# Binding Arbitration & Partnership Agreement: Is Uber trying to pull a fast one on its drivers?



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*By Andrew Hawkins *

*http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/11/...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Class-Action Attorney Wants To Stop Uber From Enforcing New Driver Agreement*
*By Booyah *
*http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiy...files-motion-to-block-uber-from-e#.vf6Xa6G5Q8*


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

Is Uber ever NOT tring to pull a fast one on its drivers?

What I want to know is, what happens when I mail in my opt-out notice? Does it start with a D, and end in "activation?"


----------



## ORT (Nov 14, 2015)

Krishna said:


> Is Uber ever NOT tring to pull a fast one on its drivers?
> 
> What I want to know is, what happens when I mail in my opt-out notice? Does it start with a D, and end in "activation?"


I opted out, will wait and see, but I am not sweating it.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *By Andrew Hawkins *
> 
> *http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/11/...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter*


"Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney representing drivers in the California case, filed an emergency motion to block the new agreements from going into effect, according to _BuzzFeed_. A spokesperson for Uber said, 'We believe strongly that our agreements are valid, but we are making some changes and clarifications to remove uncertainty for drivers and for us as we work through our multiple appeals on this issue.'"

If we have already opted-out, we shouldn't have to opt out again. However, I will just in case. The new agreement ostensibly allows the drivers who missed previous 30 day opt out windows to opt out now. Spread the word.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Krishna said:


> Is Uber ever NOT tring to pull a fast one on its drivers?
> 
> What I want to know is, what happens when I mail in my opt-out notice? Does it start with a D, and end in "activation?"


No, it is illegal for them to deactivate anyone for opting out. I would email them your notice so that you have a copy of it just to be safe rather then send via mail. I would also bcc the attorney representing the drivers in the federal district court case in San Fran, Shannon Liss-Riordan., on the email so her office has record of it.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *By Andrew Hawkins *
> 
> *http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/11/...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter*


Love that they gave you quoted you! 

"Chi1cabby says the problem is not every driver participates in online discussions with their peers, and many may choose to agree to the new provisions without knowing what it means for their legal options. 'Drivers have to agree to the full agreement, including the arbitration provisions, on their phones before they can login to the app and work,'he says. 'Most never read the agreement, have no idea about the arbitration provisions. They have to be aware of the provision in order to send an email to opt-out.'"


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Good Read*​*Uber seeks to head off lawsuits with new binding driver agreement
http://m.sfgate.com/business/articl...new-binding-6692132.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop*

Two days after a federal judge expanded a class-action lawsuit by California Uber drivers seeking to be employees and not contractors, Uber on Friday sent all its U.S. drivers a 21-page legal agreement that would bar them from participating in future class-action suits against the company.

All 400,000-plus drivers cannot receive any ride requests until they accept the agreement, which lays out a lengthy provision requiring mandatory arbitration starting on page 15 and flagged on the first page. While it includes a way to opt out, many drivers may not understand that or may fear retaliation for doing so.

"We believe this is an illegal attempt by Uber to usurp the court's role now in overseeing the process of who is included in the class," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, the Boston lawyer representing the drivers, in an e-mail.

Liss-Riordan said she will ask U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on Thursday for an emergency motion to block Uber from enforcing the new agreement.

An Uber spokesman said the company told Chen in court Thursday of its intentions and that he verbally approved them. Uber said it will produce a transcript of that interchange soon. Liss-Riordan's emergency motion said she had not been informed of any such authorization.

"We believe strongly that our agreements are valid, but we are making some changes and clarifications to remove uncertainty for drivers and for us as we work through our multiple appeals on this issue," the company said.

Uber said the provision will not affect drivers who were already certified as eligible to be part of the existing court case, O'Connor vs. Uber Technologies. However, that point is not explained in the document sent to drivers.

Drivers can still work if they accept the agreement while e-mailing Uber at [email protected] to preserve their right to participate in future class-action lawsuits. They have 30 days after agreeing to the document to opt out of mandatory arbitration.

But the opt-out provision requires reading the entire document and understanding a fair amount of legalese. "Many Uber drivers speak English as a second language and would have a lot of trouble reading and deciphering a 21-page PDF," said Harry Campbell.

One East Bay driver, who asked not to be identified because he fears retaliation from Uber, said he had not immediately understood that he could opt out of the provision. "That wasn't obvious to me," said that driver, who graduated from UC Berkeley and worked in a professional job for many years. "Of course, I don't have a lot of interest in reading 10-point type on a cell phone. I didn't want to have to use a magnifying glass."

The driver said he interpreted the new agreement "as an 'it's my way or the highway proposition,' since if you don't sign it, you can't log on."

Retaliation by Uber against drivers for opting out of the arbitration clause or for pursuing First Amendment rights to criticize the company would be illegal, but numerous drivers commenting on social media seemed unaware of this.

Chen's Wednesday ruling had said that a previous Uber arbitration clause was invalid, meaning that the vast majority of the 160,000 people who have ever driven for Uber in California could participate in the class-action case.

The lawsuit claims that Uber drivers should be reclassified as employees, and should be entitled to reimbursement for their mileage expenses at the Internal Revenue Service rate of 57.5 cents per mile, partial reimbursement for their smartphone expenses, and some amount for tips on each trip, going all the way back to when the company was founded in 2009. Even for a company with Uber's deep pockets, losing the case could hurt, both with a multimillion-dollar payment and a revamping of its business model.

Uber contends that drivers are so unique and have so much flexibility that they should continue to be considered independent contractors. Most drivers appreciate "being their own boss," Uber has said, backing that up with various polls and statements from drivers.

