Ellen Dannin is a Penn State University Law Professor , whose intriguing recent book, Taking Back the Worker’s Law, outlined a “long-term litigation strategy designed to overturn the cases that have undermined the NLRA and frustrated its policies.” Professor Dannin recently wrote an article supporting the Arbitration Fairness Act’s proposed ban on pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements.

The article, entitled Ending Privatized Workplace Justice – Why We Need the The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, appeared on Jonathan Tasini’s blog, Working Life.

Professor Dannin begins by stating: “You may be among the millions of American workers who has been forced by your employer to give up important legal protections.” From the use of the word “forced” in this opening sentence, the reader understands that the Professor contends that an employer shouldn’t be allowed to determine the conditions under which it will offer jobs. Here are the primary reasons that the Professor (and others) cite:

• The system is weighted in the employer’s favor;
• Arbitration is more costly for employees than court litigation;
• Arbitration decisions are usually not made public; and
• Employment arbitration waivers are not “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,” because employees can’t understand the legal language in the agreements, employees don’t understand the nature of the rights that are being waived ( from due process to the right of review on appeal), and “few people can afford to turn down a job just because they are giving up future rights that may never come in to play.”

While we disagree with most of these statements – especially the ones that suggest that people aren’t smart enough to understand voluntary rights waivers – they all seem to argue for safeguards in the current system instead of an outright ban on arbitration agreements.

• WATCH LIST:   Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007