Does the arbitration company make money when the employer doesn't? Nope.
Will the arbitration company force bribe money (Fine, Civil Suite) to make the problem go away? Nope.
Will the arbitration company put someone in jail for comitting a crime? Nope.
The entire point of arbitration is to eliminate the courts. "Tendancy" is the spin word, it leaves open the possibility the arbitration comapny might rule in favor of the employee. They will literally never do that.
E.g. Google's executives harassing women then using binding arbitration to remove their ability to sue them, which irregardless of the merit of the case, would be dismissed by the arbiter every time. Took a company-wide revolt to get them to stop. I'm beyond sure if the could've gotten away with literal beating and raping women they would've, and nobody wants to deal with the horror show executives participating in that kind of behaivour would become when they started down that road.
The problem with this approach is, the courts are there to avoid people exacting justice on their own terms which I'll remind you in our history, we've done quite a few times and it doesn't work out well. Sitting a mob of strangers down and having them pass down a ruling is a much better approach. Remember, 17 guns in america per man women and child and growing.
You do not want the setiment if corporations existing to literally eat people alive or that executives would shoot their own families for money to continue to grow. You don't want to let the faith in government and the courts wane over this BS. We've got a good thing going on right now in the US, it'd be a shame to throw it away over something as banal as executive pay or stockholder income.
Does the arbitration company make money when the employer doesn't? Nope.
Will the arbitration company force bribe money (Fine, Civil Suite) to make the problem go away? Nope.
Will the arbitration company put someone in jail for comitting a crime? Nope.
The entire point of arbitration is to eliminate the courts. "Tendancy" is the spin word, it leaves open the possibility the arbitration comapny might rule in favor of the employee. They will literally never do that.
E.g. Google's executives harassing women then using binding arbitration to remove their ability to sue them, which irregardless of the merit of the case, would be dismissed by the arbiter every time. Took a company-wide revolt to get them to stop. I'm beyond sure if the could've gotten away with literal beating and raping women they would've, and nobody wants to deal with the horror show executives participating in that kind of behaivour would become when they started down that road.
The problem with this approach is, the courts are there to avoid people exacting justice on their own terms which I'll remind you in our history, we've done quite a few times and it doesn't work out well. Sitting a mob of strangers down and having them pass down a ruling is a much better approach. Remember, 17 guns in america per man women and child and growing.
You do not want the setiment if corporations existing to literally eat people alive or that executives would shoot their own families for money to continue to grow. You don't want to let the faith in government and the courts wane over this BS. We've got a good thing going on right now in the US, it'd be a shame to throw it away over something as banal as executive pay or stockholder income.