pays for four programs: Lifeline/Link-Up, High-Cost, Schools and Libraries, Rural Health Care (fcc.gov)
- TX Franschise Tax Recovery is a tax (www.state.tx.us)
- Texas Universal Service - ditto (www.state.tx.us)
- "The Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge is a charge assessed by AT&T associated with payment of government
Re:Where's the technology? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're taxes, yes. The thing is, they're taxes on the telco that they are passing through to you based on an estimation of your share" of their actual obligation. The money you pay the telco goes in their pocket and if they slightly over-collect from enough people they can pocket it. This is distinct from sales tax which mandates any over-collection to be turned over to the state. The "taxes" section is taxes you owe that the business collects on the government's behalf. This distinction is why they're separate.
Honestly, what a business should do when they get a tax increase is raise their rates. People object, of course, so the telcos lobby heavily to be allowed to "pass this on" directly so they don't look like the bad guy. In reality, it's a simple cost of doing business and should be rolled into the normal rate. At least, that's my opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm way under a hundred actually.
Now, in fairness tmobile has some nice pricing and my plan actually used to be cheaper. However, the moment I try to use a lower minute plan is when everyone wants to call me. That has probably more to do with karma then anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
I don't. My phone costs $0.00/month, and I'm billed per minute of use It's actually cheaper than my wired phone ($15).
I don't use the data features, because I'm almost always sitting in front of a computer when I need net access.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me? Up until recently, I spent ~$30 per month (including all the extra taxes and charges), but I decided that this was tossing money out the window, considering that I spent around 2 minutes of talk time and 5 minutes of data time each month.
One phone is a necessity.
Two is a convenience.
Three is a luxury.
None is heaven.
Re: (Score:2)
For a few months, I tried living without any phone service at all. It can be done.
Was pretty amusing whenever I was asked for a phone number. No one believed that I didn't have one. They took this attitude that I was just being difficult. The driver's license office was the worst. Would not proceed without a phone number. A valid passport wasn't enough for them. (Doesn't say good things about campaigning against cell phone use while driving, hmm? However I don't care for the implicit government sup
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $39.99/month including taxes for "T-Mobile Total Internet Voice Bar".
Unlimited data (I have regularly exceeded 1GB a month, and occasionally much higher when tethering).
SMS is enabled, but charged at $0.12 each. I don't use it anyway.
Voice calling is barred.
I bought a Nexus One at launch, and I have free incoming and outgoing voice and text courtesy of Google Voice.
I have a free SIPgate account to give me a number to forward GV to. I also have a Gizmo5 account, which is better integrated with GV, but
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $39.99/month including taxes for "T-Mobile Total Internet Voice Bar".
I asked about that in a Best Buy Mobile store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA. But they wouldn't sell me an Android phone up front, and they wouldn't sell me one subsidized by a data plan unless I signed up for $40/mo voice. I would use fewer than 10 percent of the included 450 minutes per month, and that'd be a heavy month for me. So I still have a dumbphone on Virgin Mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's not a "modern" smart phone, but the Treo650 can be had for $100 new on Ebay. Quad band GSM, web, email, ebooks, music, calender and it backs up to my linux pc.
Re: (Score:1)
How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
Go ahead, ask around, I will wait.
I pay ZERO for my telephone services. I'm disabled and used my lifeline benefit to get a free cell phone, via reachoutwireless, that includes 60 minutes per month. I use about 10 minutes each month and the unused minutes DO roll over. I have a Google Voice number that I give out to everyone so they can leave messages for me. But then, the only people who ever call are Doctor's offices reminding me of appointments.
Re: (Score:2)
T-mobile prepaid with no data plan and I pay about $15 a month on average.
Re: (Score:2)
Android pod touch? (Score:2)
It's not particularly useful to have an iPhone if you don't have a carrier.
Then explain the iPod touch and its App Store. What's the closest Android counterpart to iPod touch?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me remind you that Slashdot carries "news for nerds, stuff that matters" a category in which I believe this story falls.
Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Cell phones and mobile networks are technology. They are some of the most complicated consumer technology we have today, in fact. Anything and everything relating to such technology is surely fair game here at Slashdot, even if it involves the companies who provide the technology, or the consumers who use it. After all, they're the ones who drive the technological developments.
