Semi-OT: Forced Arbitration/How it affects us all

[ViperGTS]

A law school friend of mine sent me this. It's around 19 minutes but it pertains to the TB case in my opinion, such that the Supreme Court allowed in a ruling to allow for arbiters to violate labor law with no repercussions. If they allow that, what will they allow? The fact that the justices advocated violating the law in their Brady opinion now is much more clear to me.

It also is something that is in just about all of our lives, unbeknownst to us. Unless you read the fine print.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

I've put a little bit of time into researching this same issue for a law prof., motivated by the Brady case. Some of the effects of arbitration are pretty upsetting. I look forward to watching this video.

 

[ViperGTS]

I've put a little bit of time into researching this same issue for a law prof., motivated by the Brady case. Some of the effects of arbitration are pretty upsetting. I look forward to watching this video.

When you realize the Supreme Court stated you can violate labor laws as an arbiter and have no repercussions you will understand the loser justices that wrote the opinion they did for TBs case. Stunning.

 

[VectorPrime]

Hopefully this whole mess has at least convinced some people that 99% of the time you should support labor over management. Because management will always try and f.uck you.

 

[Wheelman]

Seriously Americans. You need to unite and stand up for America. That's not freaking right.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

When you realize the Supreme Court stated you can violate labor laws as an arbiter and have no repercussions you will understand the loser justices that wrote the opinion they did for TBs case. Stunning.

Which Supreme Court decision are you referring to?

I already understand the way the 2nd circuit wrote its opinion. I don't like the result, but I think they correctly interpreted the CBA and their role according to the federal arbitration act. The CBA is one sided and the players agreed to it. Presumably, they agreed to this for some reason ($).

 

[ViperGTS]

Which Supreme Court decision are you referring to?

I already understand the way the 2nd circuit wrote its opinion. I don't like the result, but I think they correctly interpreted the CBA and their role according to the federal arbitration act. The CBA is one sided and the players agreed to it. Presumably, they agreed to this for some reason ($).

The Italian Colors v American Express that was discussed in the video. Also, if you understand the Brady opinion they stated that it is okay for a mistake of fact or law to be made. That is a quaint way for a federal judge to say "hey, in your decisions, go ahead and break the law..we've got your back.". A federal judge. It was suprising to me..even shocking until I saw/heard the Italian Colors case decision. It makes sense now. It's illegal and corrupt, but who cares? It's just the 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court after all. The upholders and guardians of the law and all.

Also, I highly doubt the players association agreed to an arbiter (Goodell) making mistakes of fact or law when they negotiated the CBA.

 

[IllegalContact]

Don't be surprised if this does get to the Supreme Court..........there are some relatively interesting repercussions when it comes to labor as a whole from this case. If it does get there, this will not get decided during the remainder of Brady's career....I would be real interested if they don't stay the suspension, but do hear the case. At that point, the league would open itself to massive punitive damages

 

[primetime]

Which Supreme Court decision are you referring to?

I already understand the way the 2nd circuit wrote its opinion. I don't like the result, but I think they correctly interpreted the CBA and their role according to the federal arbitration act. The CBA is one sided and the players agreed to it. Presumably, they agreed to this for some reason ($).

There have been a whole slew of SCOTUS decisions that have gutted judicial oversight of binding arbitration in both labor and consumer class action cases. Off the top of my head, Graniterock and DirecTV are two of them along with Italian Colors, as mentioned in this video. These decisions have essentially ceded all decisions to a second judicial system, one that doesn't even have the tenuous ties to democratic process that the judiciary does. As such, many of these agreements allow corporations to appoint their own arbitrators, i.e. judges to hear cases brought by or against consumers or employees.

The CBA allowed the NFL to appoint itself as an arbitrator; it's judge, jury, and executioner. SCOTUS would have to reverse this precedent to allow judicial oversight, and the Brady case is a possible place where it could happen. However, it would likely go 4-4 right now and the lower court decision would stand; if Garland becomes a justice, he's pretty soft on labor issues, so it's not a slam dunk that Brady would win either.

Yes, it's very bad.

 

[ViperGTS]

There have been a whole slew of SCOTUS decisions that have gutted judicial oversight of binding arbitration in both labor and consumer class action cases. Off the top of my head, Graniterock and DirecTV are two of them along with Italian Colors, as mentioned in this video. These decisions have essentially ceded all decisions to a second judicial system, one that doesn't even have the tenuous ties to democratic process that the judiciary does. As such, many of these agreements allow corporations to appoint their own arbitrators, i.e. judges to hear cases brought by or against consumers or employees.

The CBA allowed the NFL to appoint itself as an arbitrator; it's judge, jury, and executioner. SCOTUS would have to reverse this precedent to allow judicial oversight, and the Brady case is a possible place where it could happen. However, it would likely go 4-4 right now and the lower court decision would stand; if Garland becomes a justice, he's pretty soft on labor issues, so it's not a slam dunk that Brady would win either.

Yes, it's very bad.

Bingo. I'd add it's criminal charge worthy for the Supreme Court justices who voted for it. When you don't uphold the law, you get to have the law used against you. Simple.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

The Italian Colors v American Express that was discussed in the video. Also, if you understand the Brady opinion they stated that it is okay for a mistake of fact or law to be made. That is a quaint way for a federal judge to say "hey, in your decisions, go ahead and break the law..we've got your back.". A federal judge. It was suprising to me..even shocking until I saw/heard the Italian Colors case decision. It makes sense now. It's illegal and corrupt, but who cares? It's just the 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court after all. The upholders and guardians of the law and all.

Also, I highly doubt the players association agreed to an arbiter (Goodell) making mistakes of fact or law when they negotiated the CBA.

