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.
Because hitchhickers don't pay and when you hittchhike you can't tell the driver where to go. This site is full of abject morons.
Um, I'm pretty sure that isn't anything like Uber, you fucking moron.
The difference is :
1) The driver does not change where he is going
2) The driver does not make a living from it
It is like making food for friends or family is not like having a restaurant. Hey, I should totally do that. I open a chain of places where people can order food from a menu. However it is NOT to eat. It is to look at, so I am totally not a restaurant and I do not have to follow the same rules.
As they can order closed bottles to take pictures and they are NOT to drink, I can even give those to minors. As it is to promote art, I should even get some money from the different states.
I am going to call it "I am totally not a restaurant" so there will be no confusion. And if people eat the food you ask? Well, Crayola is not responsible for your kid eating the crayons, so why should I?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Not a menu, an app. If they order from an app you're not a restaurant. You can prepare the food on the surface of the lot out back if you want!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Damn straight! Good Bless America! #standupkap #honortheanthem
oops...wrong site.
That is a great idea. Do you want to be my business partner. I will send you details on how you can get involved. I would just need a small fee up front. Totally not a scam.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
" 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?... https://www.google.com/search?...
Also a highly recommended read for anyone going to court or crossing paths with a lawyer: http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl...
Well, it depends on the contract I guess. I've signed a number of contracts that stipulated arbitration first. The last one was for the loan on my vehicle and the one before that was a non-disclosure contract which was a condition of my current employment.
Where I always recommend you obtain legal advice (from an attorney) before signing any contract, I'm not so quick to dismiss binding arbitration. There are times it can be helpful and avoid costly legal fees if there is a dispute. Paying a lawyer is usually beyond expensive, even for a simple lawsuit. I paid nearly 7K getting a dispute over a Non compete contract resolved. We settled out of court before we even got halfway way though discovery. In that case, I believe arbitration would have been a whole lot cheaper and had exactly the same result.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What you describe is "taking the case on contingency" and is often done by ambulance chasing "Personal Injury" attorneys who, for mealy 2/3rds of the money collected in the claim, will happily "represent" you while they shakedown the target.
Personally, I think we should have "loser pays" rules, which means the loser of a lawsuit is liable for the winner's legal fees, in addition to any awards. That would stop a lot of garbage lawsuits but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward. It would also encourage out of court settlements because the quicker the issue is resolved, the lower the legal fee liability becomes.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Just let me get this straight - instead of state monopoly on giving a licenses to enterprises that want to do taxi business we want to abandon that commie business of laws and regulations and go for one big Uber has it all monopoly?
In other words you replace a monopoly of law issuing with monopoly of Uber service provision. What is there for me - a little citizen?
How is that any different from a friend copying a tape from the radio so I can listen to a song that I'd totally buy if I like it?
Hey, anyone have a car analogy?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward.
Big company hires big lawyers. You lose. AND you get to pay for their lawyers. Great plan.
That protects the right of inventors against common man looters, the soul of communism and why it doesn't work.
When a farmer cannot be assured his field won't be looted by the rabble, he does not plant it to begin with.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
give those to minors maybe in WI but you can't just gift beer to them in most places.
Wisconsin does not have a minimum drinking age. That means even if a 5-year-old goes in the bar with his/her parent or legal guardian, he/she can also drink. The bar owner, of course, always has the right to refusal.
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?
I love it how people think taxi companies have a ton of "rules and regulations". They don't. They perform a basic background check and then the driver is let loose. It is comical that people think taxis get regular safety inspections or the drivers are specially trained.
"for mealy 2/3rds of the money collected in the claim"
Where? Most states that I've lived in, Contingency has been one-third.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
1 there is a set number for how many cabs can be in service, it is illegal for a cab to refuse a fare if their on duty light is on. Taxi's are subject to far higher maintenance regulations (sure uber cars are nice NOW, but what happens after they have 200,000 miles? Taxi's regularly hit 500,000 miles or more in their 5 - 6 year life span). You need a specialized license to operate a taxi.
Look I don't have time to list all the ways your statement was hilariously wrong. So here, learn about them: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_58.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_59.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_65.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_54.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_59.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_67.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_83.pdf
And that's just New York.
What taxi company is a monopoly? I have never been to a city in America with only on taxi company in my life, and I seriously doubt you could come up with one.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The thing is, Binding arbitration is good for the company as long as too many don't use it. If all the class members filed Arbitration requests this would cost Uber more than the class action would. The problem is people are more willing to sign up for a class than they are to file their own arbitration. There was a case a few years ago where ATT got a class dismissed then the class members to more than 1000 people to file arbitration requests. The resulting legal fees to ATT topped anything they would have paid out in a class action. The punishment is making it cost more than they gained even if you never see a dime, most people who sign up for classes don't understand that and only want a personal pay day.
monopoly rights for a limited duration (originally under 20 years for copyright and patents). Don't blame them for our current crop of elected toadies and their eternity minus a day goal. We only have ourselves to blame shitty copyright laws.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Pretty sure they have a minimum drinking age of 21 like everywhere else that gets federal highway funds.