Just ban "forced arbitration" (Score:5, Insightful)
They should ban forced arbitration clauses in any one-sided contract including credit cards, telecommunications service, cable service and utility service.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just ban "forced arbitration" (Score:5, Insightful)
and employment contracts!
those are even worse and we all have a lot more to lose on those.
want to work for another company? is it related to what you do now? there is probably a 'no compete' clause that is actually illegal in your state and yet still prominently listed in your contract.
cell phones affect 'the masses' and the worst that happens is you lose your phone and get upset. its a problem but its not 'americas biggest problem' right now. not saying employment is, either, but its FAR more life damaging if your company wants to put the screws to you than some stupid cell phone toy gadget. you NEED your job (or a job) to live. no one NEEDS cellphones, those are toys for the rich (even though every single commercial tries to convince you that 'everyone needs a cellphone'). I lived decades and decades without carry a portable phone. its NOT needed!
but jobs, those are needed.
forced arb. in employment contracts are far more evil an than any cellphone co.
and nothing is being done about the state of employment contracts.
arbitration is evil but why is congress only attacking the cellphone part of the problem?
Hired someone because he picked up (Score:2)
no one NEEDS cellphones, those are toys for the rich
Unless you're competing with a hundred other people for the same position, and your employer picked someone else because someone else picked up the phone for a callback after the callback to your number went to an answering machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Is forced arbitration bad if both sides have equal say in the arbitration process?
Re: (Score:1)
It's often not just "forced arbitration", but "arbitration in state X"... so there's some expensive travel involved too. On top of that, the carrier is going to try and find an arbitrator who commonly favors its side, so you're pretty much screwed.
Arbitration in which state? (Score:2)
Is forced arbitration bad if both sides have equal say in the arbitration process?
The sides rarely have equal say. For example, the larger party often reserves the right to choose the state in which arbitration happens.
Arbitration == Corporate Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Arbitration is essentially a system of parallel, private courts run by corporations, for corporations and for the express purpose of denying justice and avoiding the laws of the land. It's an absolutely corrupt system and should not be allowed to exist in any form whatsoever. Allowing seemingly innocuous instances of this practice has lead to private companies forcing rape victims to give up their rights [youtube.com]. Corporation employees can abuse people in any way they please and can rely on their own private courts to avoid any reprecussions. Judges support this creeping privatisation of the judiciary as they are rewarded with handsome salaries as the private magistrates of these twisted courts.
Around the time of the Jamie Leigh Jones rape arbitration scandal, I remember speaking with someone in management about arbitration--I live in Ireland. He claimed that the trend in business--magazines, conferences and so on--was pushing arbitration heavily. As the "modern" way of doing business. The conversation sent a chill down my spine. The laws of my country and the people in it were being put in dire jeopardy, our legal protections being replaced right under our noses by this latest innovation in American savagery. At least I live in the EU; I can only imagine what must be occurring in Latin America or indeed the US itself.
Arbitration is lawlessness. It is rule by the powerful over the weak. It's not even a form of order, as arbitration courts have no strict rules, no obligation to consider precedent, no means of appeal, and are not even obliged to publish their rulings, let alone have an open court. The North Koreans have a more enlightened legal system--and again that is not hyperbole. Any society that accepts the rule of such courts has abandoned all pretence of justice and equality and has turned the clock back a thousand years before even the Magna Carta. And no other society should follow them down the path to ruin.
Ummmmm... No (Score:2)
Arbitration is a system for settling disputes easier, with less cost to parties involved, and less weight on the justice system. Doesn't mean it should be used for everything (or perhaps even for most things) but it is useful, and isn't an invention of companies. The government can use arbitrations too. Where I live, any traffic insurance suit under $25,000 goes to arbitration, not court. That is state law, not private companies saying anything. The reason is there's a lot of that little shit that happens.
Re:Ummmmm... No (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and this is done by denying people their rights. It's much cheaper to pay a rent-a-judge to deliver the verdict you'd prefer; I'm not disputing that. But my position is that this is an illegitimate system, and is essentially lawlessness in a pinstriped suit.
It was the purest form of arbitration. The whole rotten system was laid bare for the world to see just how corrupt it really was, and exactly what its true purpose is. There are numerous examples of companies having people signaway their rights with smallprint mines in contracts. It's fraud, and the financial system once again leads the way, with credit card contracts being rife with these crooked mandatory binding arbitration clauses.
So where there is no law, we must rely on private industry to make its own. No. Never. Better no law at all than a corporate one--and that's not hyperbole!
