Americans widely oppose corporations using mandatory binding arbitration clauses in the fine print of consumer and employment contracts, according to national polling of likely voters conducted by Lake Research Partners and released today.
The poll shows that:
- 6 in 10 likely voters support the Arbitration Fairness Act - including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents;
- 59 percent of likely voters oppose the use of mandatory binding arbitration clauses in employment and consumer contracts;
- Two-thirds of respondents cannot remember ever reading about a forced arbitration provision buried in the fine print of employment terms or agreement for goods and services; and,
- More than 70 percent of respondents believe they could take their employer or a corporation to court in the event of a dispute, unaware they could be subjected to mandatory binding arbitration.
The survey reached 800 adults nationwide, 18 years or older, who are likely to vote in the 2010 elections. The overall margin of error is +/-3.5%. The poll was commissioned by The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy and Public Citizen, and funded by The Public Welfare Foundation. You can view a detailed slide show of the results here, and a memo summarizing the research here.
The results were unveiled today at a press conference in Washington, D.C., organized by the Fair Arbitration Now Coalition, which represents consumers, employees, homeowners and franchise holders. The groups range from Public Citizen, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Employment Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice to the National Consumer Voice for Long-Term Care, Home Owners for Better Building and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
The poll results bolster already heightened scrutiny by lawmakers of credit cards, mortgages, and other common consumer and employee contracts. The bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (H.R. 1020) was introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) in the House of Representatives and is being introduced in the Senate by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) today. The measure would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the arbitration system in their favor at the expense of consumers. The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 512 / H.R. 1237), introduced by Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.
“The findings show clearly that Americans strongly oppose forced arbitration, and they see the Arbitration Fairness Act as a remedy. Not only is there real intensity to this view, but it traverses traditional partisan divides,” said Lake Research Partners President Celinda Lake. “Forced arbitration clauses - which are buried in the fine print of employment and consumer contracts - are another example of corporations taking advantage of ordinary Americans. The public supports the Arbitration Fairness Act because equal justice under the law is a core American value.”
Comments