The House Committee on the Judiciary has posted on its website the statements of the witnesses at today's  hearing on the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 (H.R. 3010).  Click on the witness' name to view their statements. 

Also, the Consumerist blog posted running commentary on the proceedings with a strong, but humorous anti-mandatory arbitration point of view.

It appears that the Hearing focused more on consumer arbitration than on employment arbitration.  It also appears that there was not much mention of the fact that consumers have the right not to enter into those contracts if they do not want to.  While one cannot help but feel sorry for the woman who lost her personal fortune due to alleged misconduct by the Coffee Beanery, it does not appear that anyone held a gun to her head and forced her to buy a franchise under conditions she found unacceptable at the time.  There were repeated suggestions that her right to a trial were "taken away."  Didn't she agree to waive those rights in exchange for the right to purchase a franchise?  It seems that if she could afford the $375,000 it took to open the store, she could have afforded to pay an attorney to review the franchisee agreement and explain the arbitration clause before she signed it. 

There seems to have been an assumption on the part of some witnesses and Congresspersons that arbitration is a rogue process slanted against the little guy.  While we cannot comment on consumer arbitraion, in our experience, the American Arbitration Association's employment case rules provide an equitable alternative to litigation that is beneficial to both employers and employees.

• WATCH LIST:   Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007