Re: (Score:2)
No it is NOT done by denying people rights. What part of the "You still have a right to trial," did you see? Also please note in the case I'm talking about this is NOT A CORPORATE MATTER. It is a matter of state law, you know, the same state that runs the courts. It is a cost measure, pure and simple, and preserves rights at the same time. Works well. That doesn't mean all arbitration works well, but it means not all of it is evil.
And no, we don't need no law, we need to deal better with the problems of mil
Re:Ummmmm... No (Score:4, Insightful)
Arbitration is useful in many circumstances.. just not when it's in one-sided contracts. My grandfather, for example, served as an arbiter for quite a few years after he retired. Most of the disputes he presided over had to do with local business disputes over payment, quality of goods, etc.. they were too large to be adjudicated in small claims court, and too small for it to make sense paying lawyers for full blown civil litigation. Sometimes there initially would be a court filing, and the judge would recommend the parties go to arbitration instead since it would be cheaper for both, in which case most of the time the parties both go and select a mutually acceptable arbiter.
The main problem with arbitration occurs when one party gets to choose the arbiter, which leads to moral hazards and conflicts of interest. Even consumer-corporation binding arbitration would not ipso-facto be a bad thing, so long as the consumer had equal say in choosing the arbiter (which would tend towards local arbiters). The two problems with binding arbitration in the consumer contract world is that the corporation chooses the arbitration firm, and the locale. This means that it's often no cheaper for the consumer to go into arbitration than it would be for them to sue (since say, they live in Kansas and the arbitration firm is in California), while the corporation can put a lot of pressure on the arbitration firm to find in their favor as the price of continued business.
As long as arbitration remains essentially local, and the arbiter is mutually acceptable to both parties, it's often a lot cheaper while being just as equitable as a civil tort (more so in some cases, since you can pick an arbiter that has expert field knowledge, rather than hoping the judge is a quick learner).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>private companies forcing rape victims to give up their rights
Nice spin, but you blatantly skipped a crucial piece of information - The rape happened in Iraq, not here at home where US laws apply. No corporation could ever get away with raping a woman on US soil, and then force her to go to arbitration. The US and State Laws would apply.
.
>>>At least I live in the EU; I can only imagine what must be occurring in Latin America or indeed the US itself.
Yeah it's like the Wild West in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One is never obligated to enter into a contract requiring arbitration. I solve the problems you mention by not supporting companies that require it in the terms for their services.
That may be technically true, but when one wants to be a normal functioning member of society, sometimes one needs the services provided by companies that have an arbitration clause in their contracts (and there is usually no competitive offer available from another company that does not include a similar clause in their contracts). Furthermore, since most of the public is generally unaware of arbitration and its implications, they're likely to skip over the fine print and just assume that it must be OK, s
Re: (Score:2)
>>>When all companies in a market have an arbitration clause in their contracts, the people can't choose an alternative
Bullshit.
You always have a right to drag the father-fuckers at Comcast or Verizon or Sprint into a US court room. Stop spreading misinformation that you don't have that right.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>When all companies in a market have an arbitration clause in their contracts, the people can't choose an alternative
Bullshit.
You always have a right to drag the father-fuckers at Comcast or Verizon or Sprint into a US court room. Stop spreading misinformation that you don't have that right.
I never said you can't sue them, I said you can't choose a competing product. You have the right to sue anybody for any reason. Of course, they have much better funded lawyers than I can afford, but if you think you can win, go for it!
Re:Arbitration == Corporate Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
So is any con game. Victims are willingly tricked into deals designed to hurt them. But that's not enough to make it legal, let alone ethical.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>>>Victims are willingly tricked into deals designed to hurt them. But that's not enough to make it legal, let alone ethical.
It's not government's job to protect us from making bad decisions (as if we were children). We are not truly free, unless we are also free to be stupid stuff like smoke marijuana, drink until we die, or participate in foolish monetary transactions (like lottery tickets that have almost-zero odds of paying off).
Re: (Score:2)
That horse is dead. It's not just purified, it's a liquid.
You can feel free to go live naked in a cave congratulating yourself if you want, but many people actually want more out of life.
There's nothing wrong with society simply declaring that jamming a hot poker up someone's ass is illegal and calling it good.
Re: (Score:2)
We forbid contracts which let one sell oneself into slavery for a reason, even if they are signed *completely voluntarily*.
