After the Supreme Court's rulings in American Express v. Italian Colors and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, why wouldn't an employer, whenever possible, force its employees into individual arbitrations over employment disputes through adhesive arbitration clauses? At least, those rulings generally should allow private, non-unionized employers to avoid class dispute resolution (whether in court or before an arbitrator) when they want to. If you want to read about that topic, take a look at "Procedure, Substance, and Power: Collective Litigation and Arbitration of Employment Rights" by law professor Katherine Stone. Here is the abstract:
this contribution to the Symposium honoring Stephen Yeazell, the author
explores the interaction between group litigation and social context in
the contemporary setting. She traces recent developments in the law of
class action waivers coupled with mandatory individual arbitration
clauses in consumer and employment contracts. She shows how the Supreme
Court’s decisions in AT&T v. Concepcion and American Express v.
Italian Colors enable large corporations that impose class action bans
on consumers and employees to achieve de facto immunity from decades of
hard-won protective legislation. She concludes that Yeazell’s insight —
that the availability of group litigation is intricately linked with a
society’s social arrangements — is as true today as it was when he first
examined the issue in the 1970s.