Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment is a source of arguments and practical suggestions for changing the American arbitration process. The book argues that the Federal Arbitration Act badly needs major changes. The authors, who have previously written major articles on arbitration law and policy, here set out their own views and argue among themselves about the necessary reforms of arbitration. The book contains draft legislation for use in international and domestic arbitration and a detailed explanation of the precise justifications for proposed legislative changes. It also contains two proposals that might be deemed radical - to ban arbitration related to the purchase of products by consumers and to prohibit arbitration of employment disputes. Each proposal is vetted fully and critiqued by one or more of the other co-authors.
At the beginning of the 19th century, physicians teaching anatomy in New England medical schools expected students to have hands-on experience with cadavers. As the only bodies that could be dissected legally were convicted murderers, this led to a lack of sufficient bodies for study. These doctors and their students turned to removing the dead from graveyards and cemeteries for dissection. The first medical school in Washington, D.C. was founded in 1825, headed by a Massachusetts physician convicted of body snatching, and made the practice commonplace in the area. This history of body snatching in the 19th century focuses on medical schools in New England and Washington, D.C., along with the religious, moral, and social objections during the time. With research from contemporary newspapers, medical articles, and university archives, topics such as state anatomy laws and their effects on doctors, students, and the poor--who were the usual victims--are covered, as are perceptions of physicians and medical schools by the local communities.
This is the first book on a crucial issue in human resource management. In recent years, employers have begun to require, as a condition of employment, that their nonunion employees agree to arbitrate rather than litigate any employment disputes, including claims of discrimination. As the number of employers considering such a requirement soars, so does the fear that compulsory arbitration may eviscerate the statutory rights of employees. Richard A. Bales explains that the advantages of arbitration are clear. Much faster and less expensive than litigation, arbitration provides a forum for the many employees who are shut out of the current litigative system by the cost and by the tremendous backlog of cases. On the other hand, employers could use arbitration abusively. Bales views the current situation as an ongoing experiment. As long as the courts continue to enforce agreements that are fundamentally fair to employees, the experiment will continue. After tracing the history of employment arbitration in the nonunion sector, Bales explains how employment arbitration has actually worked in the securities industry and at Brown & Root, a company with a comprehensive dispute resolution process. He concludes by summarizing the advantages, disadvantages, and policy implications of adopting arbitration as the preeminent method of resolving disputes in the American workforce.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.