If it’s only the employers pushing for arbitration it can’t possibly be because it’s better for the employee.
Prove it.
A very small fraction of civil cases are resolved by jury verdict. If the plaintiff's case has merit, the point is to get the other side to settle. You sound like a big markets guy. What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves? No middleman or arbitrator needed.
> What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves?
What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury. (Why are you teeing up such easy questions?)
Prove that any of the mechanisms you're describing are in play, in the way you claim they are. I'm sure every question you read becomes very easy when you begin from the assumption that "this is how the world works".
Show me the law that permits juries to award arbitrary damages for employment disputes creating "unbounded risk", and show me that a jury has actually done it.
> What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury.
Ah yes, the gold standard of due process, fairness, and impartiality, enshrined in our constitution, the arbitrator. You know it's fair because of how badly the employer wants it and the fact that states are trying to make these contractual provisions illegal.
[1] this means it's harder to understand