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.
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.
" 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?
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.
It's a much bigger issue than Uber. Binding arbitration basically privatizes the legal system, setting it's own rules and locking you out from join a group of people (class action) to get redress against an organization. Class action suits have been a very effective way of enforcing the rights of the group where an individual does not have the resources to take the matter to court.
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.
We're not a food vendor, we're just friends cooking for other friends who pay us.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.