Why has compulsory arbitration been controversial in some U.S. states?

Compulsory arbitration is a contentious issue in the United States, primarily because it involves the government mandating the resolution of industrial disputes through legislative fiat rather than through voluntary collective bargaining.1

The controversy stems from the tension between maintaining public order and protecting the fundamental rights of workers and employers to negotiate their own agreements. While proponents argue that compulsory arbitration is necessary in sectors like transportation and public utilities to prevent significant public inconvenience or threats to public health and safety, critics raise significant legal and ethical concerns.1

In some U.S. states, these mandates have been challenged and even declared unconstitutional, as they may infringe upon the autonomy of labour unions and management to reach mutually acceptable terms. This conflict highlights the ethical importance of balancing the state's interest in preventing service disruptions with the principle of free association and the right to engage in fair, uncoerced labor negotiations. While some cities have adopted it for municipal employees, the practice remains a subject of debate regarding the appropriate scope of government intervention in private or public-sector labor relations.1