# Supreme Court handed a victory 2 transportation workers



## ECOMCON (Dec 30, 2018)

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed a victory to American workers, ruling unanimously that independent contractors who work in transportation may not be forced into mandatory arbitration. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the bench after argument, did not participate.) The decision is a remarkable win for labor rights from a court that typically favors corporate interests over working people. And it will allow hundreds of thousands of contractors to vindicate their rights in court, collectively, rather than in costly and unjust arbitration.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

I think it's awesome that Prime's argument settled on the fact that as independent contractors their drivers don't qualify as employees and therefore weren't subject to the protections granted by the law where Gorsuch countered that at the time of the writing of the law the definition of employment essentially meant the performance of work, and therefore logically one can deduce that an employee was the performer of said work, and not the way the term is "artfully" used today to create the distinction between employee, and independent contractor. 

Ginsburg chimed in with a helpful note that congress can change legislation if strict adherence to current law thwarts current congressional intent which strikes me as sort of a dare for them to bring it up to current legislators for a change in the law more to Prime's liking which I doubt in the current mood would happen. 

Nice find. Hopefully more drivers will read it because it's great news for drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

I can see Shannon being forced to take the lower appeals court ruling all the way to the Supreme Court now that this ruling has came down. 

Even though it appears to be applying to interstate commerce, I can see no problem with Shannon asking for it to be applied to intrastate commerce as well.

One thing we can be sure of is that Uber will now try to expedite the settlement checks going to CA and MA drivers instead of playing the draw it out game !!!


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can see Shannon being forced to take the lower appeals court ruling all the way to the Supreme Court now that this ruling has came down.
> 
> Even though it appears to be applying to interstate commerce, I can see no problem with Shannon asking for it to be applied to intrastate commerce as well.
> 
> One thing we can be sure of is that Uber will now try to expedite the settlement checks going to CA and MA drivers instead of playing the draw it out game !!!


It's regarding Federal court so it has to be interstate or it simply cannot apply.

That being said, like I said in the other thread:

This case has resolved that mandatory arbitration is illegal for those involved in _interstate _commerce, but does not make clear if the *prospect *of interstate commerce would make this applicable across the board or if it only applies to those directly involved with interstate commerce.

To be more specific: Uber drivers sometimes can get rides across State lines but the vast majority of drivers do not ever leave the boundaries of their home State. Does this mean that this ruling applies to all Uber drivers because they _*might *_cross State lines at some point in the future or does this ruling only apply to those who actively have done so? That is not made clear.

What is clear, without a doubt: *If you have ever taken a passenger across State lines then you cannot be held to mandatory arbitration.*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RDWRER said:


> It's regarding Federal court so it has to be interstate or it simply cannot apply.


That's not how it works.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

Self driving truck ventures just got a very very big valuation boost.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> That's not how it works.


That's exactly how it works. Federal law requires Federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is in interstate commerce not intrastate commerce.

If you want it to apply to intrastate commerce then you'd have to see if it violates State law.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

IthurstwhenIP said:


> Self driving truck ventures just got a very very big valuation boost.


Do you really see it going anywhere soon? The cost to ensure them would be prohibitive for the foreseeable future.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RDWRER said:


> That's exactly how it works. Federal law requires Federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is in interstate commerce not intrastate commerce.
> 
> If you want it to apply to intrastate commerce then you'd have to see if it violates State law.


You said it wrong in the part that I quoted.

You stated it's "regarding federal court". You should have said it's "regarding federal law".

And the Supreme Court can still look at the spirit of the law when it was created to determine if intrastate commerce can still apply to the law even if it specified interstate commerce.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You said it wrong in the part that I quoted.
> 
> You stated it's "regarding federal court". You should have said it's "regarding federal law".
> 
> And the Supreme Court can still look at the spirit of the law when it was created to determine if intrastate commerce can still apply to the law even if it specified interstate commerce.