Reason being, life is a complicated thing, and more often than not those *completely voluntary* clauses are signed under duress, and when person is not capable of fully understanding the long-term consequences of their actions. You may say that they deserve what they get for that. I say that humans make mistakes, and that there is absolutely nothing positive for the society to gain in a
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
^ Troll.
And no proof to back-up the little "factoid" you pulled out of someplace smelly.
Dennis Kucinich is in two stories in one day. (Score:1)
Hrrrrm What is Congress up to (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that the Federal Government did not do anything to get arbitration removed by Credit Card issuing banks.
What happened was that the banks used an organization called NAF which was literally funded by the banks. Of course NAF found for the banks 99% of the time. Then the MN Attorney General looking to make a name for herself took NAF to task and NAF folded. That left 2 arbitration forums that were more expensive for the banks and more consumer friendly than NAF.
Some consumers actually read their contract and when they were brought to court for not paying their debts, used the contract against the banks to force the banks into paying 5-figure arbitration fees for 4-figure debts. The court judges in some states started to go along with the consumers. Hence, the banks removed arbitration from their contracts because they could not outright use it to screw over the customer anymore. Of course, the banks have a 98% success rate in court but that is because people do not answer the cases when summoned and even if they do answer, most answer "I cannot afford to pay".
Do a search on credit debt collection boards and you will find what I mean about the above.
So, since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did. Are they trying to turn this into something like the Providian case where they OCC entered at the last minute then turned around and said that state AGs cannot take banks to court for violations using that case as a success (again, look up Providian Credit Card Case)? I wonder if they are trying to protect the cell phone companies rather than the consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did
The Congress has the right to lie.
So too does the EU Parliament.
Take credit for things that were performed by a completely separate government (MN).
...in Canada (Score:1)
Forced arbitration is already unenforceable in provinces such BC and Ontario. Why don't they just bury in the contract that you forfeit your first born in the event of a dispute. Contract language needs limits, market forces alone are insufficient.
It's About Corruption (Score:2)
Normally the Constitution is taken to mean that a person maintains their rights even when they do not want those rights. The expectation of the right to trial by jury is normal. The notion that one can sign away one's right to the protections of the justice system holds no water at all and has only been tolerated because the big money players wanted it in place.The worm has turned.
wasn't there a feceral circuit precedent on this? (Score:2)
Re:ooh ooh can it be removed form job contracts ne (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing inherently wrong with mandatory arbitration -- it is a cheaper way to resolve a dispute than going to court. However, like all decisions, even one made by a judge or jury, the decisionmakers have inbuilt biases and/or philosophies (I have no desire to argue over semantics, thank you very much).
The problem with mass arbitration is that the ordinally sensible rules of arbitration are susceptible to gamesmanship, and the repeat player, i.e., in these cases the phone companies, have superior information that permits them to shift the odds of a favorable decision substantially towards them.
In normal binding arbitration, each side has some ability to shape the arbitrator by objecting to the randomly assigned arbitrator (if there is a single arbitrator), or some of the members of the panel (if there is a panel of 3, the usual but less common alternative).
Joe Schmoe may have been to arbitration once before in his life. He has no reason to object to an arbitrator that he doesn't know from Adam. MegaCorp keeps records of all its arbitration results. It knows that Arbitrator X rules against it in some non-trivial percentage of the cases before him/her. It objects in the hope of pulling another Arbitrator who is more favorable to it. Arbitrator X does not get paid for being an arbitrator in that case. Lather, rinse, and repeat. On average, the panels can be shifted to be more favorable to MegaCorp by strategic objection (object if record is unfavorable, do not if record is favorable), and Arbitrator X is not making nearly as good of a living as Arbitrator Y because he/she keeps getting removed from potential arbitrations. Arbitrator Y is making a good living due to a good record. You do not need to assign 'evil' motives to Arbitrator Y -- the pool of arbitrators will naturally enrich with those who are philosophically favorable to MegaCorp.
And that, my friends, is why one never ever agrees to binding arbitration involving a repeat player who is permitted to object without cause. Of course, if you are facing a take-it-or-leave-it situation where the practice pervades an entire industry, then you need to turn to those dirty interventionist liberals (says the generally libertarian lawyer -- individuals have liberties, corporations not so much).
