Arbitration

Arbitration doesn't necessarily have to be stacked in favor of the company, it depends how they choose the arbitrators.  What we did at the paper mill was a list of arbitrators would be set up ahead of time, with half of them chosen by the company and half of them chosen by the union.  Then their names would be listed in alphabetical order and, when a case came up, they would use the next arbitrator on the list.  Some arbitrators had a reputation for favoring the companies, and some were known for favoring the unions, so a certain amount of luck was involved in the draw.  Nevertheless, I think most of the arbitrators were pretty fair. 

Arbitrators are a lot like a judges, but they can only hear cases that fall within their specialty which, in our case, was labor and contract law.  Each side presents their case, witnesses are called and the other side gets to cross examine your witnesses.  Written and oral arguments are presented, and the arbitrator renders his judgement in writing.  It's a lot like a court proceeding.   Real courts will usually not intervene in a labor dispute until all other avenues are exhausted, and they generally will not overturn an arbitrator's decision unless it violates the law. 

The case we have been discussing seemed to me to be consistent with all this, except it doesn't appear that these guys were unionized, so the arbitration agreements in question were probably not negotiated contracts.  They were likely required by the employers as a condition of employment, meaning that they won't hire you if you don't sign the agreement.  Trying to overthrow them after the fact would seem to be difficult, since the employees signed them "voluntarily".  There is another one like that called an "at will" agreement.  An "at will" employee may be fired "with or without notice and with or without cause".  I haven't heard of that one being tested in the courts, but it ought to be.  I tell you, there is no future in working for a living in this country anymore.  I think that, if I was a young kid starting out today, I would just be a bum.

Our local paper is pretty fair about the content of their editorial page.  The editor himself mostly talks about local issues, and seems to follow the consensus of the people as he sees it.  They have some local contributors, and they also feature guest columns and editorials that come in on the wire.  If they print a conservative article one day, they usually print a liberal one the next day, although not necessarily on the same subject.  I don't remember seeing one from Bloomberg before, but I assume it's the same Bloomberg that has their own cable channel which caters to financial interests.  As such, you'd think they would be politically conservative, but maybe they try to be balanced about it like our local editor.

 Score another one for the good guys. Could it be that the tide is turning?
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAxOahp?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare