HR 4445 -- Educate me, please

[NorrinRadd]

Can someone give me a primer on HR 4445, and whether it is more "good" or "bad" for women that Biden signed it?

A lady friend was appalled that has been enacted, interpreting this as a removal of protections for women. My off-the-cuff reaction is that ending "forced" arbitration gives women more options. I'd appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable.

[CivilDiscourse]

Can someone give me a primer on HR 4445, and whether it is more "good" or "bad" for women that Biden signed it?

A lady friend was appalled that has been enacted, interpreting this as a removal of protections for women. My off-the-cuff reaction is that ending "forced" arbitration gives women more options. I'd appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable.

Ending forced arbitration, in general, is a good thing. Arbitration companies have an incentive to be biased in favor of companies over individuals. This is because a large company is more likely to be repeat business than an individual, and ruling against them increases the risk they take their arbitration business elsewhere.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I agree with CivilDiscourse . Arbitration will generally favor the company and disadvantage women. I think women now have more protection because employers have to consider the possibility of a lawsuit and the negative publicity that would follow.

[rogue06]

If arbitration is such a bad thing then why is it only being prohibited in this instance?

[Ronson]

Ending forced arbitration, in general, is a good thing. Arbitration companies have an incentive to be biased in favor of companies over individuals. This is because a large company is more likely to be repeat business than an individual, and ruling against them increases the risk they take their arbitration business elsewhere.

This is one point where I absolutely differed from Rand Paul when he voted against class action suits in favor of arbitration. I got into a contested contract battle with AT&T and the only option was through arbitration - supplied by AT&T. So AT&T was the arbiter's repeat customer and I was a small fry "one-off." Like I was going to get any justice out of that. I ended up just tearing up the contract and pleading my case to the credit agencies and won my battle that way.

[CivilDiscourse]

If arbitration is such a bad thing then why is it only being prohibited in this instance?

The cynic in me would point out that corporations who lobby the government LIKE arbitration. So they'd fight getting rid of it altogether.

Beyond that, arbitration is a valid means of dealing with a dispute. It may be quicker and faster than winding through the court system, and it may end up being cheaper as well. I also believe arbitration isn't public like court cases are.

As I said, it tends to create an incentive for bias. This doesn't mean that every case under arbitration will go the corporations way, especially if the evidence is overwhelming. But it means that if your case is less clear cut, there is incentive to keep the repeat customer happy as opposed to the person who will likely never use you again.

Personally, I believe these blanket "arbitration contracts" should be banned, and arbitration should only be able to be agreed upon once a complaint is made.

[Sparko]

If arbitration is such a bad thing then why is it only being prohibited in this instance?

arbitration isn't always bad. FORCED arbitration usually is, because the side forcing it (the company) usually has an ulterior motive for forcing it - e.g. saving themselves from being sued.

But arbitration can be good because (as long as the arbitrator is neutral) it saves the cost of a law suit for both parties. It is usually done in contract disputes.

[Gondwanaland]

Can someone give me a primer on HR 4445, and whether it is more "good" or "bad" for women that Biden signed it?

A lady friend was appalled that has been enacted, interpreting this as a removal of protections for women. My off-the-cuff reaction is that ending "forced" arbitration gives women more options. I'd appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable.

Unless I'm missing something I don't see it being bad for anyone other than perhaps the corporations that abuse the forced arbitration system to silence employees over mistreatment, etc..

(And I should note there's nothing gendered about the bill so it would not just be for women either, it can help men who have cases wrt sexual assault, etc.)