Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drops Arbitration Requirement For Sexual Assault Victims (npr.org)
Previously, Uber required complaints to be resolved in mandatory arbitration -- out of court and behind closed doors. Today, the company announced it is "changing its policies to allow customers, employees and drivers who are sexually harassed or assaulted to take their complaints to court and to speak publicly about their experiences," reports NPR. From the report: Last month, Katherine and Lauren were among 14 female victims who sent an open letter to Uber's board, pointing to the company's own sexual harassment problems and the #MeToo movement. "Silencing our stories deprives customers and potential investors from the knowledge that our horrific experiences are part of a widespread problem at Uber," they wrote. The women's demand -- and Uber's response -- highlight the significance of mandatory arbitration agreements, which are increasingly common. The provisions are usually in the fine print -- and most people who sign the agreements don't know they have signed away their right to sue.
I'm thankful Uber, out of an abundance of caution concerning the potential PR blowup, revised their contracts. These arbitration agreements are going too far and it's time for some common sense regulations.
It should not be legal to sign away your right to sue simply for a common exchange of goods or services.
Did you know that there is a urologist in Austin TX named Dick Chopp?!! Isn’t that cray cray?!!
Cool story, incel.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct?
That doesn't seem to make sense?
How in the hell is mandatory arbitration for customers legal? That makes zero sense. For any business.
Karma hit... You know you are gonna get modded up for that.
The backlash against #metoo is pretty strong on Slashdot. It's a shame people can't engage in the debate, rather than fearmonger.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
they didn't do this out of the kindness of their heart. They're afraid they'll lose the ability to force their drivers and regular customers who get in wreaks into arbitration over this.
If you don't like arbitration contracts you'll need to change who gets elected. Kick the Republicans (who voted to allow companies to mandated it) and the corporate Dems like Pelosi & Schumer who did too. So far only the Bernie & Warren wing of the Democratic party has offered any serious opposition...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
making Arbitration legally binding. I forget the name of the law, but it passed with good 'ole "Bipartisan" support, meaning with Republicans and what we call "Corporate" Democrats (e.g. Democrats who side with corporations over workers). There's a small wing of the Democratic party that opposed it but there's so much corporate cash in politics now and so many wedge issues (guns, abortion, gay rights) that economic issues mostly gets drowned out and when they do make it front and center people get the wool pulled over their eyes by endless ad campaigns and a media that leans hard right on economics and gets called "Left Wing" for supporting gay rights...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What debate?
Unless you commit 100% you are a white male sexist rapist.
Or so you think there is another allowable position?
After all, trial by pitchfork wielding social media crowds is the new justice, isn't it? Facts and evidence are so last year!
The victims don't. What ever comes up in arbitration, no matter what uber says, should be revealed since it will harm Uber and possibly cripple them. Their victims lives are already ruined. Use the MAD option. In addition if Uber is hiding a crime the contract is invalid.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
come on supreme court. powerful companies shouldn't be able to contract their way out of the legal system. pretty soon everything will require arbitration.
They even said I could if I did it within 30 days and gave a phone number to do it.
When I called the call center had no idea what I was talking about. I tried several times before giving up. It was more the principle of the thing.
It was a TracFone (a ZTE brand phone as a matter of fact). ~$20 for phone and ~$20 for service. I don't really see any potential dispute with them being worth my time unless the phone literally blows up or catches on fire causing damage to me or my belongings and I don't think that will happen.
I probably could have tried harder to find someone who could do it or alternatively I suppose I could send them a physical letter registered mail, but it wasn't worth the effort to me.
And yes, I bought it as a burner phone - so I could have a phone number to give people I never want to hear from. If I can only convince "Dell Technical Support" to start calling that phone instead of the one I actually use I'll be so happy.
First they raped the inmates, but I didn't care because I'm not an inmate. Then they raped the girls, but I didn't care because I'm not a girl...
The arbitration clause wouldn't affect a criminal case.
A passenger who felt they were mistreated (rightly or wrongly) could sue Uber for not preventing it somehow, such as by having a more thorough background check of drivers or whatever.
I say "felt they were mistreated" because in many cases people have different viewpoints. There are instances where a clearly a crime was committed, obviously. This new policy also applies to alleged sexual harassment, though. That's a) not a crime (it is a reason to sue) and b) very, very subjective. The definition of sexual harassment is "unwelcome ...", so while one person might think they are both having fun laughing at a joke, the other person might internally feel the joke is unwelcome, and therefore potentially sexual harassment. The EOEC commission definition of sexual harassment also includes things like "offensive comments about women in general". I think most of us have seen a possibly innocent comment construed as "offensive about women in general", because someone heard something different than what the speaker intended or whatever. So there can be instances where everyone agrees no crime was committed, but one person feels a comment was offensive, and therefore sexual harassment.
Sad.
Fuck evidence, I'll rape you for thinking white male thoughts!
You must be the most victimstance loving bitch-ass white male I've ever heard of, if you really think you've got it rough in today's society. Bitch Trumpy lol.
