Is there a practical distinction between agreeing to arbitration and agreeing in advance to lose? Compared to court cases, how many arbitration cases are actually decided in favor of the petitioner?
Cant say the quality of this study, but it came up in recent discussions about the topic when the US supreme court ruled on a related matter, and claims "employees win 21 percent of arbitration cases, compared to 57 percent of cases in state court. " and "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary)
The company absolutely has an interest in not choosing the arbiter, instead contracting out that choice to some respected third party. Corporations win more frequently in arbitration because you are required to do work, you are required to be prepared, you don't have unlimited resources at your disposal, and you don't get to go on a fishing expedition in the form of lawsuit discovery.
>Corporations win more frequently in arbitration because you are required to do work, you are required to be prepared, you don't have unlimited resources at your disposal, and you don't get to go on a fishing expedition in the form of lawsuit discovery.
Every single point there is something that a party can win at if they have more money than the opposing party and companies always have more money. It's not like it's the poor, abused corporations who have to shoulder the massive legal cost against a random employee who can employ relatively limitless legal assets. You are flipping the narrative on documented reality.
Adding on to that, there is no way for there not to be bias I. The arbitrators. They are a business and the companies that have blanket arbitration agreements are going to be bringing orders of magnitude more cases to them than any employee.
That leaves you with one of three options. First is that the arbitrators decide in the companies favor more often, second is thatthey decides it as equally as the courts, and third is that they decide in the employees case more often. If it's the third case, why not just immediately settle with all employees instead of spending the time and money to set up a separate system to resolve disputes outside of the court? If it's the second case, why spend the time and money to set up a second system outside the courts to get a result that is the same as the courts? You can claim that it lowers costs, but companies are the ones that are increasing costs to ensure that they win. That leaves us with only the first case, where companies win more often, which is a complete lack of justice. Companies have moved past using their power imbalance to overwhelm employees in the court system, to just removing the employees ability to use the courts at all.
There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well. For an employee who is successful, arbitration is also a lot cheaper than a court case.
"Contingency" doesn't mean it's free. If the case is won (which is the situation we're talking about), the lawyer gets paid out of the net recovery.
Yes, typically 33-45%. As I said in the original comment:
> There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well
https://www.centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.... https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview...
https://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consum...
Note that it's limited to arbitration involving financial companies though. Absolutely terrible to see what happens to normal people when companies can privatize justice.