I'm not anti-arbitration...I'm anti-FORCED-arbitration. I have suspicions about the incentives and stances of the arbitrators vs the law, but I'm not well-vers

I'm not anti-arbitration...I'm anti-FORCED-arbitration. I have suspicions about the incentives and stances of the arbitrators vs the law, but I'm not well-versed enough to state those with confidence. Almost everything you said about arbitration is true...but you left out the other side. My employer already has a lot more leverage over me than I do over them. When that scale is further tilted, across all their employees, many of the cost-benefit analyses about treating your employees fairly go into their benefit, further making things worse (and arguably more expensive for me). > People use the threat of legal fees to extort business owners all the time because all it takes is one bored attorney who's willing to take the case on contingency while the business is looking at $150-500 / hr fees to defend itself. I'm willing to discuss the benefits of good anti-SLAPP legislation all day, but "threats" aren't the same as suing, and "bored attorney willing to take the case on contingency" aren't actually all that easy to find - there's a reason a lot of crap goes unpunished until a group large enough for a class-action lawsuit comes along - the payout isn't worth it, at least not for the lawyers who would win. Companies LIKEWISE use the threat of legal fees all the time - the solution is not that employees need to sacrifice their legal rights.