Bingham, “On Repeat Players, Adhesive Contracts, and the Use of Statistics in Judicial Review of Employment Arbitration Awards.” McGeorge Law Review 29(2): 223-259 (1998). These examples show that multiple dispute resolution procedures limit the need for arbitration in both mandatory and binding procedures. However, the legislation in force allows the company to decide on the procedures imposed on workers or consumers. The way in which companies can thus control the legal environment in which they operate has recently been demonstrated by the conflicts around the ride-sharing company Uber. Institutions that have introduced compulsory arbitration proceedings are generally those with a larger workforce. Based on the total number of employees, 56.2% of the employees of the companies surveyed were subject to a mandatory arbitration procedure. While we may view the proceedings of organizations such as the AAA and JAMS in such a way that they provide some adequate degree of protection for employees or consumers who must arbitrate in mandatory proceedings, this research indicates that there is a high degree of variation in arbitration proceedings. The ability of companies to set the rules of compulsory arbitration allows them, and not workers or consumers, to decide whether they wish to adopt the procedures of a serious organization, with good procedural protection or rules contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness. . . .

Andrew Verboncouer • (920) 562-9601 • andrewverbs@gmail.com@averbs