Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drivers Are Subject To Individual Arbitration, Says Court (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Uber won a courtroom victory on Wednesday when an appeals court ruled that drivers are subject to individual arbitration in a lawsuit over background checks, a ruling that might help the ride-hailing company fend off another costly class action lawsuit filed by its drivers. While the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that agreements signed by two former drivers for the service over background checks "clearly and unmistakably" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter, the reasoning may be applied to another class action lawsuit filed by drivers over the company's employment classifications. Uber agreed to settle that lawsuit earlier this year -- an agreement that was rejected by a federal judge last month. Arbitration is a method frequently used by companies for resolving legal conflicts outside of the court system. However, critics say that binding arbitration clauses give corporations an unfair advantage over employees and consumers who do not have the resources to challenge companies individually.
employment classifications may not be limited by rules like this and it will not stop the states / IRS from taking them to court.
How is Uber any different than hitchhiking? They essentially seem like the same thing. I stick out my virtual thumb and someone picks me up.
Hitchhiking bad, Uber good... I guess everything is better if you build an App.
However, critics say that binding arbitration clauses give corporations an unfair advantage over employees and consumers who do not have the resources to challenge companies individually.
And the arbitration panel is usually loaded with industry insiders like with securities arbitration. Look at you broker's agreement. Disputes are to be resolved by arbitration - a panel loaded with industry insiders. And they mostly rule in favor of the business.
eBay and PayPal do that too.
They'll bullshit and give some excuse like "it's a panel of experts" or some such nonsense, but the fact is it's to load the dice in their favor.
" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter"
The company has a relationship with the arbiter. They get repeat business. You are expendable. Common law has its problems, but when you sign an arbitration clause you strip yourself of your common law rights. You give up transparency and appeal rights. https://www.google.com/search?q=arbitration+scam https://www.google.com/search?q=arbitration+corrupt
Also a highly recommended read for anyone going to court or crossing paths with a lawyer: http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocls.pdf
How is this a problem? If your lawsuit has merit, then it shouldn't be hard to find someone who will lend you money to pay the legal fees if you promise to pay back 2x when you receive the lawsuit award.
As far as I know, drivers aren't forced (by operation of law or against the law) to drive for Uber. Anyone who drivers for Uber has freely signed the contract, judging that the benefits of driving for Uber outweighed the costs -- including all the obligations imposed by the contract such as the arbitration clause.
If the drivers didn't like the terms of the contract, they had a simple remedy: they could have found a different job. We should respect their choice.
More so if it is us (society at large and the legal system) who think that the drivers made a bad bargain, in that we believe giving up access to the courts isn't worth the money you get by driving for Uber. Then our solution is to speak out and convince the drivers to quit -- it's not to retroactively negate the free choice the drivers made.
We all have a keen interest in the legal procedural minutiae of Uber drivers.
Even with an app you may need an vending license / food vending license?
Class actions have been "very effective" in enforcing the rights of a group? I'd say they've been most effectively at generating profit for the attorneys involved.
As someone on the receiving end of quite a few class action judgements over the years, I'd say it's rare when the settlement resulted in the company making future changes that prevented the problem from happening again? They simply view these as costs of doing business.
There were a lot of class action settlements involving banks and the way they proceeded overdrafts on people's personal checking accounts, a while back. I received a grand total of maybe $35-40 over those situations. In those cases, the banks did correct the issue -- but I'm far from convinced it was the class action lawsuit frenzy that motivated them to change. The practice of putting through a check for the largest dollar amount first, to maximize overdraft fees on multiple small ones that subsequently bounced was getting media attention and creating consumer outrage before anyone ever considered a lawsuit. Truth be told? I imagine quite a few individuals got those charges refunded by going into the banks and complaining.
Most of the time, a class action will be over a design flaw in a product. By the time the court system grinds along and decides to award a settlement, the product is already several years old and long since out of production. The idea is that everyone who bought it gets some compensation -- but realistically, you don't get awarded anything covering your frustration or your costs involved in trying to rectify the initial problem. You just get some small fraction of the item's original purchase price. Heck, often times, all you get is a discount towards buying something ELSE from the same manufacturer. That's pretty much the ultimate joke... The company gets to keep you as a customer when they would never have sold you another product otherwise, just by offering to give you 20% off or what-not? Some penalty for selling faulty goods, that is!
Worse, arbiters apply their own 'body' of law, which always favours the richer party.
Uber won a courtroom victory on Wednesday ...
The drivers agreed to the terms so only way they can re-draw the contract is to unionize, although as hire labour, Uber can ignore them and hire more drivers.
I think that looser pays is a good idea, but it should be for some definition of "reasonable" legal costs, where reasonable would be along the lines of billable hours at an amount set by law which would be about the billable rate for the average attorney for *one* lawyer during court hours, and for court-defined reasonable amount of time spent out of court, plus other fees along a similar vein. In other words, you can't collect for your dream team, you can only collect what an average lawyer would charge for similar services.
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.