Oh wait, not only that but here:
Wisconsin Act 337, raised the drinking age to 21 and brought the state into compliance with the NMDA (National Minimum Drinking Age) on September 1, 1986.
So what point were you trying to make again?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
What taxi company is a monopoly? I have never been to a city in America with only on taxi company in my life, and I seriously doubt you could come up with one.
The Washington D.C. area has had monopoly arrangements with taxi companies since at least the 1960s. For example, only one company was ever allowed to service Dulles airport. However, now Uber can service there too (and that monopoly is thereby somewhat broken). I hate Uber, by the way -- just stating some facts here.
http://www.wearegreenbay.com/n...
but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward.
Big company hires big lawyers. You lose. AND you get to pay for their lawyers. Great plan.
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
You still have the right to sue, whomever for whatever you wish, only now there are consequences if you file suit on a wing and a prayer and lose. Cuts down on the "Let's throw this towards the wall and see if it sticks" stuff. Besides, this is how it's done in other countries...Loser pays everybody's legal fees is actually quite common in the developed world.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
A bit idealistic to assume the correct person always wins. Especially when high-paid corporate lawyers are brought into the story.
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!
Some more for different cities...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/c...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/c...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/c...
Don't lose by not filing cases which lose.
A bit idealistic to assume the correct person always wins. Especially when high-paid corporate lawyers are brought into the story.
And you assume that bad decisions always go in favor of the guy with high priced lawyers. I dare say that's not true. Sure, a good lawyer can tie a case up in knots and outwait or outspend the competition, but remember this knife I suggest cuts both ways. Such tactics would only serve to increase the liability of the person causing the delay and increased legal costs. So, if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out. Delay just costs money now, and if the case has merit, more in the future too with loser pays.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm not sure that's completely true. Sure if they all filed individual actions Uber would lose big time in the costs to defend them. However, I don't think you can simply file an action free of charge. I think there must be some minimum filing fee and unlike the court system you probably have to pay costs if you lose. Further you have to be smart enough to prepare your own documents or pay someone like a lawyer to have that done. Class action suits exist specifically for the case where the cost or difficult of filing suit outweighs the value of the return to any one individual of the class. I'm ok with the general concept of binding arbitration clauses but they shouldn't force you arbitrate individually.
Lawyers should have to change sides at half-time, like in a soccer game.
if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out.
The companies are already paying the bulk of the legal costs in their own lawyers. The only difference would be that they would sometimes get to dump those hefty fees on a consumer.
Something to consider: If everyone started to push back on the arbitration clause, and getting it struck from the contract, this wouldn't be an issue anymore. We all keep forgetting that we hold the ultimate authority over if that contract gets signed, *NOT* the employer. If the clause offends you, strike it from the signed copy and submit it. If they push back, remind them that you don't sign contracts with those clauses per policy. And be sure to have a written copy of said policy to hand over upon request.
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.
if loser pays was the rule and the case had merit, the smart thing for companies to do is to settle quickly and not draw it out.
The companies are already paying the bulk of the legal costs in their own lawyers. The only difference would be that they would sometimes get to dump those hefty fees on a consumer.
AND incur the additional costs of the other side's lawyers. Don't forget that difference Their legal bill will double if they lose.... They still may not care, but it will cost them more to lose, so settlement becomes more attractive, for cases with merit. You see, loser pays discourages marginal claims from hitting the courts, Plus it encourages settlement, keeping a lot of cases out of court.
BTW, you know who is dead set angst this idea in the USA? You guessed it, Lawyers... Think about what that means..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not once have I had to deal with fees in a contingency case. Not in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, or California.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Now that is an option, if you want to make trouble.... Problem is, these days, a lot of this stuff is electronic signatures anyway. It's hard to make hand written changes to contracts....
Next time you get a new job, try that on your first day.... Let me know how that goes.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Their legal bill will double if they lose
Still missing the point. If the big company with high paid lawyers losses, their legal fees increase maybe 10 percent over what they are now. If the little guy loses, his fees are now 10 times as much as they would have been.
And how's that different than what we have now? Oh, they pay more if they lose.... You are missing my point. I'm not saying it's going to be a determining factor in all cases, but if you increase the costs of the standard "tie them in legal knots" tactics, you discourage it's use. You readily admit that this idea of mine will cost them more after all, doesn't increased costs discourage them from such behavior? Obviously it does... Does it fix everything in every case? No, but it helps in my view.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Those cases with merit are already settled out of court a lot of the time. This also increases the incentive to win the case aggressively and make the victim plaintiff pay for all of it.
That is a great idea. Do you want to be my business partner. I will send you details on how you can get involved. I would just need a small fee up front. Totally not a scam.
Does Uber insure the driver, vehicle and passengers in case of an accident. Suppose the driver's vehicle is hit from behind while on the way to a fare, or while driving a fare. I guess the driver is not insured after he drops off the fare, but insurance starts again when the driver accepts the next fare.
Ohh Ohh, no insurance you say!
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I've done it with many jobs, most contracts require a witnessed signature to be legitimate. A good example of this would be the NDA/Assignment of Rights that many devs are required to sign. I've had clauses struck from those that result in a zero net change situation on my flexibility to leave a position if I need to.