# Trump administration poised to side with employers in Supreme Court case (Arbitration Waiver)



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

U.S. Legal News | Fri Jun 16, 2017 | 4:05pm EDT
*Trump administration poised to side with employers in Supreme Court case -source*

By Lawrence Hurley, Alison Frankel, Andrew Chung and Robert | WASHINGTON

The Trump administration is poised to side with employers in a Supreme Court case over the rights of workers to bring class action lawsuits against companies, according to a court document and a source familiar with the litigation.

Signaling the reversal of a position staked out earlier by the Obama administration, which backed employees, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent agency in the federal government, said in letter to the court on Thursday that its own lawyer will represent the board in the employees' class action rights case.

It will take over from the Justice Department, which had previously handled the case.

It is unusual for the government to change positions in a case already pending at the Supreme Court, and a source familiar with the litigation said the change of lawyers indicated the department was likely to file court papers in support of the employers.

That would mark a sharp break from the administration of former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, which had originally pursued the case on behalf of the NLRB.

The legal dispute is over whether employment agreements requiring workers to waive their rights to bring class action claims are invalid, as the labor board has found.

The NLRB currently has a Democratic majority, isolating it politically from the Republican Trump administration.

In January the Supreme Court agreed to review three lower court rulings, including one involving global professional services firm Ernst & Young, over the legality of the waivers. Employers have increasingly compelled workers to sign them as part of their arbitration agreements to guard against the rising tide of worker lawsuits seeking unpaid wages.

Companies say the waivers allow for speedier and more cost-effective resolution of workplace disputes. Class action litigation, on the other hand, is harder to fight and can lead to large damages awards.

Workers argue that pursuing their cases individually is prohibitively expensive and, without the prospect of large damages awards that class action litigation can lead to, lawyers will be deterred from taking their cases.

The nine Supreme Court justices are expected to issue a ruling on the issue in the court's next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2018.
*
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-workplace-idUSL1N1JD1PW*


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

I like how people are compelled to sign the arbitration agreements. It is almost like they are entitled to that job how dare an employer put in a contract something that someone does not agree with as a condition of their employment or continued employment.


----------



## SLuz (Oct 20, 2016)

It's hard to dictate if people have rights.

{To fully grasp the control that Wall Street now holds on Washington, one needs to remember that Wall Street has already placed an unprecedented blindfold on both investors and consumers by running its own private justice system outside of the U.S. court system. Known as mandatory arbitration, Wall Street is the only industry in America which forces its customers _and _employees to agree to forego use of the Nation's court system as a requirement to open a customer account or to gain employment in the industry.

Using that shield of darkness, customer and employee complaints are ushered into a star chamber system where case law and legal precedents are thrown out the window; where discovery is limited; where reasoned decisions citing to case law are not provided to the parties; where the press is denied access to the proceedings; and where arbitrators have a lucrative, repeat-player conflicted status - distinctly contrary to the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a right to a jury trial for claims exceeding $20.}
Excerpted from: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2017/...wants-to-put-a-bigger-blindfold-on-consumers/


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> I like how people are compelled to sign the arbitration agreements. It is almost like they are entitled to that job how dare an employer put in a contract something that someone does not agree with as a condition of their employment or continued employment.


Uber sent out three day notice on Friday, May 19, 2017 telling Drivers "agree to contract by monday May 22, 2017 or you don't work." And by the way, No more commissions, Driver base rate stays the same, and Uber is increasing boost prices to Riders (speeding the meter for Uber). EQUALS ANOTHER PAY CUT. And by the way, Uber steals from Drivers and wants to settle one case at a time, and not have all the Drivers Uber stole from go to court together in class action. Corporate nonsense that Urine Haired President sucks up to.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Ca$h4 said:


> Uber sent out notice on Friday, May 19, 2017 telling Drivers "agree to contract by monday May 22, 2017 or you don't work." And by the way, No more commissions, Driver rate stays the same, and Uber is increasing prices to Riders. EQUALS ANOTHER PAY CUT.


Could always take your car and go home nothing forcing anyone to partner with uber


----------



## SLuz (Oct 20, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> nothing forcing anyone to partner with uber


You could always ignore all laws (traffic, labor, judicial or otherwise) nothing is forcing you to partner with them


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Uber's agent probably paying the troll $4/hr.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

SLuz said:


> You could always ignore all laws (traffic, labor, judicial or otherwise) nothing is forcing you to partner with them


Nothing wrong with changing the TOS nor illegal. Each ride we give is a new job, it is no different than changing the terms of a job between jobs like an electrician getting paid one rate to wire building a. When it is time to wire building B there are new terms, than they look for people willing to do the work at those new terms.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

This is really bad for us drivers. Trump will go down as the worst President in history and he will have no problem being proud of that achievement. 

