# Binding Arbitration | Uber’s Attempt To Silence Its Drivers May Have Just Backfired



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18328/uber-drivers-court-case*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Search Results for Query: Welcome forum partnership agreement binding arbitration*

Those are the search results for my standard welcome for New Forum Members. I propose that All New Members be reminded to Opt-out of the Binding Arbitration. Drivers who have opted out have the right to get their disputes & grievances with Uber resolved in a Court of Law, individually or collectively through Class Action Lawsuits.

Please greet New Forum Members with this:

Hi @****, welcome to the forum.

Please read your Partnership Agreement. New Drivers have 30 Days to Opt-out of *Binding Arbitration*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Realityshark this is my simple proposal for making things better for Drivers, going forward.


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Realityshark said:


> What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?


Drivers who never opted out are stuck with only having binding arbitration as a means of dispute resolution.

_Thankfully, Judge Chen recognized the unfairness that "permeated" Uber's terms with Gillette, Mohamed, and the other drivers in their lawsuit and found it unenforceable. Uber has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-remember, the kind of appeal that is not allowed under forced arbitration-so we will soon find out if other judges share Judge Chen's perspective on what is fair and what is not._


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Realityshark said:


> What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?


The binding arbitration clause can be challenged - as in the case described above. Those who did not opt-out, as chi1cabby has been pleading for them to do, can still bring suit in court... it's just that the first part of the suit will be to deal with a motion to dismiss (from Uber) claiming that binding arbitration clause is enforceable.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The binding arbitration clause can be challenged - as in the case described above.


Agreed!
But having hordes of Drivers who've opted out makes it easier to find Attorneys willing to sue Uber.

Would you and other notable forum members please start greeting new forum members with:


chi1cabby said:


> Hi @****, welcome to the forum.
> 
> Please read your Partnership Agreement. New Drivers have 30 Days to Opt-out of *Binding Arbitration*


UberComic, UberDude2, Optimus Uber arto71 Raquel Casuale Haberdasher Desert Driver UberXTampa UberHammer Txchick Fuzzyelvis LAuberX elelegido JaxBeachDriver MrsUberJax Gemgirlla UberFrolic Showa50
UberRidiculous OCBob Sacto Burbs

We have over 100 new members per day. We need to seek em out, and remind em to read the Partnership Agreement, and that they only have 30 Days to Opt-out of Binding Arbitration.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

hmmm... let's see what I can kick off my signature tag


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

How's this?


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Realityshark said:


> What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?


Write to the lady below.

Elizabeth Lopez, Paralegal
[email protected]


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Chen is moving in the right direction.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18328/uber-drivers-court-case*


Thank god for Judge Chen.

"Frequently lost amid the discussion over disrupting existing industries, however, is the fact that workers in this new economy often get the short-shrift. That fact was made extremely evident in a recent order against the company written by U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen in which he found that the terms Uber imposes upon its drivers as a condition of driving for the company, including a forced arbitration clause, are unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. In plain English, he ruled that the provisions were so unfair and one-sided in favor of Uber that they could not be enforced in a court of law."

"Judge Chen reviewed all of the language in Uber's contracts, taking readers of his opinion on a tour of the worst aspects of this one-sided deal.

First, the clause prohibited the plaintiffs from bringing enforcement actions on behalf of other individuals-an essential tool for enforcing civil rights laws-as provided for by California state law.
Second, the clause required the plaintiffs to pay a portion of the arbitrator's costs and fees, whereas in court they would not have to pay a judge for his or her time.
Third, the clause required that any arbitration proceeding be confidential, contrary to open access to court proceedings.
Fourth, in a brazen move, while Uber denied its _drivers _access to court and forced them to proceed to arbitration, it carved out a provision which enabled _the company_ to bring a case in court under certain circumstances.
Fifth, and last, the provision allowed Uber to modify the terms of the contract at any time, without granting its drivers the same ability." Unbelievable...


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> Fifth, and last_, the provision allows Uber to modify the terms of the contract at any time, without granting its drivers the same ability._" Unbelievable...


