Arbitration conceals illegal and unethical conduct
In addition to the other reasons many companies lust after mandatory arbitration, there's the fact that arbitration files are sealed. So if you were forcing your employees to break the law, for example, it would be in your best interest to have an employment dispute go to arbitration.
As a condition of employment, Amgen requires its employees to sign arbitration agreements. This has been a trend for a number of years in corporate America and the reason is that this method of resolving disputes can be less expensive for employers, since arbitration doesn’t involve the court system.
One former Amgen sales rep, however, is challenging the practice. In a lawsuit, Marc Engelman accuses the biotech of forcing reps to engage in off-label promotion and patient privacy violations to market the Enbrel medication for psoriasis. But he also charges the arbitration agreement is “procedurally unconscionable” and names the American Arbitration Association as a co-defendant.
How is it unconscionable? For instance, the deal doesn’t allow for dispute involving retaliation; limits discovery to a single individual deposition for each party and then only one expert deposition; requires aggrieved employees to pay for a court reporter; and allows only Amgen an exception to arbitration to seek relief in court, according to the suit filed in a California state court. (Emphasis added.)
The seriousness of the allegations isn't the only reason I'm posting this. Note the bold portion. If arbitration is such a fair and wonderful method of dispute resolution, then why would Amgen want the option to sue their employees? Probably because arbitration isn't so fair and wonderful if you're in the plaintiff's chair.