The sad thing is Killary wouldn't have been any better.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Ca$h4 said:


> U.S. Legal News | Fri Jun 16, 2017 | 4:05pm EDT
> *Trump administration poised to side with employers in Supreme Court case -source*
> 
> By Lawrence Hurley, Alison Frankel, Andrew Chung and Robert | WASHINGTON
> ...


Ironically the companies are actually fighting for the side that benefits the employees.

Arbitration is not costly and is quick. That's why companies like it, its over and very little legal fees for both sides.

Class action lawsuits do nothing for employees and cost everyone a fortune. That's the reason they exist, to enrich lawyers.

Lawyers are the only ones who "win" class action. Typically they get millions, the "main parties" that let them sue in their name get a decent damage award, and the "class" get pennies on the dollar for what they were damaged according to the suit.

It's a scam.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> I like how people are compelled to sign the arbitration agreements. It is almost like they are entitled to that job how dare an employer put in a contract something that someone does not agree with as a condition of their employment or continued employment.


Arbitration agreements are crap...

And if the supreme court throws it out uber and lyft might as well just close their doors and disappear with suitcases full of money.

If the drivers are ever deemed employees, and not even retroactively deemed employees (that could cost uber more than they have ever collected in revenue) they would need to jack up fares beyond the cost of a taxi because it's cheaper to stick an employee in a company vehicle than to pay them SMR to drive around.

Uber would be stuck between 2 very hard rocks... Increase prices higher than a taxi, or buy a few hundred thousand cars and issue them to uber drivers and pay for maintenance in uber "shops"

That's... not going to work,

Everything uber is *currently* doing depends on drivers remaining Ics who are getting ripped off and don't even realize it.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

I agree with the enrichment of lawyers being the only thing coming out of a class action but how else are companies going to learn not to try to rip off their IC's or employees?

They keep coming up with nonsense designed to abuse the employee or contractor and they expect such ideas not to cause damage to their corporation?

When you jump off a roof to impress people, expect a broken leg, Uber is living proof that class action is needed to put a halt to their constant law breaking schemes.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> I agree with the enrichment of lawyers being the only thing coming out of a class action but how else are companies going to learn not to try to rip off their IC's or employees?
> 
> They keep coming up with nonsense designed to abuse the employee or contractor and they expect such ideas not to cause damage to their corporation?
> 
> When you jump off a roof to impress people, expect a broken leg, Uber is living proof that class action is needed to put a halt to their constant law breaking schemes.


Let me explain to you how the reality of the system actually works.

Uber would LOVE a class action suit.

Wait... what?

Yes. How class action suits really work. (Consider while reading the last time you heard of a class-action judgement, not a class-action settlement)

They start one of two ways.

1a. Someone has a possibly legitimate set of damages inflicted upon them and sue/contact a lawyer. Lawyer sees potential class-action, searches for similar cases and works with their counsel to have them certified as a class.

1b. Lawyer/Firm sees a potential issue that is or looks actionable, and/or has human interest that would sway a jury or potentially sway a jury and solicites potential members of a class damaged by the issue, brings action and works to have them certified as a class.

2. Once the class is certified the lawsuit process begins. Certainly several motions for dismissal and summary judgement have flown and in all likelihood been denied. Opposing counsel have had several meetings at this point.

3. Once either the first day in court is set or is imminent, suddenly the case will be paused as the parties work on a settlement.

4. Settlements are offered and counter offered and eventually agreed upon and submitted to the judge.

5. Settlement offer is accept or rejected by the judge. If rejected, go back to 4

Here's the rub. It's always settled. Why? Because that's what the lawyers want. They get paid, done.

The plaintiffs named in the suit get a decent payout, but the rest of the class gets a coupon or $5.00 check

I.e. $50,000,000 settlement on a class of 5000 people.

Sounds like $10,000 each?

nope.

$20,000,000 is going to go to lawyers, probably $10,000,000 is going to the named plaintiffs to show what a good thing just happened and the class is left to split $20,000,000

$4,000 each?

That's given those numbers. The problem is, their actual damages for that kind of settlement probably were 100 times that

-----

Why is it good for the company (like it would be for Uber)

Because the "class" includes everyone affected by that tort, and unless you "opt out" of the class you're accepting it as settled and can take no further action.