Both of those can be true, though.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's a pretty extreme view, and kinda bizarre considering one of the worst offenders was an old black guy. His actions really hurt black people, the Cosby Show being such an important landmark for them...
And he was convicted by a jury.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Filing a charge with the EEOC results in mediation. Not that different to arbitration although the commission is less interested in protecting the corporation. It is telling the US government isn't declaring sexual harassment (and other EEOC issues) exempt from civil arbitration.
Then they pseudo-quoted Niemöller, to their own convenience.
What we're thinking
So when someone tells you about being harassed or assulted, your reaction is more or less "fuck you"?
At least you're keeping it classy.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's a reaction to drama queens.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
changing its policies to allow customers, employees and drivers who are sexually harassed or assaulted
I'm sure this goes without saying, but Uber have no idea how laws work.
Arbitration is a US problem.
As an example, even the Steam subscriber agreement has an arbitration clause. It's one of the clauses that is specifically listed as "ignore this if you are in the EU" (or other countries with reasonable laws).
The judge in that case, who's married to vocal MeToo activist but thinks that's not a conflict, was incredibly biased and made rulings that are almost certainly going to get the case overturned on appeal. The parade of women not a party to the case, an "expert witness" telling the jury that inconsistencies and inaccuracies in a womans story are proof she's telling the truth (it's also proof if there are none of those), her waiting to bring the claim is proof she's telling the truth (doesn't matter if it's right away or decades later, it's always evidence of credibility), if she stays friends with him after it's proof, if she doesn't it's proof, and on and on about why everything that seems to impugn credibility actually bolsters it, all based on ridiculous "research" by gender studies professors with no grounding in objective fact. Admitting that as expert was a mockery of Daubert. At the peak of the MeToo movement the jury had 'ignore the facts, believe the victim' drilled into them with the full blessing of the judge; there's a reason the last jury deadlocked and this one didn't.
Look, I think Cosby was guilty, did similar to lots of other women, and is generally a bad person. But that doesn't justify denying him due process. And the precedents are going to be used in the future against people who are likely not guilty.
The notion that ordinary consumers are capable of informed consent when entering into services with huge corporations is laughable. Even if people read the huge contracts many wouldn't understand them.
The analog here is statutory rape. We don't accept consent from minors because they are not in a position to make a good decision in the first place. Mega-corps occupy a similar unbalanced place of power vs an individual.
Where have you been all this time?
There have been stories like "we had sex and he put finger into my mouth and I didn't like it". (one POC celebrity)
Or like "he asked for oral sex, I asked maybe later and then he kind of slightly nudged my head" - James Franco.
The pinnacle of sexual harassment, assault, rape and eating people alive (if we conflate definitions, let's do it grandly) for me was a Doctor, who "sexually harassed or assaulted or raped or eaten alive" by inviting her to become a "friend" on the facebook (something, that evil serial harasser/assaulter/rapist/cannibal did to all his patients).
The bloated approach to what does constitute sexual (insert something from unwanted comment to brutal murder) went so far, that when applied to men, figured that 6 million of american men are sexually assaulted/raped/murdered by women every year National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010
But wait, it's not yet finished, these numbers are not scary enough some are working hard to get even more impressive figures.
Wow I bet you're next level bitter.
Why do rapists have modpoints anyway? When you take sexual advantage of a captive audience, you're being rapey AF
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think the #metoo movement is fucking retarded but how the hell is it even legal for a corporation to take away a person's right to court proceedings in criminal matters? I never realized that you can just sign away your rights like that so easily.
That's a pretty extreme view, and kinda bizarre considering one of the worst offenders was an old black guy
This line reminds of the "I know a black friend" defense used by people trying to deny they are racists.
His actions really hurt black people
Only in the eyes of bigots and racists who still believe in guilty by association and judging people based on their skin color or gender. Or if you believe in easy simple answers like "patriarchy" and "rape culture"
> don't fucking hit on passengers in your cab unless they hit on you first
Well yeah.
I don't know about your friends, but most of my friends are really, really bad at knowing if someone is hitting on them. Some think people are when they aren't, most don't see it when someone is. That creates two opportunities for confusion with "don't hit on people in your cab unless they hit on you first". Was the driver hitting on the passenger? Maybe. Was the passenger flirting with the driver? Whichever he thinks, yes or no, there seems to be about a 50% chance he's wrong.
That doesn't even account for how people can get after a drink or two - exactly when people are most likely to call Uber. People sometimes sound awfully flirty after they've had a couple drinks. That doesn't mean they won't decide the next day that they didn't like the response. So the best general policy is probably "don't flirt at work". That doesn't mean you should be able to successfully sue someone because someone else responded positively to your flirty behavior.
> TFA says that it affects sexual assault cases.
As I recall, TFA links to another article, which in turn links to the actual policy statement. The actual policy covers sexual harassment, which unfortunately has a very subjective definition. Apparently it's very hard to define in a way that everyone is satisfied with.
> Assault is physical.
