Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment addresses a glaring flaw in the legislation.

The bill strips nonunion employees of any and all benefits they might gain by contracts they have signed to arbitrate their disputes. It says that contracts which force arbitration for employment disputes-- thereby, contracts which open a faster, cheaper path of justice for employees--are no longer permitted even though research has shown that employees obtain more favorable judgments in arbitration than in court. In court, of course, the average employee stands to be seriously outgunned by an employer who has far more resources to hire costly courtroom counsel.

While the bill takes those benefits out of the hands of nonunion employees, it doesn't do that for union employees. Predispute, mandatory binding arbitration contracts negotiated by unions with employers or with other unions are left untouched by the bill.

This bill is titled the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, but it should be titled the forced injustice guarantee act because the bill enacts injustice between union and nonunion employees.

Nonunion employees get handed over to the high-cost plaintiffs' trial lawyers and may never be able to afford their day in court. Union employees get all the benefits of forcing arbitration with their employers and don't have to make a sacrifice at all like the nonunion employees do.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment fixes the hypocritical treatment in the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I have seen elected officials change their positions. I have never seen it happen in 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, 5 minutes ago, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stood up at the end, closing out the debate on the overall legislation before we got to the amendment debate, and he said this, ``a bedrock principle in this country is you get your day in court.'' The next word he used was important. He said, ``all'' Americans deserve their day in court. Now, he just told us that is not the case.

I guess by ``all,'' he meant only if you are nonunion do you get your day in court. Union people don't. They have to abide by these arbitration contracts.

This is really simple. This is about fairness. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. That is all we are saying here.

If the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary believes what he just said 5 minutes ago, then he should be in support of this amendment.

Or maybe he didn't mean ``all'' when he said ``all'' Americans deserve their day in court.

Maybe he didn't mean ``bedrock principle'' when he said bedrock principle.

Maybe he only meant, Oh, it is a principle just for some people, which means, by definition, it is not a principle at all.

So I want to know which position the chairman has; the one he said 5 minutes ago, or the one he said 2 minutes ago.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source