Well, that's all your interpretation. The law actually is the opposite of your quote - it would be against the law for a judge to submit his own findings of fact in place of the arbitrators.

As I said in another thread, Berman acknowledged that Goodell's findings of facts were not subject to judicial scrutiny in his opinion, because that's the law. When the NFLPA's labor lawyers negotiated the CBA, which explicitly allow Goodell to name himself arbitrator, they knew that it'd be him making the official record's findings of fact. In a negotiated agreement between two represented parties, the assumption a court will make is that every bit of the agreement was negotiated and agreed upon, not snuck in the back door via some means of unfair dealing.

The point of the Fed Arb. Act is that the mistakes an arbitrator has to make to trigger judicial scrutiny have to be very egregious. Berman thought they were (procedurally), but the 2nd Cir disagreed. Here's the operative part of the law:

(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration--

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.​

(b) If an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
(c) The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.


9 U.S.C. § 10​

The Berman decision relied almost entirely on interpreting §10(a)(3), in the part I italicized. Brady also argued about §10(a)(2) - "evident partiality or corruption" but that "evident" is an extremely high bar to overcome, especially given that Goodell relied on the Wells Report to support his findings of fact. Berman didn't opine on them, and the 2nd circuit ruled that even if he had, Brady would've lost.

 

[primetime]

Bingo. I'd add it's criminal charge worthy for the Supreme Court justices who voted for it. When you don't uphold the law, you get to have the law used against you. Simple.

I don't know what this means. As the poster above explained, this is the law, and that's why it's a problem. There was nothing wrong per se with what the 2nd Circuit found in their decision based on current precedent. What's wrong is that the precedent exists in the first place, but only the Supreme Court could overturn this.

The problem stems from two issues:

1) Based on standing law due to a series of SCOTUS decisions over the last decade and a half, appellate courts can only rule on whether the procedures of arbitration agreements (in either labor or consumer law) were followed, but cannot overturn the decisions of arbitration based on a review of the facts of the case

2) Even though the NFLPA should have known that #1 was true, the CBA still gave the NFL extremely broad authority in arbitration proceedings by allowing it to choose its own binding arbitrator (i.e. itself) in cases where employees have engaged in "conduct detrimental to the league" which, of course, could mean nearly anything. It could have, at the very least, required an independent arbitrator chosen jointly by the employer and the union. But it didn't, and so Brady can be suspended without pay for something that obviously didn't happen.​

 

[ViperGTS]

I don't know what this means. As the poster above explained, this is the law, and that's why it's a problem. There was nothing wrong per se with what the 2nd Circuit found in their decision based on current precedent. What's wrong is that the precedent exists in the first place, but only the Supreme Court could overturn this.

The problem stems from two issues:

1) Based on standing law due to a series of SCOTUS decisions over the last decade and a half, appellate courts can only rule on whether the procedures of arbitration agreements (in either labor or consumer law) were followed, but cannot overturn the decisions of arbitration based on a review of the facts of the case

2) Even though the NFLPA should have known that #1 was true, the CBA still gave the NFL extremely broad authority in arbitration proceedings by allowing it to choose its own binding arbitrator (i.e. itself) in cases where employees have engaged in "conduct detrimental to the league" which, of course, could mean nearly anything. It could have, at the very least, required an independent arbitrator chosen jointly by the employer and the union. But it didn't, and so Brady can be suspended without pay for something that obviously didn't happen.

If and when a judge at any level utters any inference that it's okay to ignore a certain law (and I don't care to what level small or large) then they are in effect criminals themselves. I can't say in my defense, well I just ignored the law if I was I trouble now can I? I don't care who it is. I didn't realize the Supreme Court had ruled on cases such as Italian Colors a few years ago. It's a ruling that should have had the justices removed from the bench. They upheld its okay to violate labor law. Now Chin and his cronies puppeted off that.

So yes it's more than the TB case. Doesn't mean that The 2A couldn't have grown some balls and stood for the law. Instead they capitulated.

Wonderful.

 

[ViperGTS]

Bingo. I'd add it's criminal charge worthy for the Supreme Court justices who voted for it. When you don't uphold the law, you get to have the law used against you. Simple.

What's the dislike for @QuantumMechanic?

Got a problem with justice?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If and when a judge at any level utters any inference that it's okay to ignore a certain law

That's exactly the opposite of what they are saying.

They are saying that the provisions of one law conflict with the provisions of another. So no matter which way it goes they have no choice but to say that one of those laws has to be followed and one of them has to be "ignored".

This is hardly anything new. Judges deal with laws conflicting all the time and have to say which gets obeyed and which gets ignored in the case before them.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

What's the dislike for @QuantumMechanic?

Got a problem with justice?

Nope.

I've got a problem with people thinking a judge should be criminally charged for rendering decisions they don't like. And a problem with people who think banana republic crap like that is "justice".

 

[ViperGTS]

Nope.

I've got a problem with people thinking a judge should be criminally charged for rendering decisions they don't like. And a problem with people who think banana republic crap like that is "justice".

Ummmmm..you do realize that Supreme Court justices shouldn't advocate breaking the law to any degree right? That the Supreme Court in the Colors case said its okay for corporations to violate labor law? I guess you didn't know that.

That's banana republic stuff right there friend.

 

[ViperGTS]

That's exactly the opposite of what they are saying.

They are saying that the provisions of one law conflict with the provisions of another. So no matter which way it goes they have no choice but to say that one of those laws has to be followed and one of them has to be "ignored".

This is hardly anything new. Judges deal with laws conflicting all the time and have to say which gets obeyed and which gets ignored in the case before them.

Like federal labor laws don't supersede the wants of private corporations?


Right.