<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?article=1586&amp;context=articles" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?ar...</a><p>&quot;Estimates of employee win rates and damage award amounts based on the AAA-CC filings data indicate that arbitration outcomes are generally less favorable to employees than those from employment litigation.&quot;<p>&quot;These results suggest that, while a substantial minority of employees use self-representation, in the large majority of instances employees are retaining counsel to represent them in employment arbitration. The cases in which employees do have representation by counsel are on average those in which they have a greater chance of success and recover larger damage awards. Thus employment arbitration appears to be a
dispute resolution system predominantly based on employee representation by counsel, as is the case with litigation.&quot;<p>So the takeaways here are the arbitration is worse for employees than litigation, and that employees usually need a   lawyer for the arbitration process. The study notes that more research is needed, but it&#x27;s far from clear than arbitration is a good idea for larger complaints, much less as the only option available.<p>I would love to see some citation that shows businesses without mandatory arbitration clauses have to buy insurance or otherwise have to offer lower wages. This sounds very similar to other unsubstantiated but oft-repeated arguments about unionization, torts, consumer protection laws, etc.<p>I don&#x27;t disagree with you about the legal system, but how exactly will the court system become reformed through disuse?