Wow, today's headlines of Saddam's trial brought back memories from my arbitration at an earlier job. Of course, it was nowhere closer to this one and it would be a gross mistake comparing myself with Saddam, but I'd rather say that I'd like to compare US to the arbitrator or other party in my arbitration. I'm refraining from mentioning the name of the company here since I've high regards for it, except for a bunch of fools who ran the division I was employed with.

It was a joke, biggest ever I've practically faced. Of course, I lost a lot of money since they'd a private PF and stuff, but then writing off the monies was better than standing those stupid people. I still remember the first arbitration (the arbitrator himself was the second party!!!!!; yeah, I didn't know much since I was kind of a kid back then) meeting where my lawyer put the arbitrator in his deserved position... well, I can't use bad words, but you get the hint, right? :)

Okay, these were the interesting moments:
Arbitrator: I'll assure you, Mr. Bhat (my lawyer too was a Bhat) that I'll take an unbiased, fair, decision.
Lawyer: I'm sure you would, but let me tell you this. The decision should not only be fair, but it must also appear to be fair.
Me: (thinking, hah, you're screwed, Mr. Arbitrator :)
Arbitrator: Aaa, Uuu.... huh!

The words in italics are precisely what today's headline story carried, about the human values associations' voicing about Saddam's trial! Kudos.

satyameva jayate
Post a Comment