PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

WSJ: "Blinding arbitration"



A WSJ editorial today on the lots and lots and lots of things wrong with EFCA's provision for federally imposed arbitration:

...Knowing that contracts are destined for arbitration, both sides would have every incentive to make maximum demands. Unions in particular will be inclined to ask for the moon, knowing they will do well even if an arbitrator merely splits the difference. At least when the Detroit auto makers signed too-rich contracts, they did it of their free will. ...

The binding arbitration rule would also strip workers of valuable rights. They would no longer be able to vote on a contract that their unions negotiated with management and submitted back for rank-and-file approval. This will make union leaders less accountable. ... [The new narrowing of options for union decertification] also provides a form of job protection -- for unions, not workers.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.