For employers who have introduced compulsory arbitration, the survey asked them how they had recently adopted this directive. Among employers with compulsory employment service, I found that 39.5% of them had adopted their policy in the last five years, that is, from 2012 to 2017, while 60.5% had adopted their policy more than five years ago. This date is important because in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in AT&T Mobility LLC v. The view that the waiver of class actions in binding arbitration agreements was widely applicable. This means that the introduction of compulsory labor arbitration increased significantly during this five-year period, after the Supreme Court gave the green light to the use of mandatory arbitration clauses to close class actions. Some of this growth has been driven by recent, newly created companies that have decided to introduce mandatory arbitration for their employees. But even for the largest employers, most of which have been around for a long time, we find that many of these employers have only introduced mandatory arbitration in the last five years. Census data shows that only 10% of companies employing more than 100 people are under 5 years old, but survey data show that 45.3% of these large companies have introduced mandatory arbitration in the last five years, indicating that the introduction of mandatory arbitrations has also increased for larger older companies. The largest service providers handle many arbitration proceedings, but not all of them mandatory. A 2014 survey of plaintiff lawyers by one of the report`s authors, Alexander Colvin, and Mark Gough of Penn State University, asked respondents who handled the last mandatory arbitration they participated in.
The AAA was the largest service provider and handled 50 percent of cases. JAMS was in second place with 20% of cases. 15% of cases were handled by other small service providers who were not subject to the same review or research attention as aaa or JAMS. Meanwhile, 15% of the additional cases were conducted on an ad hoc basis, without any administrative authority. In the latter category of ad hoc cases, it is the only binding arbitration agreement that lays down the rules governing the determination of arbitration procedures. 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. . . .