But where do you handle disputes of _*interstate *_commerce!? Federal court, not State court. If it's in State court it's not applying to interstate commerce _which is exactly what you were asking.
_


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RDWRER said:


> But where do you handle disputes of _*interstate *_commerce!? Federal court, not State court. If it's in State court it's not applying to interstate commerce _which is exactly what you were asking._


As I already stated, they can still apply the law to intrastate commerce. This would happen in a court case that originates in a state court.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> As I already stated, they can still apply the law to intrastate commerce. This would happen in a court case that originates in a state court.


Haha rideshare lawyers. I saw the episode of Court TV too and this is exactly the winning arguement


----------



## Drivincrazy (Feb 14, 2016)

I drive Las Vegas, NV...3,100+ Uber rides and 4,300+ Lyft rides. I crossed Hoover Dam twice, entering Arizona for about 10 minutes. So, I assume I am an interstate driver. Sounds good to me.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

ECOMCON said:


> On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed a victory to American workers, ruling unanimously that independent contractors who work in transportation may not be forced into mandatory arbitration. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the bench after argument, did not participate.) The decision is a remarkable win for labor rights from a court that typically favors corporate interests over working people. And it will allow hundreds of thousands of contractors to vindicate their rights in court, collectively, rather than in costly and unjust arbitration.
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp


Damn right wing, conservative neo-cons. The supreme court has been stuffed with Trump look-alikes -- the little guy can't get a break.
No. Wait a minute.
The little guy won?

Never mind.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

RDWRER said:


> It's regarding Federal court so it has to be interstate or it simply cannot apply.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/interstate-commerce/


> *Interstate Commerce Law and Legal Definition*
> Interstate commerce refers to the purchase, sale or exchange of commodities, transportation of people, money or goods, and navigation of waters between different states. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government as authorized under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement.


Not a lawyer but a fair read of that to me says this does affect uber and lyft in states in which they are engaged in transporting pax across state lines at the least. Might even cover them as a company if they do it across any state line in the union. Since neither uber nor lyft can possibly know, in advance of a request, which riders will require rides across state lines I would think it should apply to all drivers in a state in which drivers cross state lines, which is probably all 48 of the contiguous states.

They can try to circumvent this by preventing drivers from crossing state lines, but that would be extremely problematic and financially costly to the companies, most especially between some states such as New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, and Illinois and Indiana, and others with their constant two way flow of airport rides.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can see Shannon being forced to take the lower appeals court ruling all the way to the Supreme Court now that this ruling has came down.
> 
> Even though it appears to be applying to interstate commerce, I can see no problem with Shannon asking for it to be applied to intrastate commerce as well.
> 
> One thing we can be sure of is that Uber will now try to expedite the settlement checks going to CA and MA drivers instead of playing the draw it out game !!!


 It is actually extremely difficult to show that a business is not subject to ICC rules and regulations. How difficult? Well, if a driver purchases gasoline from the gas station that thehad shippedtheir fuel shipped to them from another state, and then uses that fuel for the purpose of rideshare, then the courts will rule it is Interstate Commerce.
Seriously.
This goes back to a hundred years ago when the debate took place and expanded the federal government's reach in regulating commerce (just 1 generation after the end of the civil war).


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is actually extremely difficult to show that a business is not subject to ICC rules and regulations. How difficult? Well, if a driver purchases gasoline from the gas station that thehad shippedtheir fuel shipped to them from another state, and then uses that fuel for the purpose of rideshare, then the courts will rule it is Interstate Commerce.
> Seriously.
> This goes back to a hundred years ago when the debate took place and expanded the federal government's reach in regulating commerce (just 1 generation after the end of the civil war).


I'm hoping that Uber and Lyft are considered to be transportation companies for interstate commerce. That's why I was originally hoping for. If not, then we can only hope they apply the law to intrastate commerce as well, which we can all agree they are at the very least.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I'm hoping that Uber and Lyft are considered to be transportation companies for interstate commerce. That's why I was originally hoping for. If not, then we can only hope they apply the law to intrastate commerce as well, which we can all agree they are at the very least.


I'm not sure it matters if the TNCs considered transportation companies... we drivers are.
And we 'work' for the TNCs as independent contractors.

