It’s been a rough couple of weeks for power-hungry bureaucrats. Recently, the General Accountability…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
GAO Says CMS Lacks Authority to Bail Out ObamaCare Insurers

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for power-hungry bureaucrats.

Recently, the General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report faulting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for being unable to produce itemized spending documents, and thus not complying with federal audit guidelines.

This week, the non-partisan government watchdog agency issued a legal opinion saying CMS does not have the authority to bail out ObamaCare-aligned insurance companies, unless Congress agrees.

GAO’s non-binding but influential legal opinion was generated by a request from congressional Republicans concerned about a CMS announcement that it would use money appropriated for other activities to fund ObamaCare’s “risk corridor” program.

Risk corridors refer to a scheme within…[more]

October 01, 2014 • 06:29 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
A Tale of Two Arbitrations: Big Labor Commences One Ambush While Trial Lawyers Prepare Another Print
By CFIF Staff
Thursday, March 19 2009

Arbitration is ordinarily a very good thing.  But it can sometimes be a very bad thing. 

Distinguishing the two will become very critical, very soon. 

Why?  Because Big Labor and trial lawyers are preparing a two-pronged arbitration assault before Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi exhaust what remains of their political capital. 

The term “arbitration” itself usually refers to a dispute resolution procedure that occurs outside of the traditional courtroom. 

In that arena, arbitration is similar to traditional court litigation in that opposing sides present their best evidence and arguments to neutral arbitrators (usually former judges), who then render a decision after applying the law to the facts.  Additionally, arbitration provides the same remedies that courts provide, and the decisions are just as binding and enforceable. 

But there are many differences between voluntary arbitration and traditional litigation, which make voluntary arbitration very beneficial. 

First, voluntary arbitration achieves resolution much faster than litigation in overburdened courts, and it is more confidential and non-public.  This results in fewer disruptions to the parties’ everyday lives, and facilitates greater peace of mind. 

Another advantage of arbitration over traditional litigation is that it is much less costly and tedious for all sides, primarily because it streamlines the evidentiary discovery process.  Finally, voluntary arbitration dramatically reduces the likelihood of outrageous jury verdicts and unfair decisions, because neutral arbitrators are better-trained and more familiar with the issues in dispute. 

These advantages explain precisely why voluntary arbitration is good for the economy and employment market, and why trial lawyers hate it. 

After all, trial lawyers thrive upon costly litigation, potentially outrageous jury awards, attorneys’ fees and litigant inconvenience in order to extort larger settlements and pursue “jackpot jury justice.”  Consequently, federal legislation to prohibit or drastically restrict voluntary arbitration agreements stands atop the trial lawyers’ lobby wish list.  This is particularly true regarding arbitration of employment disputes, but attacking arbitration in consumer contracts and other agreements is also a principal tort lawyer goal. 

Therefore, federal legislation to overturn voluntary arbitration could come at any time, and defeating it will be critical. 

As mentioned at the outset, however, arbitration can sometimes be a very bad thing. 

Namely, as it applies to the current debate over union card-check, otherwise known by its Orwellian title of the “Employee Free Choice Act.” 

This form of arbitration is involuntary, and imposed by government as a tool of Big Labor during contract negotiations.   When that occurs, arbitration only serves to eliminate workers’ freedom to determine their working conditions. 

As many people already know, card-check literally abolishes the secret ballot during union organizing elections, and replaces it with a menacing process in which union organizers approach employees at their homes, outside the workplace or in public areas such as supermarkets and suggest in their notoriously intimidating manner a card expressing union preference.  Imagine, for instance, that Democrat or Republican campaign workers were suddenly able to approach voters at their homes and publicly intimidate them into voting for candidates by card-check instead of the secret ballot, and you get the idea. 

In addition to eliminating the secret ballot in union elections, however, card-check legislation would also impose a mandatory arbitration clause that is just as undemocratic and potentially destructive as eliminating the secret ballot. 

Under this mandatory arbitration provision, workers and employers would lose much of their ability to determine the terms and conditions under which they work.  Instead, government-chosen arbitrators, who have no stake in the preservation of workers’ jobs or continued viability of the business itself, would unilaterally impose contract terms after just 120 days. 

That’s good for Big Labor, but bad for employers and workers, who would lose their freedom to set terms and conditions of the workplace. 

According to statistical analysis by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar of the Social Science Research Network, this will destroy 600,000 jobs in the first year alone. 

Whether Big Labor succeeds or fails in saddling our already-weakened job climate with card-check legislation and its mandatory arbitration clause, however, the trial lawyers’ industry is preparing for its own assault on voluntary arbitration. 

So be prepared for this critical upcoming battle, and keep this important distinction between the two forms of arbitration in mind.

Question of the Week   
When did the Secret Service assume full-time responsibility for the protection of the President of the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The United States military and intelligence community have learned a lot over the past decade of conflict. Our commander in chief, unfortunately, has not. Since the start of his administration, President Barack Obama has ignored his generals and the intelligence community. Over the past few weeks, he has half-heartedly pursued a strategy that destines us to fail in our mission, and over the past…[more]
 
 
—Joseph Miller, Daily Caller. Joseph Miller is the pen name for a senior Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
— Joseph Miller, Daily Caller. Joseph Miller is the pen name for a senior Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Liberty Poll   

In selecting a nominee to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General, will President Obama choose someone who is less ideological and less divisive to serve as the country’s chief law enforcement officer?