That is my biggest beef. Uber constantly changes agreement. Drivers either accept new conditions or they are denied access to the UBER app. There is no representation of ICs when changes are being determined.. Now it is clear why unions were started.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Posted in the comments of the main article a short film on Binding arbitration intodays society. Quite good:
"Lost in the Fine Print"

http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/films/lost-in-the-fine-print


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Binding arbitration has been good to me. Quick, fast and I got to move on with my life rather than being trapped in the legal system


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> Binding arbitration has been good to me. Quick, fast and I got to move on with my life rather than being trapped in the legal system


Specifics please?
You're the first one I've come across who's singing praises of Binding Arbitration.
And btw, Opting Out of Binding Arbitration doesn't preclude a Driver seeking Arbitration for dispute resolution. Opting Out just preserves a Drivers right to sue if he/she so chooses.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

In cases against large companies, binding arbitration usually always favors the corporations. The small guy has much better chances of winning when the case is heard by a jury. Also, discovery is limited in arbitration, which generally only helps the large corporations since they are the ones who have a great deal more documents. Moreover, arbitration isn't near as cheap as it used to be. Arbitrators, especially JAMS, charge exorbitant fees (in my opinion). Arbitration also allows bad actors to keep the proceedings confidential and thus, their "bad" acts aren't disclosed to the general public. 

However, it is generally a quicker way to get a resolution but, that's not helpful if you're likely to lose....


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Specifics please?
> You're the first one I've come across who's singing praises of Binding Arbitration.
> And btw, Opting Out of Binding Arbitration doesn't preclude a Driver seeking Arbitration for dispute resolution. Opting Out just preserves a Drivers right to sue if he/she so chooses.


An insurance case. I won it too, took no time at all, *because the arbitrators were independent, approved by both parties. *

Same in a personal lawsuit. Both parties had a lawyer, approved the judge and we were able to negotiate a good outcome. Quick, fast both parties happy.

And I am in California.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> An insurance case. I won it too, took no time at all, *because the arbitrators were independent, approved by both parties. *
> 
> Same in a personal lawsuit. Both parties had a lawyer, approved the judge and we were able to negotiate a good outcome. Quick, fast both parties happy.
> 
> And I am in California.


I'm in California as well and have personally been involved in arbitrations. In some cases, it can be a decent dispute resolution mechanism, particularly when both parties have the same bargaining power.

However, in consumer protection, employment and other cases involving a large class of plaintiffs with the same injury, being able to go to court is essential so they can get class certification and have their cases heard by a jury. It is also not possible to get punitive damages in arbitration and the rulings are not binding on other parties.

Moreover, in the case of Uber drivers, they need to be able to have the option to go to small claims court for smaller disputes rather than take these to arbitration.

Depending on how the arbitration provision is written, it can end up being costly for the injured party to arbitrate.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

If you read the Uber agreement, Uber chooses the arbitrator. Not good for the driver. 

<*Edit: WRONG.* I just went over the 11/2014 agreement I signed and it states,

_"15.3.iii. 
Selecting The Arbitrator and Location of the Arbitration. The Arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement of the Company and you. . . ."_


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Who here has had their life absorbed through the requirements in a legal case? Me. 

Took All my energy, all my imagination, and a was never quite at ease waiting for the next document to be requested or processed. 

No thanks. Cost benefit analysis here.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> If you read the Uber agreement, Uber chooses the arbitrator. Not good for the driver.


Not enforceable in CA.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Would you and other notable forum members please start greeting new forum members with:
> UberComic, UberDude2, Optimus Uber arto71 Raquel Casuale Haberdasher Desert Driver UberXTampa UberHammer Txchick Fuzzyelvis LAuberX elelegido JaxBeachDriver MrsUberJax Gemgirlla UberFrolic Showa50
> UberRidiculous OCBob Sacto Burbs
> 
> We have over 100 new members per day. We need to seek em out, and remind em to read the Partnership Agreement, and that they only have 30 Days to Opt-out of Binding Arbitration.


It's been 10 Days since I requested help from Notable Forum Members in welcoming New Forum Members.


chi1cabby said:


> Please greet New Forum Members with this:
> 
> Hi @****, welcome to the forum.
> 
> Please read your Partnership Agreement. New Drivers have 30 Days to Opt-out of *Binding Arbitration*


So far not a single New Forum Member has been greeted by this welcoming post.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Sorry. I made it my signature. Will begin greeting new members as you requested.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Binding Arbitration | Inside the Uber apocalypse: Why the fast-growing tech giant could be in serious trouble
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/03/inside_the_uber_apocalypse_why_the_fast_growing_tech_giant_could_be_in_serious_trouble/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

fab


----------



## HiFareLoRate (Sep 14, 2015)

One for the underdogs, f'U(ber).

Glad the judge wasn't bought out, and realized the scam this system really is to what drivers were lured into.


----------



## Kruhn (Sep 24, 2015)

That might be my opening as I was working on June 2014 and the 30-day time period expired for me!

Fingers crossed.


----------

