Thursday, April 1, 2010

"watered down" HR 1020

.
Bill HR 1020, known as the Arbitration Fairness Act, is before Congress. The bill is being promoted as protecting consumer rights.

In an article titled “Changes Afoot—the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act”, (
http://cmguide.org/archives/2175) Andrew Ness, writing for Construction Management Guide has the following to say about HR 1020:

“Supporters of the proposed change believe that mandatory arbitration is being used in ways unfair to parties of unequal bargaining power who routinely fail to read the “fine print” mandating arbitration in many consumer transactions…”

“The proposed AFA would limit the scope of the Arbitration Act to exclude from its coverage: a) disputes between an employer and employee arising out of their employment relationship; b) consumer disputes between an individual and the seller or provider of real or personal property, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes; and c) disputes between a franchisor and a franchisee."


WAIT A MINUTE! “…UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER…” ??? Where is bargaining power MORE unequal than between an individual homeowner and a builder?

This is VERY disturbing. Why does a proposed bill that is supposed to be relief for homeowner consumers explicitly exclude homeowners from arbitration “fairness”?

Contact your US Congressional representatives (1 House; 2 Senate) TODAY and tell them you want them to support HR 1020, the Arbitration Fairness Act, WITHOUT excluding transactions between a builder and an individual homeowner.

********************************************************************************

Dear Senator Graham,

Bill HR 1020, known as the Arbitration Fairness Act, is before Congress. The bill is being promoted as protecting consumer rights.

In an article titled “Changes Afoot—the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act”, (http://cmguide.org/archives/2175) Andrew Ness, writing for Construction Management Guide, has the following to say about HR 1020:

“Supporters of the proposed change believe that mandatory arbitration is being used in ways unfair to parties of unequal bargaining power who routinely fail to read the “fine print” mandating arbitration in many consumer transactions…”

“The proposed AFA would limit the scope of the Arbitration Act to exclude from its coverage: a) disputes between an employer and employee arising out of their employment relationship; b) consumer disputes between an individual and the seller or provider of real or personal property, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes; and c) disputes between a franchisor and a franchisee.”

Exception b) is very disturbing. NOWHERE is bargaining power MORE unequal than between an individual homeowner and a builder.

I urge you to support the Arbitration Fairness Act, and to strike from the legislation any language that would exempt transactions between a builder and an individual homeowner.

Thank you.




.
.

1 comment:

PE, retired said...
This comment has been removed by the author.