That gives a larger/richer entity the power to use litigation as threat/bullying only by having deeper pockets. It means there is a legal advantage of having more money. That's insane.

As I usually say re the US "How is THIS not an issue in the election?"

If I was reasonably sure I had the law on my side I'd dare go to court against an entity of any size, relying on the convention that the loser pays, and the rulings are nearly always in favor of an employee.

Ever wonder why Apple, Microsoft and Google keep billions of dollars on hand for no reason? Now you don't need to wonder.

If you have 95% chance of winning a lawsuit, and if the company you sue can afford to spend $10M on it, loser-pays-all means you have 5% chance of going bankrupt (unless you have >$10M in your account).

I don't think it's any more fair than the current US system.

First of all most would be better chance than 95% in favor of the employee in almost all cases like this, and second even $1M would not be considered reasonable costs (they can spend what they want but the court won't rule their costs to be paid by the other party if they aren't reasonable in comparison to the case itself).

I'd most likely face a less than 1% risk of paying less than $100k, even if the other party is a global mega corp. Also, the tech workers union I'm in can step in to back legal fees.