Slashdot Mirror
Uber Wins Key Ruling In Its Fight Against Treating Drivers As Employees (arstechnica.com)
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that drivers "seeking to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors must arbitrate their claims individually, and not pursue class-action lawsuits," reports Reuters. Ars Technica explains the significance of this ruling: Employees are guaranteed to earn federal minimum wage and are entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours per week. Uber employees, in contrast, are paid by the ride and might earn much less than minimum wage if they drive at a slow time of day. California law also gives employees the right to be reimbursed for expenses they incur on the job, which would be significant for Uber drivers who otherwise are responsible for gas, maintenance, insurance, and other expenses of operating an Uber vehicle.
Hence, the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors is a big and important one. It's also a question that isn't addressed at all in Tuesday's ruling, as the courts never get to the substance of the plaintiffs' arguments about employment law. Instead, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court ruled that the drivers signed away their rights to sue in court when they signed up to be Uber drivers. Uber's agreement with drivers requires that this kind of dispute be handled by private arbitration rather than by a lawsuit in the public courts. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling handed down in May that held that federal labor law did not preempt arbitration agreements. [...] the decision means that each driver's case must be fought on an individual, case-by-case basis. Class-action lawsuits in the federal courts allow plaintiffs to effectively pool their resources. [...] But under arbitration, each driver's case will be considered individually. Most won't have the resources to afford top-tier legal representation, and drivers won't have the inherent leverage that comes from being able to bargain as a group.
Hence, the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors is a big and important one. It's also a question that isn't addressed at all in Tuesday's ruling, as the courts never get to the substance of the plaintiffs' arguments about employment law. Instead, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court ruled that the drivers signed away their rights to sue in court when they signed up to be Uber drivers. Uber's agreement with drivers requires that this kind of dispute be handled by private arbitration rather than by a lawsuit in the public courts. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling handed down in May that held that federal labor law did not preempt arbitration agreements. [...] the decision means that each driver's case must be fought on an individual, case-by-case basis. Class-action lawsuits in the federal courts allow plaintiffs to effectively pool their resources. [...] But under arbitration, each driver's case will be considered individually. Most won't have the resources to afford top-tier legal representation, and drivers won't have the inherent leverage that comes from being able to bargain as a group.
Did you miss Hillary's 2016 campaign then? (There's good reasons people are annoyed at both major parties.)
(1) Their "real" income after expenses puts them below minimum wage ($9.20 an hour). I felt sorry for them. They could work at a restaurant or store and earn better income.
(2) I say "used to" because one of those drivers I gave a generous tip, then proceeded to charge me for HIS drive from Santa Ana to Pasadena. I figured it was a mistake. BUT THEN Uber told me, "The driver says he took your girlfriend home, so that was the cause for the extra charge. No refund."
Problem: No girlfriend. I lost $120, and immediately erased Uber's app since that's not the kind of company I want to do business with.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Such clauses should be illegal. People should have the right to sue when the want. Poor and under-employed people, especially, don't have the negotiating power to pick and choose which clauses they like in such contracts. It's not a deli: it's get a paycheck or don't get a paycheck. This lopsidedness is sometimes called "Inequality of bargaining power".
Some argue it would flood the courts, but the courts can be streamlined to have an arbitration-like stage for smaller claims where the arbiter tries to work out a mutual agreement without anybody having to visit a courtroom. If either party doesn't agree, then it goes up to the formal court. The arbiter wouldn't be selected by nor hired by the corporation.
Table-ized A.I.
Trump would never have been nominated if the typical Republican wasn't annoyed with Republicans. His relatively approval rating among Republicans is due in large part because Trump tweaked that party's establishment.
Remember 2016 was the "mad as hell" election and still the Democrats ran the most establishment candidate possible. (If you're mad about Trump, blame the Clintons.)
Fortunately for all of us, there are rights that you cannot sign away, even if you sign a contract to that effect. If it were otherwise, we would all be living in a hellscape dystopia.
But alas, the SCOTUS decided that employee arbitration agreements were not one of them, despite federal labor law. Maybe a different law needs to be passed. Maybe Uber drivers need to unionize (yes, I know that is another kind of challenge.) The point is that employers don't have unfettered power to dictate terms to employees. Other elements of society must be able to balance the power of employers. Without that, we're all serfs.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Remember 2016 was the "mad as hell" election and still the Democrats ran the most establishment candidate possible. (If you're mad about Trump, blame the Clintons.)
No it's not the Deomcrats fault Trump won. I thought the Republicans were the 2party of personal" responsibility anyway...
Trump is and always was corrupt, venal and incredibly self serving. The information was all out there before the election. If you voted for Trump, the fault is entirely yours. Own it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.