>If the company's BATNA is forcing you through cheaper binding arbitration rather than a more expensive lawsuit, you're not going to get as good of settlement o

>If the company's BATNA is forcing you through cheaper binding arbitration rather than a more expensive lawsuit, you're not going to get as good of settlement offers in lieu of the formal dispute resolution process. That's only because of the bias in the current system. Ideally, given a set of facts and law, a damage calculation should be fairly objective. Thus both the arbitrator and the judge should come to similar outcomes. Because of this, settlement in a fair arbitration system should come pretty close to settlement in the courts. The reason pre-arbitration settlements are ineffective is that the arbitration system is broken. It's being used as a rubber stamp court by the institutions that pay the arbitrator's salary. Thus there is little incentive for them to settle at any reasonable amount. In a fair arbitration there would be an incentive to settle because the employer would not control the arbitrator and thus the outcome. I grant that perhaps settlements in arbitration may still be a bit lower than settlements in the courts because the huge time and cost investment are no longer a factor . . . but that's hardly a bad thing.