Uber is hardly alone in asking workers to forswear their day in court by accepting mandatory arbitration. Such clauses have become ubiquitous in the fine print for numerous consumer transactions, including buying products, applying for credit cards, visiting the doctor or starting a new job.

Legal experts not involved in the case had different stances on Uber's latest move.

"Uber appears to be trying to circumvent the judge's ruling by amending the arbitration and class-action-waiver provisions in its driver agreements in order to remedy those parts that the judge deemed unconstitutional," said Lisa Richman, an attorney who represents companies in arbitration cases, in a statement.

But an employment lawyer disagreed.

"It is not an illegal tactic by Uber, and I don't think Judge Chen will block it," said attorney Todd Scherwin in an e-mail. "Uber's agreement appears to be straightforward and up-front regarding the waiver."

_Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @csaid
_


----------



## Kruhn (Sep 24, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Uber contends that drivers are so unique and have so much flexibility that they should continue to be considered independent contractors. Most drivers appreciate "being their own boss," Uber has said, backing that up with various polls and statements from drivers.


Ch1cabby, you know a lot of us in this forum appreciate and love your work, but please don't post something like this in the morning! You almost made me spit coffee onto my phone's screen!


----------



## JustStef (May 2, 2015)

The answer seem to be unionize. I am grateful for Judge Chen ruling. The fact is that Uber has lawyers to draft that agreements that is in the companys interest. Drivers with exception of those that are represented in this case do not have a lawyer in their cars to explain what is in their interest and rights for fear of not being able to work.

A union has dues that it can use to pay to have lawyers on retainer to keep an eye out whenever Uber decides to force the drivers to sign something without representation. Unfortunately nobody likes the idea of paying dues, but nothing comes for free.

I think that after California, the attorney that is fighting for us should start a case that will define an Independent Contractor legally. This way no matter what state the new share economy workers are in, they are protected.

Chicabby, you have my vote to start a national union!


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

"Employment Lawyers". Most represent Employers. Most would jump through their own butt hole to please the companies they represent, which is why we see such ridiculous "Agreements" when we are offered jobs. All of them boil down to these basic tenets:
1. We call the shots
2. You follow our orders
3. If you do not like these terms you can't work here


----------



## JustStef (May 2, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> "Employment Lawyers". Most represent Employers. Most would jump through their own butt hole to please the companies they represent, which is why we see such ridiculous "Agreements" when we are offered jobs. All of them boil down to these basic tenets:
> 1. We call the shots
> 2. You follow our orders
> 3. If you do not like these terms you can't work here


Right! 
= employee


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

JustStef said:


> The answer seem to be unionize. I am grateful for Judge Chen ruling. The fact is that Uber has lawyers to draft that agreements that is in the companys interest. Drivers with exception of those that are represented in this case do not have a lawyer in their cars to explain what is in their interest and rights for fear of not being able to work. /QUOTE]
> 
> I love this excerpt in the article. So true. I was thinking the same when I tried to look at the agreement on my laptop. The link to the agreement didn't work on my email on my computer.
> 
> "One East Bay driver, who asked not to be identified because he fears retaliation from Uber, said he had not immediately understood that he could opt out of the provision. "That wasn't obvious to me," said that driver, who graduated from UC Berkeley and worked in a professional job for many years. "Of course, I don't have a lot of interest in reading 10-point type on a cell phone. I didn't want to have to use a magnifying glass."


----------



## DieselkW (Jul 21, 2015)

There are many numbers in the various contracts, articles, news reports, etc. I've been reading since Uber's Friday news dump.

The most astounding number is 400,000 drivers. 


chi1cabby said:


> All 400,000-plus drivers cannot receive any ride requests until they accept the agreement,


10% of the U.S. population is an Uber driver worldwide? If the average turn over rate is one year, how long before there won't be enough drivers worldwide to satisfy demand? Drivers that have quit won't come back at 75% if they thought 80% wasn't enough to live on.

I feel like I'm hanging on to my Uber activated status just to see what the courts determine is my payout. One ride per month is all I need do for Uber, otherwise I'm keeping the Lyft app on.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

DieselkW said:


> There are many numbers in the various contracts, articles, news reports, etc. I've been reading since Uber's Friday news dump.
> 
> The most astounding number is 400,000 drivers.
> 
> ...


400,000 isn't nearly 10% of the population. There's like 260 Million of us in the US. That would be 26 million, at 10%.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Yeah, I feel like... too , but had the mentor session today so I should be driving Lyft by the end of next week.

That agreement kind of pissed me off, I was like wtf? I have to do this again. Now isn't the Judge Chen pissed too? Ok ok I get it, Uber can do this but to what to the extent to there, ubers determent ?

I get that it is illegal to be deact when we opt out, however, the wheels of just-us turns slowly should that happen to individual drivers who maybe dependent on this, I am not. And beside s, Uber is in the drivers seat so there are ways to make a driver take themselves out of the picture that maybe very difficult to prove without going into discovery after a complaint is filed.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> "Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney representing drivers in the California case, filed an emergency motion to block the new agreements from going into effect, according to _BuzzFeed_. A spokesperson for Uber said, 'We believe strongly that our agreements are valid, but we are making some changes and clarifications to remove uncertainty for drivers and for us as we work through our multiple appeals on this issue.'"
> 
> If we have already opted-out, we shouldn't have to opt out again. However, I will just in case. The new agreement ostensibly allows the drivers who missed previous 30 day opt out windows to opt out now. Spread the word.


^^^
If you opted out once but had to accept the new terms before being able to open the app, then you have to opt out again.


----------



## DieselkW (Jul 21, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> If you opted out once but had to accept the new terms before being able to open the app, then you have to opt out again.


^^^^^^^
I would add that if you missed the opportunity to opt out the first time, this is your chance.


----------