So if you rip off a million drivers for $10,000 each in employment items a year for 2 years that's $10 billion in savings, the class-action is probably settled for 100 million, 5 drivers who's names are on the case get $100,000 each, the lawyers get 30-40 million and the other million drivers get $55-65 less processing fees. (That's if the judge doesn't approve some other meaningless payout, like a $50 gas credit or better yet a $50 ride coupon)

Hell, sometimes the judge approves not even giving money to the class, just a donation to legal aid or some other group that seems like it's helpful to the class.

Uber saves $9.9 Billion and it's a closed and settled issue. Lawyers make $30-40 million in a year without everynhaving to go to court,



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Arbitration agreements are crap...
> 
> And if the supreme court throws it out uber and lyft might as well just close their doors and disappear with suitcases full of money.
> 
> ...


Nope.

It has two heads: regulatory and civil tort

Regulatory fines go to the government, you'll never see a dime, uber would pay pennies on the dollar to what they would have paid "employees"

Civil is discusses above in class-action.

----

Btw, you can have Job-based "gig" employees. The only difference is you have to pay payroll taxes and abide by employment law. You also have to guarantee min wage.

However, you as an employee don't have the right to refuse the 25 minute away ride for $3. Uber sends you in two of those an hour, pays you $7.25 and collects $14-18 from customers

Where are they losing money again?


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Hmmm... I got a few thousand in a class action suit against a former employer.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

senorCRV said:


> Let me explain to you how the reality of the system actually works.
> 
> Uber would LOVE a class action suit.
> 
> ...


The point of a class action is to ease up the settlement of a smaller magnitude claim, I could care less if lawyers get 90% of the piece of the pie, what they create is precedence, a case to be cited and likened to win a smaller demand with the least amount of effort and capital.

Whatever amount they choose to bite off the corporation, it serves as a warning to never attempt it again, until this very day, uber is scared to use acceptance as some form of leverage in their platform, guess why.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SLuz said:


> It's hard to dictate if people have rights.
> 
> {To fully grasp the control that Wall Street now holds on Washington, one needs to remember that Wall Street has already placed an unprecedented blindfold on both investors and consumers by running its own private justice system outside of the U.S. court system. Known as mandatory arbitration, Wall Street is the only industry in America which forces its customers _and _employees to agree to forego use of the Nation's court system as a requirement to open a customer account or to gain employment in the industry.
> 
> ...


What a lot of people don't realize is that Wall Street is using a never ending source of money to finance the unnatural growth and power of Wall Street.

And that money comes from the middle class. Yes, the middle class is funding its own destruction.

401Ks and IRAs are the source of this money.


----------



## run26912 (Sep 23, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> Let me explain to you how the reality of the system actually works.
> 
> Uber would LOVE a class action suit.
> 
> ...


Wow. Thanks for the informative post and spot on.

BONG!!!



observer said:


> What a lot of people don't realize is that Wall Street is using a never ending source of money to finance the unnatural growth and power of Wall Street.
> 
> And that money comes from the middle class. Yes, the middle class is funding its own destruction.
> 
> 401Ks and IRAs are the source of this money.


Eggsactly. The same people who hate Wall St. and Trump take for granted that their IRA's and 401Ks have climbed even higher because of their own contributions and Trump's policies favoring businesses on the Street with his plans. Whether they come to fruition is a whole nother ballgame, but on Wall Street, perception IS reality.

BONG!!!


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> U.S. Legal News | Fri Jun 16, 2017 | 4:05pm EDT
> *Trump administration poised to side with employers in Supreme Court case -source*
> 
> By Lawrence Hurley, Alison Frankel, Andrew Chung and Robert | WASHINGTON
> ...


A billionaire gets into office and makes things easier on himself and his rich friends.

I
AM
SHOCKED,
APPALLED
AND
SHAKEN
TO
MY
VERY 
CORE.

*whistles*
*walks away*
*oh, look, a penny*
*saves for retirement*


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

senorCRV said:


> Let me explain to you how the reality of the system actually works.
> 
> Uber would LOVE a class action suit.
> 
> ...


$7.25 has to be after expenses. So 53 cents a mile for the 25 minutes there (however many miles that is) and the trip mileage. Or enough tips to pay that--they can count those also.

We'd be making a lot more.


----------



## Mike Flynn (Feb 16, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I like how people are compelled to sign the arbitration agreements. It is almost like they are entitled to that job how dare an employer put in a contract something that someone does not agree with as a condition of their employment or continued employment.


