Forums | MacLife

::: Moderated for response to a personal attack ::::

Last edited by sturner (2009-10-13 10:08 am)

::: Moderated for response not answering the debate ::::

Last edited by sturner (2009-10-13 10:09 am)

Tallgeese wrote:

Only super feminists get upset over derogatory sexism.

QFT.

I use the "C" word all the time and no reasonable person has ever taken offense. And I don't mean "Chick".

jerwin wrote:

isaly wrote:

Apparently resedit appears to imply that the Franken amendment is both unnecessary and grandstanding on the part of Franken because rape is already illegal. . . which seems to show the lack of basic comprehension on the part of both resedit anyone who would defend his dissembling.

Read the transcript I linked to earlier. It doesn't really matter that rape is illegal, if it's not prosecuted.

Good government isn't good out of the goodness of its leaders's hearts. Good government is good because it is  designed that way.

I may be misreading this but it seems to me that the corporatists want to get to a point such that a contract trumps everything. You cannot have any recourse to redress for any tort or other act of malfeasance your employer commits against you if you signed a contract foregoing access to the courts in favor of arbitration, which is basically a provision of accepting employment.

In other words, any contract of adhesion you sign with a corporation overrides your right to access to the courts to air any grievance concerning anything they do to you.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

.

I see no problem at all with severely restricting or outright outlawing arbitration.
We already have a perfectly sound court system and corporations should not be able to hide out in a private, for profit, court system slanted in their favor.
I think your concern about this effecting corporations badly is without merit. If no one can insist on arbitration then everyone is competing on an even playing field. They might even end up with better talent, people who are smart enough to refuse to sign away their rights.

Earlier this year one of only two companies that do arbitration for the credit card industry came under investigation or even indictment, I forget which, for being in bed with the banks they arbitrate for. The other, perhaps concerned, refused further cases pending an 'internal review of [their] practices,' or something to that effect.

Did everyone know credit cards have arbitration contracts? Everyone happy now?

Thought not.

::::: MODERATOR WARNING::::

Look over the last couple of pages.

I think you should be concerned that so many posts were moderated. Any further lack of civility or failure to address the debate will result in this thread being locked.

:: moderated for questioning ancestry of moderators ::

::moderated for calling a spade a spade::

Grandkids try to pull the plug again?

Bat wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

.

I see no problem at all with severely restricting or outright outlawing arbitration.
We already have a perfectly sound court system and corporations should not be able to hide out in a private, for profit, court system slanted in their favor.
I think your concern about this effecting corporations badly is without merit. If no one can insist on arbitration then everyone is competing on an even playing field. They might even end up with better talent, people who are smart enough to refuse to sign away their rights.

Earlier this year one of only two companies that do arbitration for the credit card industry came under investigation or even indictment, I forget which, for being in bed with the banks they arbitrate for. The other, perhaps concerned, refused further cases pending an 'internal review of [their] practices,' or something to that effect.

Did everyone know credit cards have arbitration contracts? Everyone happy now?

Thought not.

You are referring to this, I believe. Please note the following:

In an unexpected turn, two major arbitration firms have decided to stop resolving disputes between customers and their credit card companies and cell phone providers. This move has made it impossible for unsatisfied customers from filing lawsuits.
[bold added]

I'm even happier now!

sturner wrote:

Is that site written by a person who has English as a first language? Or is simply a poor writer?

I think they deal with credit card language so I would allow them some sympathy.

We don't need private courts, private armies or private prisons. All should be outlawed.