Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These mediators/arbitrators are only there to avoid a law suit that could potentially damage the image of X company, or expose it for some wrong doings. Many companies actually force people into mediation to avoid law suits because they know they are in the wrong, and are hoping to get rid of whatever problem without going to court.
I wouldn't pay in either cases for one either.
The fact that as an employee you would prefer not to pay for such a service is perfectly understandable and relevant and I don't disagree with you at all. The assumption you're making that arbitrators are utilized to prevent lawsuits or that companies "force" people into mediation is a little far fetched. Arbitrators are utilized in an attempt to mitigate prolonged back and forths between (in this case) employers and employees. The whole point of an arbitrator/mediator is the very fact that they have no dog in the race. They arbitrate in accordance with established professional guidelines and are paid regardless of the outcome. If no resolution is reached, the arbitrator is nonetheless paid for his or her services. Some corporate entities do include in their employee manuals a directive that if a dispute can't be resolved then arbitration is a first step towards resolution but I've never either seen it written or heard that an employee has to bear any cost of that. This isn't being "forced" into arbitration. It's to the benefit of both parties to come to an agreement before a prolonged and expensive action is entered into where costs on both sides can be huge.
I want to serve as a mediator to help the employer and employee resolve their disputes. But, I want to do it without either side having a lawyer at the mediation. I am trying to help employers and employees resolve disputes more amicably and efficiently.
My questions are:
1. If you are an employee, would you pay a mediator who could help you resolve your dispute but could not act as your advisor because the mediator must remain neutral?
I mean, the problem I have with this is that, for mediation to work, both parties have to respect the mediator. Your presence/words have to be able to carry weight on both ends. But if I, as an employee am hiring you to help me, the company is not going to view you as a neutral person. They're not going to give you the respect that you need. Whatever it is you may bring to the table won't carry any weight with them.
Quote:
2. If you are an employee who would pay a mediator to help, what would you need to be confident the mediator is neutral, especially if you learned about the mediator from your employer's suggestion?
Well, there's no way I'm paying a mediator who was recommended by the employer. You can forget about that right away.
For minor issues, most people are capable of handling their own mediation as long as they have enough gumption and honesty to approach the employer about it.
Thank you for all of the feedback so far. Here is some clarification that might help in light of the collective responses.
First, as to the arbitrator/mediator distinction: I am talking specifically about mediation and not arbitration. The most significant difference is that in mediation, the dispute is resolved only if both parties agree to end the dispute on terms to which all of the parties agree. In an arbitration, the arbitrator decides the terms on which the dispute will end.
Second, while I would gladly help with a dispute between a current employer and employee, I expect most of the time I would be used for disputes that arise after an employee quits or is fired. I understand the concern about paying for help. But the kinds of disputes that I would likely be hired for would be when an employee wants to hire a lawyer. Hiring a mediator would almost certainly cost less, especially if the result is a settlement of the dispute.
Third, I completely understand why employees would not trust a mediator if the employee thinks the reason for mediation is only to help the employer. This is perhaps the biggest challenge I see in being able to provide the service. I am trying to figure out how to position/market the service in a way that will accomplish two things: a) have the parties pay for the service in proportion to their financial abilities; and b) get the employees to trust me even though they know the employer is paying more for my service than the employee in most cases.
Thanks again for the feedback. You all are helping me.
For minor issues, most people are capable of handling their own mediation as long as they have enough gumption and honesty to approach the employer about it.
You are completely correct that for minor issues, the employer and employee should be able to resolve disputes without any other help. Unfortunately, however, I know from my experience representing both employers and employees that many disputes fall somewhere between being too significant to be resolved without outside help and not significant enough to justify hiring a lawyer and going through a court or court-type process. Unfortunately, too many of these kind of disputes result in the employee contacting a lawyer and paying for a consultation or representation that could have been avoided if a different voice had been available to help the employer see a reasonable resolution. Likewise, too many bad lawyers take these kind of disputes by misleading an employee into believing they have cases when they really don't. Then the employer wastes time and money responding to the lawyer or defending themselves. This too could be avoided by a trusted mediator's helping the employee see that their best option is to move on.
It's those disputes that fall in this gap of too serious for self-help and not serious enough for lawyer-help where I imagine being able to do some real good for both the employee and employer if they trusted me to help them.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,453,787 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by bande1102
Nope. I would never pay for anyone that wasn't 100% on my side. And neither would my employer. 'Nuff said.
Which reminds me of some advice a divorce attorney once gave me re: using the alternative of a mediator, which I think applies most anywhere. He pointed out that it's the mediator's (and even an arbitrator's) basic task to come up with a solution, which usually involves some sort of compromise.... often achieved by simply leaning on the side who seems most willing to give ground and do the compromising.
Are you a trained/licensed/registered mediator or is this something which you think you might be interested in as a career?
Mediators only need certification as required by particular agencies that make referrals to certain, approved, mediators. That said, however, I am in the process of completing a 40-hour certification. that is the highest training level requirement I have seen from any agency. I also have nearly 20 years of experience representing employees and employers in resolving workplace disputes. A mediation practice would be a supplement to my current practice.
Which reminds me of some advice a divorce attorney once gave me re: using the alternative of a mediator, which I think applies most anywhere. He pointed out that it's the mediator's (and even an arbitrator's) basic task to come up with a solution, which usually involves some sort of compromise.... often achieved by simply leaning on the side who seems most willing to give ground and do the compromising.
Any time a lawyer gives bad advice, it disappoints me. If what you say here is the entirety of the advice you were given about using a mediator or arbitrator, I am again disappointed.
Mediators only need certification as required by particular agencies that make referrals to certain, approved, mediators. That said, however, I am in the process of completing a 40-hour certification. that is the highest training level requirement I have seen from any agency. I also have nearly 20 years of experience representing employees and employers in resolving workplace disputes. A mediation practice would be a supplement to my current practice.
Wow, just a mere 40 hours gets you actually certified as a mediator? That's pretty good. Pretty much akin to being registered and certified as a religious minister based on an online "training course"?
Wow, just a mere 40 hours gets you actually certified as a mediator? That's pretty good. Pretty much akin to being registered and certified as a religious minister based on an online "training course"?
I seriously doubt that completing the course work gets you anywhere close to being a competent mediator. It merely keeps the student informed about things like ethical duties and the language of dispute resolution study. The real skills can only be acquired through mediation experience. Seriously, who would hire someone to help resolve a serious dispute without that mediator's having some demonstrated experience with the substance of what is being disputed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
