The Fine Print of Inequality
By Albert B. Kelly
Over the past several
years, there’s been a lot written and said about income inequality. It comes
out in different ways; everything from tax cuts for the wealthy to increasing
the minimum wage. In some ways it’s good this issue is finally getting
attention because it calls attention to the widening gap between the very top
earners everyone else.
But there’s another way
that inequality shows itself and it’s often found in the fine print. I hadn’t
thought about it really, but I came across an article by Ralph Nader- you
remember him- the guy who wrote “Unsafe at Any Speed” back in the 1960’s about
negligence of the auto industry and it got me to thinking.
The main point of his
article in Harper’s Magazine was to say that regular citizens filing lawsuits
isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s how we hold companies and corporations
responsible for putting out safe products and services.
We’ve all heard about the stupid
lawsuits like the woman who sued MacDonald’s because she burned her thighs
after placing a hot cup of coffee between them while driving. It’s these stupid
lawsuits from people who’ve done dumb things that make everyone want to limit
them. It’s also why a cup of coffee comes with a danger and a warning.
But this notwithstanding,
the trend today is to limit someone’s right to take something into court. It
comes in the fine print- the terms and conditions or the terms of service. If
you read that far, you might get something like; “I do hereby release, waive,
discharge, and covenant not to sue so-and-so, its employees, agents, officers,
representatives, relatives, pets, and childhood friends from liability from any
and all claims of negligence…blah, blah, blah.
Basically it means that no
matter how bad the company or corporation screws up, you can’t sue them because
you signed something that said you won’t. Most of the time things work out ok
and the stuff we buy and use doesn’t hurt or damage us. But what happens when
something goes wrong?
The courts were and are to
be a place where someone can get to seek a remedy. But when corporations and
companies spend a small fortune on lawyers to ensure that common folks can’t
easily get to court to seek a remedy when they have a legitimate beef, there’s
a problem.
The word “tort” basically
means a wrongful act or violation of a right, outside of a contract, that has a
civil liability and “tort law” is its own area. Sometimes you might hear a
candidate for some Congress or Senate seat talk about “tort reform”.
Usually tort reform is
about making the bar a little higher so that people don’t file stupid and
nonsense lawsuits because when they do, it usually raises the price of the
goods or services- lawsuits cost money; as do lawyers and settlements and
everything else connected to lawsuits.
But regular folks should
still have the right to seek remedies in court and the bar should not be so
high that few ever get the chance if they have a legitimate injury to person or
property. Today, ‘arbitration” is all the rage. But again, it seems like the
deck is stacked against regular folks because you don’t have the option of
appealing an arbitrators ruling.
In Naders’s article, he
mentions the Verizon wireless agreement which says; “You and Verizon Wireless
both agree to resolve disputes only by arbitration or in small claims court.
You understand that by this agreement you are giving up the right to bring a
claim in court or in front of jury.”
So inequality isn’t just about
wages and wealth. Inequality can be about access to the legal system and the
right to seek a remedy when you’ve been injured or damaged. You half expect
that from corporations- after all, they are only about their money- everything
else is secondary.
But its government that
lets them do this. The legal framework- the laws- including tort law, is made
and passed by elected officials and government officials. But if they end up
siding with corporations so both are in step with one another, we’ve got no
place to turn.
Keep that in mind when
you’re wondering who is worthy of your vote. Where does the candidate stand
when it comes to the rights of regular folks? Do they want to make it harder
for people to seek remedy in court or do they want to find a fair balance? It’s
a question at the heart of inequality.