It is better because arbitration agreements in a competitive employment market makes wages to be pushed higher or consumer prices to be pushed lower. The possibility of a jury trial adds costs because, the trials are more expensive, for starters, but also juries can and do give unjust levels of damages.
> It is better because arbitration agreements in a competitive employment market makes wages to be pushed higher or consumer prices to be pushed lower.
Prove it.
A very small fraction of civil cases are resolved by jury verdict. If the plaintiff's case has merit, the point is to get the other side to settle. You sound like a big markets guy. What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves? No middleman or arbitrator needed.
Prove that competitive pressures reduce margins and unbound risk reduces investment? Sorry but you just have to understand how the world works: This is a natural consequence of people having multiple choices and picking the best one.
> What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves?
What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury. (Why are you teeing up such easy questions?)
> Prove that competitive pressures reduce margins and unbound risk reduces investment?
Prove that any of the mechanisms you're describing are in play, in the way you claim they are. I'm sure every question you read becomes very easy when you begin from the assumption that "this is how the world works".
Show me the law that permits juries to award arbitrary damages for employment disputes creating "unbounded risk", and show me that a jury has actually done it.
> What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury.
Ah yes, the gold standard of due process, fairness, and impartiality, enshrined in our constitution, the arbitrator. You know it's fair because of how badly the employer wants it and the fact that states are trying to make these contractual provisions illegal.
The punitives in that case were capped; the law of the land is that punitive damages exceeding ten times compensatory damages are presumptively unconstitutional, and the judge in that case slashed the suggested punitives by like 90% to put them below said cap. I can assure you Tesla's legal team knew this and did not make personnel decisions under the assumption that they faced "unbounded risk".
