Arbitrators

My theory about arbitrators is that the idea that they represent an objective third party review is an oxymoron. The fact is that even though the parties normally share the costs of using an arbitrator, in 99% of the cases an arbitrator's services are required because the Union wants to challenge an Agency action. This means that the primary employer of arbitrators is the Union. It is only human nature to try to protect one's primary source of income. This would go a long way to explain some of the very unusual decisions made by arbitrators as well as their propensity to "split the baby". In my view the Federal arbitration system needs to be fixed so as to elimninate the myth of an objective third party review.