The reason people are so anti-arbitration is that the decision of arbitrators is more based on which side of their bread is buttered and that seriously colors t

The reason people are so anti-arbitration is that the decision of arbitrators is more based on which side of their bread is buttered and that seriously colors their decisions. An arbiter who rules against somebody is more likely to be rejected by that entity in the next arbitration. Thus it works between two small guys that will not likely encounter the arbiter again. However, when there are big fish involved there's a strong bias towards ruling for the big fish, the guy who rules for the small fish too much finds himself unemployed. When it's between two big fish the decisions will take the middle of the road. This causes big troubles with union vs government arbitration--the union simply doubles it's demands and will end up on average getting what it asked for. Right or wrong doesn't really enter into it. For practical purposes for the little guy vs big guy arbitration means don't bother unless you have a slam dunk smoking gun.