Put yourself on the other side of the table


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> The point of a class action is to ease up the settlement of a smaller magnitude claim, I could care less if lawyers get 90% of the piece of the pie, what they create is precedence, a case to be cited and likened to win a smaller demand with the least amount of effort and capital.
> 
> Whatever amount they choose to bite off the corporation, it serves as a warning to never attempt it again, until this very day, uber is scared to use acceptance as some form of leverage in their platform, guess why.


Wrong. There's no precedent set in a settlement.

You know what's even less common than a judgement in a class-action case? A settlement that admits fault or any wrong-doing whatsoever.

The only "precedent" is that lawyers know they can sue that company and get a settlement they get 40% of.

This is why Trump tells people to never settle. All it does is invite more settlement hunters.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

senorCRV said:


> Wrong. There's no precedent set in a settlement.


I never said so.

I'm talking about taking it to court and citing precedent to help smaller cases.


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

observer said:


> What a lot of people don't realize is that Wall Street is using a never ending source of money to finance the unnatural growth and power of Wall Street.
> 
> And that money comes from the middle class. Yes, the middle class is funding its own destruction.
> 
> 401Ks and IRAs are the source of this money.


Sadly I can find know flaws in that logic...


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Where's Shannon when you need her? Or Sheila?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> Btw, you can have Job-based "gig" employees. The only difference is you have to pay payroll taxes and abide by employment law. You also have to guarantee min wage.
> 
> However, you as an employee don't have the right to refuse the 25 minute away ride for $3. Uber sends you in two of those an hour, pays you $7.25 and collects $14-18 from customers
> 
> Where are they losing money again?


If you were an "employee" it doesn't matter how much uber collects off customers...

Employees are entitled to minimum wage free and clear of all deductions, IE any deductible mileage.

2 trips 25 minutes away... as an employee i would love that. Rocking out to music while getting 53.5c per mile and $8.10 an hour.

IT WOULDN'T BE $8.10!... it would be $8.10 AFTER DEDUCTING the SRM... 2 trips that are 25 minutes away would probobly be 15-20+ miles away each.

2 trips that are 25 miles away? in an hour?

Looking at...
$8.10
+
30-40 X .535

or

$8.10 + $16.05 t0 $21.40

*$24.15 to $29.50*

That's what i would need to drive to 2 fares that are 25 minutes away to make minimum wage.. seriously...

$10
Minus
$24.15 to 29.50

Uber's cut
$-14.15 to -19.50

My taxable income $8.05

The amount i'm paid... $24.15 to $29.50

The mileage reimbursement would exceed hourly payments for a lot of drivers... Once your doing 50,000 miles a year on the clock your bringing in $26,750 TAX FREE to operate a car on.

This is exactly how the math and taxes work for employees driving their own cars.. This is why people get issued company cars, so that the company can deduct the actual cost instead of this math getting ridiculous.


----------



## SLuz (Oct 20, 2016)

senorCRV said:


> Wrong. There's no precedent set in a settlement.


_*(*_This nationwide case is very similar in nature to the two Uber recently settled in California and Massachusetts. In those two cases, the settlements determined that Uber drivers in those states will remain independent contractors. As TechCrunch previously noted, Uber had to offer several concessions, with the biggest being $100 million in payments to the 385,000 drivers represented across both cases.

This nationwide class-action suit is in its early days, but I imagine we might see a relatively similar outcome as the ones in California and Massachusetts. It's worth noting that it took over three years for the California case to reach a settlement, *but the fact that a precedent has recently been set, this case probably won't take nearly as long.)*
_https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/02/uber-is-facing-a-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit/_


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SLuz said:


> _*(*_This nationwide case is very similar in nature to the two Uber recently settled in California and Massachusetts. In those two cases, the settlements determined that Uber drivers in those states will remain independent contractors. As TechCrunch previously noted, Uber had to offer several concessions, with the biggest being $100 million in payments to the 385,000 drivers represented across both cases.
> 
> This nationwide class-action suit is in its early days, but I imagine we might see a relatively similar outcome as the ones in California and Massachusetts. It's worth noting that it took over three years for the California case to reach a settlement, *but the fact that a precedent has recently been set, this case probably won't take nearly as long.)*
> _https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/02/uber-is-facing-a-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit/_


I think the CA settlement was put on hold.


----------



## senorCRV (Jan 3, 2017)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If you were an "employee" it doesn't matter how much uber collects off customers...
> 
> Employees are entitled to minimum wage free and clear of all deductions, IE any deductible mileage.
> 
> ...


