I have three substantial posts to get up already this morning, but the swirl of billable time and EA time had me a bit scattered. Here are a few flickers from the neurons that are early risers:
- For some reason, traffic here was way up all day yesterday, and I have no clue why or whether a particular topic was driving it. Theories welcome.
- On the other hand, as Captain Hook never would say, I find the lack of interest in this post puzzling. 1) Arbitration is routine in so many disputes now, and the system, and the arbitrators, are untrustworthy. Attention should be paid, and 2) the arbitrator’s decision at the heart of the essay is particularly indefensible, blocking a major newspaper from firing a partisan, racist hack who lied in a social media post because—lying and being a racist (anti-white, of course) is not sufficient cause to fire an opinion columnist?
- The personal mission I alluded to on Sunday took up most of the day, caused me to miss two deadlines, aggravated an injury to my ankle and left me exhausted. Never mind. A little dog found her “forever home” (why that cheesy phrase gets me all choked up is a long-running embarrassment, but I can’t help it) and my sibling has been the happiest I have seen since her very first dog perished over a year ago. The Power of the Dog.
- On gross baseball nick-names: the Seattle Mariners catcher, Cal Raleigh, is called “The Big Dumper.” The Mariners broadcasters love to use it, presumably because their maturity level is at the approximate level of a 12-years-old. For some reason, Seattle seems to like such snicker-inspiring monikers. The Mariners also originated the nickname for 6’10” Hall of Fame pitcher Randy Johnson: “The Big Unit.” Yes, that meant exactly what you’re thinking. Ew.
- This:
True gaslighting, and another fake protest, like the “No Kings” nonsense. Sharpton and his Axis allies don’t want to “protect the vote,” they want to keep elections vulnerable to fraud and fixing.
Ethics Alarms 
Seattle also gave us football player Doug Baldwin, who pretended to poop out a football on national TV. Must be something in the water there. I could add my own toilet humor, but I won’t.
I wrote about that, I think. Seattle definitely has bigger problems, but still….
Mrs. OB and I used to refer to RJ as “The Big Eunuch.”
“Arbitration is routine in so many disputes now, and the system, and the arbitrators, are untrustworthy.“
I am not entirely convinced by the logic of the argument. The arbitrators were untrustworthy in the Karen Attiah case due to their ideological biases. Does that impugn the arbitration system? Do we need to overhaul a system because of the biases of the people in that system? Or do we keep the arbitration system intact, but fire biased arbitrators?
I find the lack of interest in this post puzzling.
I did not think I had much substantial to add to one more example of how left wing ideology and racial bias yields incorrect judgements.
Does that impugn the arbitration system? Sure. If adversaries can’t be confident that arbitrators are qualified, objective and trustworthy, then arbitration isn’t trustworthy. I had an 84-year-old ex-judge write in a case where I was an expert witness, “the legal ethics rules aren’t relevant to this case (about the lawyer’s duty to report to clients that a co-counsel made a statement under oath that suggested he valued his fee over his client’s interests.) JAMS signs up ancient ex-judges too old to be on the bench and lets them arbitrate.
Let me give a counter example. During the Jim Crow era persons who committed a lynching of an African Americans often escaped justice. The perpetrators were (almost?) always acquitted by an all-white jury, most of them openly racist. Witnesses did not come forward to testify, often due to racial bias but also due to peer pressure. This despite the fact that many witnesses observed observed (and cheered on) the lynching. Law enforcement was often implicated.
Does that impugn the legal system we have in the USA? Was the remedy to overhaul the system, e.g. by getting rid of jury trials and only have bench trials in criminal cases? The remedy to the malfunctions of the system was to treat it as a people problem, and the solution was to make sure that people with a racial bias were excluded from the jury, and that racism was stamped out of law enforcement and judiciary.
What is is the remedy for arbitration bias? Do we get rid of the arbitration system, because we conclude that the system is irredeemable? Or do we treat it as a people problem, but not allowing ideologues and otherwise biased people as arbitrator?
