Arbitration- It's either his side, or your side. Nothing inbetween

[JEDI]

I knew Arbitration is binding.

What i didnt know that there's no compromise.
It's either his side, or your side.

Nothing inbetween.
You either get everything you want. Or he gets everything he wants 😱

 

[Corporate Thug]

um, you could go to non-binding arbitration as well.

 

[BoomerD]

My experience with binding arbitration is just the opposite.

There can be some give/take by the arbiter. You may get MOST of what you want and the other side gets SOME of what they want...or vice-versa.

As a business agent, I took lots of grievances to arbitration. While I never lost a grievance, on occasion, I was willing to settle for less than I was asking. (always better to aim for the moon and miss by a little than to aim for a mud puddle and hit it dead center)

 

[MotionMan]

I knew Arbitration is binding.

What i didnt know that there's no compromise.
It's either his side, or your side.

Nothing inbetween.
You either get everything you want. Or he gets everything he wants 😱

Thats what is sometimes called "baseball" arbitration (because that is the type of arbitration they use for MLB salary arbitration).

In "regular" arbitration (whether it be binding or non-binding) the arbitrator can award anything that the evidence dictates.

MotionMan

 

[JEDI]

um, you could go to non-binding arbitration as well.

lol.. thats called mediation 🙂

Thats what is sometimes called "baseball" arbitration (because that is the type of arbitration they use for MLB salary arbitration).

In "regular" arbitration (whether it be binding or non-binding) the arbitrator can award anything that the evidence dictates.

MotionMan

ahhh.. thx

 

[FallenHero]

What was lost? In my experience the arbitrator usually will go right down the middle unless one side is just being ridiculous, in which case he will side with the opposite one just to teach the side that is being dumb a lesson.

 

[JEDI]

What was lost? In my experience the arbitrator usually will go right down the middle unless one side is just being ridiculous, in which case he will side with the opposite one just to teach the side that is being dumb a lesson.

friend is in a weird union in that it does not strike?!?! 😱
but company also does not lock out.

if they fail to come to agreement on contract, it goes to arbitration.

arbitrator sided with Union and they got the raise they asked for.
A raise in these tough economic times??? 😱

Friend told me that's because the company's offer was probably rediculous but he has no idea what their offer was.

I was just surprised it was either or, and the arbitrator didnt come somewhere inbetween.

MotionMan's reply makes sense.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

^ The arbitrator may have thought that the company was being totally unreasonable and have tried to teach them a lesson, or that the union was actually being reasonable.

Perhaps the company had made concessions the last time pay was discussed - like take 2.5% now and next year you will get 5% (not realising that there was a recession about to hit).

 

[MotionMan]

Originally Posted by Corporate Thug
um, you could go to non-binding arbitration as well.
lol.. thats called mediation

LOL - No, it is not.

Arbitration is like an informal trial with a person (or persons) as the finder of fact and law called an arbitrator (or arbitrators).

Mediation is a negotiation session using a neutral person called a mediator.

MotionMan, Esq. (BTW, I believe Corporate Thug is a lawyer, too.)

 

[MotionMan]

friend is in a weird union in that it does not strike?!?! 😱
but company also does not lock out.

if they fail to come to agreement on contract, it goes to arbitration.

arbitrator sided with Union and they got the raise they asked for.
A raise in these tough economic times??? 😱

Friend told me that's because the company's offer was probably rediculous but he has no idea what their offer was.

I was just surprised it was either or, and the arbitrator didnt come somewhere inbetween.

MotionMan's reply makes sense.

You're basing your understanding of ALL arbitrations on this single, third-hand, factually-deficient scenario?

Wow. I have something for you:

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

^ The arbitrator may have thought that the company was being totally unreasonable and have tried to teach them a lesson, or that the union was actually being reasonable.

This is a feasible explanation.

If you are (or even just look) too greedy or unreasonable, sometimes the arbitrator (or judge or jury) will spank you.

MotionMan

 

[D1gger]

Having been involved in both bind and non-binding arbitration, I can confirm that both are different than mediation, and that most often, the arbitrator will come to a reasonable conclusion that leaves both parties unsatisfied.

 

[MotionMan]

Having been involved in both bind and non-binding arbitration, I can confirm that both are different than mediation, and that most often, the arbitrator will come to a reasonable conclusion that leaves both parties unsatisfied.

I learned a long time ago that the "best" settlement, and the most likely settlement result, is one that both sides are equally unsatisfied with.

MotionMan

 

[FoBoT]

I learned a long time ago that the "best" settlement, and the most likely settlement result, is one that both sides are equally unsatisfied with.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

I learned a long time ago that the "best" settlement, and the most likely settlement result, is one that both sides are equally unsatisfied with.

MotionMan

Yeah, basically.

MotionMan