Search results

We examine how different neutral sources and third-party neutral qualification differences relate to mediation and arbitration usage at large US firms. Neutral sourcing is controversial, particularly in employment arbitration, where many have expressed concern that unregulated sourcing arrangements may bias outcomes in favor of employers. We use agency and structure theories to hypothesize that firms will be less likely to use mediation when the neutral is sourced as a result of court-annexed mediation, but that firms may be more likely to use arbitration when the neutral is sourced from a private third-party provider. Utilizing human capital theory, we also hypothesize that organizations will use both mediation and arbitration more frequently when neutrals are perceived to be more highly qualified. Empirically, we rely on data gathered from a survey of US Fortune 1000 corporations to test these hypotheses and find support for each of them. Our results suggest that, while firms uniformly value professionalization in their neutrals, employers may impose structures on themselves in high-stakes circumstances like arbitration to ensure standardized and consistent processes, but prefer agency in lower-stakes circumstances like mediation.

This chapter analyzes the extent to which more experienced employers, arbitrators, and attorneys fare better in securities industry arbitration. Although studies into experience have identified a so-called repeat-player effect on outcomes, I argue that more nuanced considerations of experience are required.

I empirically analyze all employment arbitration awards from the securities system’s inception through 2008. I separate experience into two categories (between- and within-group effects) and run hybrid random- and fixed-effects regressions modeling increasing employer, attorney, and arbitrator experience on arbitration outcomes.

I find that between-group experience affects awards but that within-group experience is nonsignificant, except in civil rights cases. This implies that so-called repeat players gain an advantage over inexperienced players due to their entity-specific characteristics, not necessarily by learning to use the system to their advantage. I conclude that, although the securities arbitration system suffers from power imbalances, there is little evidence of systemic exploitation by firms.

Prior studies into employment arbitration are limited both by their definitions of experience and by their methodological approaches. I overcome these issues by employing a novel methodological approach to measure between- and within-entity experience, which adds a more multifaceted and nuanced framework to the literature than the common repeat-player versus single-player dichotomy.

This chapter aims to answer whether foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) operating within the Chinese context differ from indigenous firms on several essential labor standards indicators: white- and blue-collar salaries, pension insurance, and working hours. In drawing upon neo-institutional and organizational imprinting theories and applying these to the Chinese context, the study addresses competing arguments regarding the expected effects of ownership type on these indicators. We employ seemingly unrelated regressions (SURs) to empirically examine a novel national survey of 1,268 firms in 12 Chinese cities. The regression results show that foreign MNCs do not provide uniquely beneficial labor practice packages to workers when compared with various indigenous firm types, including state-owned enterprises (SOEs), affiliate businesses of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and domestic private enterprises (DPEs). Specifically, although MNCs provide relatively higher wage rates, they underperform relative to SOEs concerning social insurance. However, DPEs consistently underperform relative to MNCs across most indicators. The mixture of the results contributes important nuances to the application of neo-institutional and organizational imprinting theories to the Chinese context.