Slashdot Mirror
Uber Contract 'Gibberish', Says MP Investigating Gig Economy (theguardian.com)
A committee of MPs has lambasted Uber's contracts with drivers as "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible" as the company attempts to ensure its drivers remain self-employed. From a report: Frank Field, chair of the work and pensions select committee that is carrying out an investigation into the so-called gig economy, said: "Quite frankly the Uber contract is gibberish. They are well aware that many, if not most, of their drivers speak English as a second language -- they recently lost a court case trying to escape Transport for London's new English testing rules for private hire drivers -- yet their contract is almost unintelligible." [...] Publishing full details of Uber's contract terms, along with those for the takeaway courier firm Deliveroo and Amazon, Field said all three used some kind of "egregious clause" which attempted to prevent people challenging their "self-employed" designation, although neither Uber's nor Amazon's contract went as far as Deliveroo's, in the committee's view.
Law overrides contracts, less the law specifically states it can be contracted out of.
Perhaps there should be penalties for putting in clauses that contradict law. The companies put them in to scare people in to not exercising their legal rights, knowing they're not enforceable.
I wonder if it would be covered under existing "obtaining by deception" or "loss by deception" laws...
The jig is up on the "gig" economy. I can't wait for it to completely collapse. I hope the short-term rental economy goes next.
If the conservatives had their way, then ALL companies would be like that.
You know, small governement, little to no legislation, the free market will fix itself and bla bla bla.
Too bad neocons, libertarianism has already been tried. It was called feudalism, corporatism and fascism. And every time it was a disaster.
Warlords relied on violence — living (and dying) by the proverbial sword.
No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side. No, what these drivers now want — with encouragement of anti-Uber forces (who choose to ignore Lyft doing the same things), is to go back — and be treated as employees to be entitled to various benefits. Retroactively.
No, it is not. There is nothing wrong with "exploitation" per se — indeed, every employee is being "exploited".
I knew, that Statists like yourself — hold these lies to be self-evident, yes. And called them out on it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You give the government license to weigh in on a contract as soon as you rely on the courts to help you enforce it.
Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Machine guns are still required — only it is the government's police, not "Pinkerton", that use them. And it is far from obvious, this is an improvement — for any abuse by the Pinkerton employees, a BLM agitator could list 5 abuses by cops (before realizing, you and him are on the same Socialist side of the greater debate).
Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.
?? This is not even wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
is why they even bother? I don't have a lot of faith that any of this is a serious attempt to reign Uber in. They're blatantly flaunting laws about employment. If anyone really cared they'd have shut down Uber a long time ago.
My only question is: I've watched about a dozen of these "Gig Economy" companies get shut down because they were obviously employers. Uber's doing the exact same thing. How are they surviving? Are the CEOs/Investors just that much better connected?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That is not even a sentence, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying you whining little cheerleader for oligarchs. Why do you hate America so much? Do you really prefer what the Russians have done recently instead?
Ah yes, I forgot that democracy and the ideals of a Republic are "socialist" now. We should just follow "might is right" should we?
A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid â" as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...
You just implied two conditions of unfairness, which among others, judges use to invalidate contracts.
Kinda destroying your own arguments here.
Well that's one thing that MPs are expert on: Giberish
Or gleefully sign away, knowing that under the law it's unenforceable.
Given that contracts are often discussed at great length in court cases by trained legal professionals I think it's reasonable to suggest that nobody can understand a contract, and so you're effectively saying that nobody should ever sign one.
I'm fairly sure I don't correctly interpret multiple legal terms in contracts that I sign. I avoid having to pay thousands of pounds to lawyers every time I sign up for a new TV, telephone, power or other service by relying on the basic 'common sense' aspect of common law. It works, you should try it.
WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?
Here's a better question: is someone in poverty truly free?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
No, it is not, actually. What is illegal is to hold anyone as slave (except as punishment for a crime) — contract or not. But Uber is not doing anything of the kind, the contracts are "at will", breakable by either side.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Either way, be it the warlords of the dark ages or armed enforcers of the modernity, the distinct attribute is violence. And Uber manifestly does not use it — nor is it even alleged to use it.
You think the only type of violence is physical? Uber recently increased their percentage of each ride while dropping the price. I'm not saying that's violence necessarily. But it's kind of a crappy thing to do, and the drivers have no say about it.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Frankly, I don't see, how the two things are related in the slightest. A judge may think a contract was unfair (or stupid), but it is still valid — as long as entered into willingly and in good faith by both sides...
Oh, so you do think the courts should be able to weigh in on a contract.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
From my short time with Uber I realized their ethics are at zero and they pride themselves at skirting regulations and laws. It's almost an obsession with them to try and out play outside the rules. Case in point is current litigation Waymo has against their former engineer and Uber. Can't wait until Uber totally self destructs which is almost a given.
Consider, without the government, there would be no such thing as a corporation in the first place.
Moving past that, the public good is to be the paramount consideration of government. So contracts against the public good may not be enforced. That's why you cannot be forced to commit a crime to fulfill a contract, even if it wasn't a crime when the contract was signed. It's also why contracts of adhesion have limited enforcement and vague language interpreted in the favor of the other party.
You spoke of willingness and good faith. Thus, a judge must consider the inherently coercive nature of employment when there are few employers and many people out of work. Further, an attempt to treat someone as an employee but with the lesser rights of a contractor, contrary to employment law is not good faith.