Arbitration is not a new method of negotiating disputes but it likely predates Common Law.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is sought more frequently outside of the Securities industry. Circumstances and settings, budgetary and financial negotiations training color the spectrum of arbitration procedures. Not realized immediately, arbitration clauses are being used so often; introduced in contracts and gaining popularity in applications for most anything.
In such instances where these clauses exist, the entire person-your entity is completely eradicated; dismissed in that the means of resolving the negotiations training is final and binding. There is no Bill of Rights, Constitution or formal court proceedings recognized in this process.
In fact, these adhesion clauses exclusively prevent and eliminate external interference with courtrooms and jury resolution entirely. This is spectacular, reducing the 'dog path' traffic flow that overburdens the courts and is a much faster pace and least expensive approach. In the same breath, it is also disastrous because the negotiations training rendered waives all opportunity to appeal. This is especially important if the Tribunal (attorneys who are judge and jury) were biased.
The Tribunal members are chosen directly by one of three (3) methods. Each party appointing a negotiations training or each member appoints one and [they] appoint a third or an external source nominates the trio.
At this juncture the final negotiations training is to have an unbiased trio with full disclosure of any and all conflicts determined very early on.
This may be considered splitting hairs but it is vital that the Tribunal have no current or past affiliations with each other or the negotiations training that seeks resolution through this method otherwise the decision in the matter stands little chance of challenge unless the biased determination can be firmly declared.
The question is how closely monitored are the actual arbitrators used in resolving these types of matters? The predictable indicators used will assure that all panelists involved are scrutinized but even with self-policing and oath signing, there remain the instances of missing, esoteric detail(s) which disclosure report failed to bring to the surface due to oversight or negotiations training error.
Now I will scratch the itch. You should be aware that outside of the Securities industry, discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims [just about all employment related topics] are now being stated however subtle, in contracts and applications. It is normally stated that by signing, you are entering the contract/agreement voluntarily and should any dispute arise, all negotiations training will be sought via arbitration.
To be honest, these contracts/agreements/applications are not truly voluntary-they are completely one-sided. Not signing one will most likely result in being denied some opportunity-even employment. Another issue arising is that these clauses are now becoming mandatory fixtures. I mention this because it's not likely that anyone is sitting around a negotiations training table redlining/black lining the terms of the contract; no the contract is already drawn up and presented for execution. It is also likely that another clause exists stating that only the CEO and others of that tier are able to negotiate the terms. Volunteerism is really a bad choice of terminology here.
The goal here is to ultimately arbitrate anything that could be litigated while affording tremendous privacy. The remaining goals are to minimize the costs of the disputing parties and finally, not to sever the working negotiations training between employer and employee.