Yes, there are still some companies that do not require forced conciliation. Businesses generally have the fewest complaints to consumers. Unfortunately, forced arbitration is so widespread that in many sectors it is not possible to buy for a product or service that does not require forced conciliation. Today, it is increasingly difficult to find insurance, a credit card, a mobile phone, a broker for a pension account or a retirement home, for example, where forced conciliation is not necessary. The profit rates of employees in compulsory arbitration are much lower than in the Federal Or Regional Court, with co-workers in compulsory arbitration procedures earning only about one-fifth of the time (21.4 per cent), or 59 per cent as often as in federal courts and only 38 per cent as often as in state courts. The differences are even greater in damages awarded, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 per cent of the median price in federal courts and 43 per cent of the median price in regional courts. The most comprehensive agreement is one where we look at the average or average amount that has been recovered in all cases, including cases where the employee loses and no compensation is awarded. If we make that comparison, we find that the average result in mandatory arbitration is only 16 per cent in federal courts and 7 per cent in state courts. While there are additional factors to consider when comparing the two systems, it is important to recognize from the outset that, in a simple aggregated comparison, mandatory conciliation is much less favourable for workers than the courts.
In 2014, in Iskanian v. CLS Transport, a HGV driver filed a class action arguing that overtime is not paid and that breaks are made.32 In this case, the worker was the subject of a work agreement that included both a compromise clause and a waiver of collective or representation actions. The California Supreme Court ruled that the waiver was not enforceable, as applied to paga claims. Referring to the counting sentence that “[a]nyone may waive the benefit of a law intended exclusively in its favour.