I think that arbitrators take bribes in many instances. And there is only one to bribe. I’d begin reforming the system by requiring an arbitration panel of at least three in all matters.
I think that arbitrators take bribes in many instances.
That is a big statement, do you have evidence? I missed the point that there was only one arbitrator was involved in this case.
The other question is why WaPo uses arbitration in disputes related to employment. Arbitration was a mentioned in Karen Attiah’s labor contract with WaPo as the means to resolve conflicts; however nothing stops WaPo to remove the clause about arbitration from future labor contracts.
Direct evidence? No. But these cases often involve millions and billions of dollars, and literally every lawyer I have discussed the breakdowns of the system are convinced that bribes happen because why wouldn’t they? It’s one of those “baseless” allegations like voter fraud. If there aren’t sufficient safeguards, that’s a “base.”
Apples and oranges, Cees. Do those examples impugn our legal system? You’re damn right they do. Do we throw out jury trials? No. We revamp the system to try to prevent that sort of corruption in the judicial process, executing those guilty of doing publicly in the town square at high noon if necessary. People should be able to trust that the judicial system is fair, impartial, and not corrupt. What happened in the Emmitt Till situation is an abmonination and should be called an abomination.
jvb
“Does that impugn the arbitration system?”
Yes, in a word. When you sign contracts or enter into contracts, you may not be aware that an arbitration clause is included in the agreement and that you have likely waived your right to a jury trial. It is not a truly bargained for term in the contract as the contract is mostly written to protect drafter of the contract.
The arbitration clause is especially pernicious because it is usually established in a very distant jurisdiction, requiring all filings to be in that jurisdiction, and filed in accordance with the arbitation rules in that jurisdiction.
What does that mean?
You live in Florida, want to sue Best Buy Finance for some alleged wrong committed by someone outsourced to Bangladesh that is causing and costing you times of time and money. You file suit in a Broward County court and the finance company pleads that the binding arbitration clause controls, The state court judge agrees and sends you to North or South Dakota to arbitrate under the American Arbitration Association’s arbitration rules, rules with which your Florida lawyer is not familiar and is not in a jurisdiction where he/she is licensed to practice.
Now, you have to hire an arbitration lawyer to represent you or do it yoursel, both options are problematic. You have no idea who the arbitrators are and what the procedures and substantive laws are in North or South Dakota so you and/or your lawyer get hosed by the process. If the arbitrators hand down an award for the finance company, there is generally no appellate remedy, so you are stuck with what happens. When you complain to the Broward County judge to disregard the award, the court is most likely to say its hands are tied by the contract.
You have invested time, energy, and expense only to lead to a mostly unpleasant result.
jvb
Yes, in a word. When you sign contracts or enter into contracts, you may not be aware that an arbitration clause is included in the agreement and that you have likely waived your right to a jury trial. It is not a truly bargained for term in the contract as the contract is mostly written to protect drafter of the contract.
That is why you should read a contract before you sign it. If you sign a contract with unconscionable terms, you have to live with the consequences.
(But in the WaPo/Attiah case, it is WaPo who insisted on arbitrage in its labor contracts who gets ruled against. I guess that scenario does not occur too often.)
How unethical would it be for Trump to simply praise Sharpton and NAN for partnering with him to protect the vote?
It would be brilliant. Unethical (deceitful) but still brilliant.
The real Big Unit was Jim Bibby. His ” Manhood” was legendary.
Was that his nickname, though? (I saw him pitch once from behind home plate before they were able to measure pitch speed accurately. That guy was fast.)
No …but it could have been. Corbett owned the Rangers and he and Billy Martin talked about how David Clyde’s starts would boost attendance with putting Bibby on display would certainly beat that.
In my experience toilet humor if not too gross or vulgar, nearly always gets a laugh – at least a snicker. Any age, any IQ.