[Karishma1234]

The verdict seems very consistent with the existing laws while many believe it is unfair. But these are two separate things. Workers should petition their representatives to pass laws that will help them bring fairness and the courts will then have to look at the issue freshly.

> But what happens when every company and employer has this language in their contracts? What do they lose by including the language? They lose nothing!

That is not true. Arbitration does not come free and not necessarily always in favour of the employer either. Which of the following would you prefer ?

1. Pay a monthly fee of $25 and whenever you get a traffic ticket you don't have to pay it 40% of the times. 2. Pay a traffic ticket only if you get it.

Every single car I have purchased made me sign similar agreement and I know at least one car dealer who got sued and lost pretty badly.

[s73v3r_]

"The verdict seems very consistent with the existing laws "

How can it be consistent with existing laws if the laws never mentioned arbitration at the time?

[Analemma_]

> "not necessarily always in favour of the employer"

You're not really helping your case here if this is the strongest statement you can make in arbitration's favor – "you're not necessarily fucked!".

The New York Times ran a series about binding arbitration a while back, and a running theme was that arbitrators who repeatedly rule in favor of individuals quickly find themselves getting no more business, as you'd expect. Thus, the incentives of arbitrators are strongly skewed to favor employers (even if not at the individual level, then definitely at the ecosystem level via selection pressure) and I don't believe for a microsecond that their decisions are fair and reasonable.