And what's wrong with that? (Score:2)
Maybe I don't want to pay higher phone bills to cover the costs of lawsuits from other customers.
Arbitration is less expensive, and more predictable as you're not throwing things in front of juries all the time. That's not to say it hasn't been abused, but how about tweaking the process a bit instead of tossing it completely?
Maybe you can have forced arbitration, but the customer gets to choose the arbiter, the company pays for the arbitrator, and the customer can still bring a lawyer if they want to?
Also
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
This is the third 6-digit UID I've seen posting single sentences with Goatse goo.gl links... maybe someone is hacking /. accounts?
Re:In California - (Score:5, Informative)
I'd care MORE about employment contracts and forced arbitration.
note: sorry for the very long post, but its important as it deals with employment in the tech field.
I spent a good month dealing with an asshole company who would not give in on basic simple concepts. they created an employment contract, I rejected many lines in it and asked them to rewrite it. at first they understood that what they were asking for was illegal in california and unenforceable. a week later, their legal 'team' refused to edit even a single line in the employment contract. we tried another tact and gave them our own (I was going thru a middelman at the time) contract which I believed was a lot more fair to both sides. they refused.
this went around and around for over a month. in the end, I walked away, at the advice of pretty much everyone.
cellphones are BS, I can (and do) live well without one. nope, I don't own or carry one (at all). but I do need to have a job and the jobs are coming with 'strings attached' when you read the current crop of contracts.
even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
I learned one thing: when you get an employment offer, say 'thanks!' and then follow it with 'as soon as my lawyer reviews this, I'll get back to you'. non-confrontational but do NOT EVER EVER EVER sign an employment contract (these days) without YOUR legal guy looking it over.
the way it has to work (again, as I learned my lesson) is: my 'guy' will call your guy and they'll talk legal shit to each other. 'where did you go to law school? oh yeah, did you know so and so?' etc etc.
they connect and they review the doc and say 'you don't REALLY think its legal or fair to ask for clause #3, do you?' and it progresses with both lawyers comparing dick sizes (so to speak) and eventually coming to an agreement. what makes this work is that they both know that they know the laws and you can't BS a BSer. that's one key concept. the other is that you have to allow your layer to be the 'bad guy' and you should NEVER come off to the new company as the bad guy. you WANT to sign that contract but your lawyer (the 'bad guy') won't let you. you appear good to the new company but you also do NOT give up your rights.
in the end, the company respects you, you KNOW you have a fair contract and no 'cannot work for competitors for next 10 years' BS clauses in there. your lawyer played good cop/bad cop with you and the company and you get a straight deal.
if you do not do that, dollars to donuts you signed an indentured servant contract and didn't even realize it.
especially NOW when the econ is in the dumps, companies are trying to screw you over with your employment contract. they count on the fact that you are 'desparate' enough to sign anything.
don't object to HR when you are there. smile, thank them and tell them that as soon as your 'guy' checks this over, you'll be happy to sign it. then let your hired guy defend you before you sign that rotton scummy endentured servant agreement.
lesson learned! please use this procedure next time you get an offer letter. I've found that in sofware (my field) almost NO ONE reads or even tries to cross out any lines in their contract. get a lawyer. its not just for 'top execs' anymore. we ALL need those guys to review our docs and fight for us.
(you would not believe the legally unenforceable things in the text of my last contract. it made me and my recruiter pretty sick, I'll tell you.)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
If the clauses are unenforceable inside the state, then it doesn't need to be crossed out. It's automatically null-and-void. I would have signed the contract rather than lose the money, and only concerned myself with those bits that are legally enforceable (like how easy can you be terminated).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not pony up for a lawyer the last time around, so I don't know the rates.
I don't care about the rates. its a one-time fee, more or less, for the duration of the job.
some things to worry about: non-compete clauses; sections that talk about what the company 'owns' when it buys you (hint: if you do your own software work on the side or ANY business, the company you are applying for seems to think - these days - that they get to own ALL your efforts. even if not related to the core business!
example from
Re: (Score:2)
follow-up as a point of clarification.
when first trying to negotiate with this company, I did not hire a lawyer. THAT was my mistake. while I was correct about this and that clause being technically unenforceable, the fact that I did not have a law degree meant that it was 'just my personal view' and it carries zero weight.
yes, you can be technically correct but if you don't posess 'credentials', others who don't have to believe you, won't.
that was the case here. I tried to explain why this and that was