It's a bit more complicated than that... this is also ignoring that even with mileage building back to min wage, the reason mileage rates exist is because costs really do exist, so the carrot you dangle is imaginary.

Besides, Fed optional mileage rate is just that, optional. Uber could (and probably would) make you turn in real expense items and calculate their own rate based on your driving with them. You'd likely have to enter odometer readings beginning and end of shift (we know uber likes photo verification) and send in any receipts for repairs and it's going to depend on how much business vs personal use.

Uber ain't gonna just shell out a bunch of cash for nada.

------

Besides, you'll never be an employee of Uber. Why? Because if there was a successful case, they'd fix the technicality and keep you as a contractor.

------

Also, you don't want Uber forced to employ drivers.

1. If you're a part time driver, uber will only let you log in when they need you, then your shift will end as soon as they don't. Most part timers signed up for the flexibility, not because they wanted a legit part time job.

2. If you're a full time driver there will be no such thing as a full time driver. Why would there be? So many ants now, you'd have people sitting in the login queue for hours waiting to get "on the clock" and uber would certainly cull the herd to only needed drivers and boot you offline and back into the queue you go.

You honestly think you'll be able to switch on the app and draw a wage anytime and log out any time?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

senorCRV said:


> _*POINT 1!*_ It's a bit more complicated than that... this is also ignoring that even with mileage building back to min wage, the reason mileage rates exist is because costs really do exist, so the carrot you dangle is imaginary.
> 
> *POINT 2!* Besides, Fed optional mileage rate is just that, optional. Uber could (and probably would) make you turn in real expense items and calculate their own rate based on your driving with them. You'd likely have to enter odometer readings beginning and end of shift (we know uber likes photo verification) and send in any receipts for repairs and it's going to depend on how much business vs personal use.





senorCRV said:


> _*Point 3!*_ 1. If you're a part time driver, uber will only let you log in when they need you, then your shift will end as soon as they don't. Most part timers signed up for the flexibility, not because they wanted a legit part time job.


*Point 1*
Yeah except i'd be doing uberX trips in a taxi that i rent out for a flat $66 or $73 a night plus gas. As long as i'm averaging $20+ an hour in revenue i'm fine. When rates where $1.65 a mile I did it all the time for surges, it worked great. I also got to laugh at a code enforcement guy who tried to nail me in a sting. He walked up to the car, said he was with code enforcement and said that if i had been in my personal i would have gotten a ticket.

If this was forced to be the law, uber's leases would take a slightly different form. If you were using a leased car (or uberT for instance) you would get paid at a vastly different rate. On the sign up for uberT... I would have the mileage reimbursement rate set based on the rental cost of the taxi or the car. Uber could for instance, after you pay off your car, pay you a vastly lower rate, as long as it's $8.05 an hour plus gas.

This would be a hybrid situation that is legally untested.

*Point 2.*

It IS optional, but the 2 options are one in the same.

You can reimburse your employees or not, however there income STILL can't drop below minimum wage.

Option 1, pay them 53.5c per mile, and the employee writes it off.

Option 2. The employee writes it off and it's deducted off their taxes. THEIR INCOME MUST STILL HIT MINIMUM WAGE.

These are the options as they currently stand, companies get sued when their drivers fail to hit minimum wage and the cases settle all the time.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-papa-john-over-wages/pugbiOoF1snresJ5DgMVbJ/

There's 1 example... There's an endless string of others. However this is with employees not contractors.

The reality is that uber could *to make it better for them* up charge the customer to pay for any and all drive time to get to the customer. Which i think is perfectly fair, and would work great.

POINT 3

It's called "on call" time. You don't have to get paid while you are "on call"

Especially if you can be "on call" anywhere and everywhere. So no pay between trips...

https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.pdf
On-Call Time: An employee who is required to remain on call on the _*employer's premises is working while "on call.*_" An employee* who is required to remain on call at home*, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, _*is not working*_ (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated.

On call is not paid unless you are forced to sit at the company property and are switched back on.

Uber could easily argue that they don't have to pay for someone to sit at home for a few hours with the app on waiting for a ping, or for a driver who is refusing pings.

Just figure i should point how this really works for you,

My hope is that regulations get made for contractors, requiring a set rate be paid per hour without OT or the other benefits.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> The employee writes it off and it's deducted off their taxes. THEIR INCOME MUST STILL HIT MINIMUM WAGE.


They can count tips to meet the minimum wage requirement as well.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> I think the CA settlement was put on hold.


The settlement was rejected. The case is still pending, or on hold, however you want to look at it.


----------