If there is actual touching, that's battery. Assault by itself is an attempt . That's why you typically only hear battery mentioned as "assault and battery" - because if they DID touch, then they first attempted to touch. So you pretty much can't have battery by itself without assault. You hear assault mentioned separately because someone can make an attempt without actually doing it. A problem with assault is one must deduce what was in the person's mind, what they were trying to do. Sometimes that's obvious, sometimes it's not.
The above are the classical definitions of just "assault" and "battery", without adding "sexual". Battery is touch that intentionally or knowingly causes injury, assault is an attempt to do so.
Once you get into "sexual assault", the terms used depend on the state. There is no such crime as "sexual assault" in California. It's sexual battery. Sexual assault *would* mean "tried to touch my boobs", but that's not in California law. California (and some other states) have a crime of "sexual battery" - non-consensual touching of sexual body parts for sexual pleasure. Texas is an example of a state which uses the term "sexual assault" for what would more accurately be called sexual battery, or rape.
Basically. It's a reaction cultivated by people like you who made a big deal about every little thing. I mean, christ, the girl who wore a chinese styled dress to prom and people like you were screaming "cultural appropriation" and how awful of a person she was and how offensive it was, and then the chinese came back with "you may call it cultural appropriation, but we call it cultural appreciation". And I say people like you not based on this one post, but off of hundreds of posts I've seen you make.
Basically, when you make a hobby out of getting offended on other peoples behaves, regardless of whether they actually were offended themselves, those of us who aren't fanatics will become deaf to claims of harassment and abuse. Boy who cried wolf and all that.
He wasn't. He was downmodded.
You mean a 'debate' arbitrated by people who already agree with your side? No thanks. You can keep your false consensus.
I see this all over the place and it is royally fucked up. If I say "John stole my car" that does not make me a victim of theft. It makes me an accuser. and it does not make John a thief, it makes him an alleged thief.
Imagine I demand that white people accusing black people of crimes should be "just believed" and call any white accuser a victim. Would that not be vile and racist? So how is "listen and believe" not vile and sexist? Those accusing people of sexual crimes (male or female, because there are female perpetrators and female false accusers in the world) are not victims until the crime is proven.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
It's a reaction to drama queens.
Definition of drama queen: anyone who doesn't just shut up and toe the line.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Basically. It's a reaction cultivated by people like you who made a big deal about every little thing. I mean, christ, the girl who wore a chinese styled dress to prom and people like you were screaming "cultural appropriation"
Ah I see you've been moded up for using the old Argumentum ad making shit up about me. I have never ever complained about cultural appropriation. You then segue smoothly from "people like me" to accuse me of all sorts of stuff.
Boy who cried wolf and all that.
Yeah the boy cried wolf. He was ignored by the villagers and got eaten by a wolf.
The same thing happened next week and the next and the next and boys kept getting eaten by wolves.
Finally someone says that it's a problem and here you are whining that people are just crying about wolves too much.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's simple. Stop getting so offended. You are too easily offended by shit that has no bearing to your life.
If someone wants to lie about them being raped. Let em, the truth will come out. We have a clear definition of rape. And no, nudging someone's head isn't rape. Friending someone on Facebook for a date isn't rape. The problem is you guys have broadened the definition of rape to include "having sex with someone you regret". Sorry that's not rape.
The easiest way to tell if a rule/law/ordinance/convention is reasonable, is to consider what would happen if everyone complied with it. Would the world be a better or worse place? In the case of "User Agreements", if everyone read them in their entirety, the economy would grind to a halt overnight as person after person worked their way through one 47-page hyperlinked document after another. Not to mention all of the indirect documents they would supposedly need to read ... and they would need to "check back and re-read the policy often" ... you know, in case something had changed.
It's safe to say that we'd be in extreme trouble should these documents every get read, and in fact, the companies that publish them absolutely depend on people NOT reading them, for if people did, that company would go bankrupt in very short order.
That it's completely unreasonable and impractical to read said terms, not to mention, the obligation to keep reading every TOS you've encountered over and over, is not even a controversial statement.
Another thing that completely obliterates all notions of good-faith, is that fact that the company can tell how long someone was on the "Contract" page before clicking through. They know very, very well that the use did not read the arbitration clause in 3 seconds, and knowing that, they are aware that there was no informed consent. She knows that a practical reality of living in modern society necessititates bypassing pages and pages of legalize, and our very economy depends on her not reading it.
What is the pinnacle of sadness and shame for the USA, is that a private company has to "allow" a person to exercise their legal rights on the basis that they user signed away those rights by clicking through a long document they viewed in 3 seconds. Prenups are invalidated when one spouse has legal representation and the other doesn't, but a woman can sign away her ability to go to court for sexual assault? And we allow it? We truly are the worst generations of Americans, and no amount of excuses, justifications, or snarky comebacks will change that.
If you steal a $1 pack of gum from a store, it's a criminal matter. If a company rips off millions of customers and/or negligently subjects them to sexual assault, it's a civil matter.
I shouldn't be the only one hanging my head in shame to have allowed this to hapoh look the football game's on! Go Foreskins!
shit, paragraph breaks
It is no longer possible to enforce a punitive NDA or an arbitration that restricts disclosure of sexual harassment or abuse. The legal and PR consequences will prove disastrous.