A binding arbitration agreement is explicit written consent to let your employer violate any of your rights, and you can't sue them.

A former employer of mine has a binding arbitration agreement as part of their contract. Employees' only hope for recourse is through a mediator of the company's choosing, whose ruling can't be appealed. At that company, I saw discrimination. I saw retaliation for using FMLA time. I saw textbook, quid-pro-quo sexual harassment. (The victim had to leave the company; the harasser got promoted.) The non-discrimination policy was a joke. None of the victims have any legal recourse.

(“We'Re like a fAmiLy h3re!!1″ is the free space on my BINGO card.)

Am I wrong to be so distrustful?

Friends. Comrades. We always have recourse. We can always strike. We can always exercise passive resistance. It is literally impossible to make it impossible. Striking when it is illegal is an act of civil disobedience so trivial to justify, it's hard to understand why people are willing to accept “you're not allowed to strike”. Failing to strike, even when it's illegal, is becoming hard to ethically defend (IMO).

…

so today I found out that Costco has a binding arbitration agreement as part of their contract. (A relative is going to work there.) The starting pay is $14/hr, which they described as “really good” because other jobs in the area are $8 and $10.

My first job out of high school paid $14/hr, and that was “really good”, TWENTY YEARS AGO. Even then, on that wage, I couldn't afford to move out of my dad's basement, go to college, or get health insurance. That was with a union looking out for me; my relative will have no employment security at all.

Costco has a reputation for being a good employer, and the employees there still seem happy, but… why would a boss insist on permission to abuse employees unless they have a problem with managers abusing employees?