Came here to say this. Non-descrimination rights should be inalienable.

Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is. From what I have seen, in Europe generally the panel is composed of two members chosen by the two parties and a third one by common agreement (any previous agreement being null and void) or, in case of disagreement, nominated by the president of the local tribunal.

> Arbitration itself is not a problem. The selection of the arbiters is.

That's true, if the goal is to settle a specific unique dispute between two parties.

The problem is that arbitration in the US isn't used as strategy to settle such disputes, it's used to keep disputes secret and divide-and-conquer wronged parties to make dispute settlement impractical for them. Basically, it serves to tip the scales further in favor of the largest, savviest players.

Some types of claims are not waivable by law. But I'm not sure discrimination should be one of them. Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment. This would only be helpful to employees who naively sign a separation agreement without understanding what they have given away. Perhaps a more nuanced approach could work, eg, the one taken by OWBPA to impose a mandatory post-signing period in which an older worker can revoke their signature. This is currently the law for "older workers" but I see no reason not to extend to all workers...

I'm not sure the settling of claims on termination is a particularly great mechanism as it stands. At least among friends, that seems to be a common clause when somebody gets laid off or let go. E.g., I know somebody who was laid off from a large tech company with no notice, and any severance was made conditional on signing away all rights.

In effect, the ability to sign away those rights generally, rather than in response to settling a specific incident of wrongdoing, gives employers terminating a employees an incentive to fuck them over so as to maximize leverage.

Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here.

> Perhaps better is something where anybody signing away the right to sue over discrimination has to do it under the supervision of the state's workplace anti-discrimination regulator? That would remove the information asymmetry that the employer has here.

Please, no. I can already predict the outcome: government bureaucracy slows down the whole process to a standstill, corruption/kickbacks become the norm. Meanwhile, employees still keep getting screwed over.

Depends on the location, I suppose. I generally hear good things about the California labor regulators, and I've never heard a peep about corruption there.

"Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible to settle such claims in exchange for severance payments on termination of employment."

That's the point. That shouldn't be possible. I should not have to waive my rights to collect severance. That should just be given by default.

In places where you can't waive this, people still get remuneration from the court. Of course these places have more reasonable lawyering costs too (and/or are bankrolled by the union).

That is the case as I understand it - you cant sell your self into slavery