I'm gonna call [citation needed] on this. The recent NYT series on binding arbitration claimed exactly the opposite: that arbitration almost always rules in favor of the company and that arbitration companies which do rule in favor of individuals quickly find themselves getting no more business. They cited peer-reviewed sources and law professors, so I want to see yours.
Would you mind highlighting the article with peer-reviewed sources and law professors explaining that "arbitration almost always rules in favor of the company and that arbitration companies which do rule in favor of individuals quickly find themselves getting no more business"?
Furthermore, even if it was true that "arbitration almost always rules in favor of the company", why would that alone be the sign of a problem? We shouldn't just assume that, for example, half of the victories will go to the company and half to the individual; we shouldn't assume any particular percentage breakdown without more information about who initiates arbitration and why. (The "priors", to make an analogy to Bayesian statistics)
Rejecting the offered source with a "tl;dr" complaint is an invalid distraction from that request.
Not to mention, many topics have not been the subject of peer-reviewed research; if you require peer-reviewed research as a necessary condition on you being persuaded about anything, then you are severely limiting the scope of potential debate.