Honestly I think it does _not_ make sense. If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them.
> This seems like such an easy problem to solve too. Just don't let the company or the worker pick the arbitrator. Require by law that the arbitrator be picked by a judge, or be randomly assigned by the court system, who has presumably vetted the arbitrator.
> The main problem with these things is that the arbitrator is picked by the company, so they have a strong incentive to favor the company. Arbitration wouldn't be so bad if the inherent bias is removed.
I think these are good ideas, but I think there's another very big one to consider: why should anyone be allowed to choose arbitration before the dispute at hand arises? I simply think it should be disallowed. I always here people supporting arbitration say stuff like "it's better for both parties", but if that's actually the case then both parties would choose the arbitration at the time of the dispute. Allowing people to tie themselves to arbitration ahead of time entirely removes the incentive to actually provide a fairer and better process to both sides.