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.
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.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Lawsuits in courts can be very expensive to litigate and damage awards are often very high. Arbitration generally results in much more reasonable judgements.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Arbitration generally results in much more reasonable judgements.
For the businesses that have contracts with the arbiters, of course. What's wrong with impartial judges?
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/
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!
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.
It's a reaction to drama queens.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Arbitrators are hired by the company. They're allegedly neutral, but do you honestly think one who rules against the company too often will continue to be called? As bad a regular courts are, mandatory arbitration isn't reasonable. I hope you were complaining about court costs for the customer and not the corporation, to which I'd say give them the option... allow the customer to choose arbitration if they so wish, but do not make it mandatory.
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.
> 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.
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.