There are [good] legal arguments to be made on both sides, but this ruling makes it pretty clear that the supreme court is now (finally!) holding that companies cannot use the Independent Contractor designation as a means to do an end run around the FAA (and hopefully, eventually, the FLSA).

But, there may a problem. As I understand it, Gorsuch relied on the language Congress used in defining 'worker' in ICC regulations. The ICC was disbanded in 1995 and replaced with a new agency: The Surface Transportation Board - which was predominantly setup to regulate railroads. This is why I suspect good legal arguments ccan (and will) be made on both sides of very complex issues involving several different areas of law and different agencies: from inter-state commerce, to ground transportation to worker classification.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is actually extremely difficult to show that a business is not subject to ICC rules and regulations. How difficult? Well, if a driver purchases gasoline from the gas station that thehad shippedtheir fuel shipped to them from another state, and then uses that fuel for the purpose of rideshare, then the courts will rule it is Interstate Commerce.
> Seriously.
> This goes back to a hundred years ago when the debate took place and expanded the federal government's reach in regulating commerce (just 1 generation after the end of the civil war).


With those standards then it would seem reasonable to speculate that uber could/should be regulated on the basis that a large portion of its fares are airport runs which have Interstate Commerce implications.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> With those standards then it would seem reasonable to speculate that uber could/should be regulated on the basis that a large portion of its fares are airport runs which have Interstate Commerce implications.


Well, it's actually really different today than it was 20 years ago. The ICC was disbanded I think in 1995 and replaced by other regulatory boards. But the supreme Court looks to Congress is original intent when it talked about "workers". Justice Gorsuch noted that Congress did not specify 'employer' or 'contractor', but rather "worker". Because of that, the court decided that the regulations applied to all workers not just one classification or another. Pretty fascinating stuff.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Well, it's actually really different today than it was 20 years ago. The ICC was disbanded I think in 1995 and replaced by other regulatory boards. But the supreme Court looks to Congress is original intent when it talked about "workers". Justice Gorsuch noted that Congress did not specify 'employer' or 'contractor', but rather "worker". Because of that, the court decided that the regulations applied to all workers not just one classification or another. Pretty fascinating stuff.


I'm aware see my first post above.

I'm excited by the possibilities of the recent decision, and really I can't believe more drivers aren't in on the discussion yet.

Actually I'm really curious about how uber/lyft and the others respond to this because the can make the wrong move and really screw themselves over. For example accepting their employer status and then attempting to force a work schedule on drivers which will probably cut most part timers out all together, and I don't see how they get out of this without having to pay drivers more across the board.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> I'm aware see my first post above.
> 
> I'm excited by the possibilities of the recent decision, and really I can't believe more drivers aren't in on the discussion yet.
> 
> Actually I'm really curious about how uber/lyft and the others respond to this because the can make the wrong move and really screw themselves over. For example accepting their employer status and then attempting to force a work schedule on drivers which will probably cut most part timers out all together, and I don't see how they get out of this without having to pay drivers more across the board.


this ruling, in practice, only would force them to stop requiring arbitration


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

ECOMCON said:


> On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed a victory to American workers, ruling unanimously that independent contractors who work in transportation may not be forced into mandatory arbitration. (Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the bench after argument, did not participate.) The decision is a remarkable win for labor rights from a court that typically favors corporate interests over working people. And it will allow hundreds of thousands of contractors to vindicate their rights in court, collectively, rather than in costly and unjust arbitration.
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp


Yes, still work to do go but bravo!


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> this ruling, in practice, only would force them to stop requiring arbitration


Only he says. My friend THAT is the beginning and the end for Uber and Lyft.

They're going to have their clock handed to them in court over and over again.

If they survive those they're going to have to change significantly.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Only he says. My friend THAT is the beginning and the end for Uber and Lyft.
> 
> They're going to have their clock handed to them in court over and over again.
> 
> If they survive those they're going to have to change significantly.


Not necessarily the end. They would simply have to start playing nice with drivers and get rid of the pointless money spending that they have been doing since their inception. There would be a lot of cleaning up to do, but I think the model can still work if done right.

Drivers would get a lot more control over what they do because they wouldn't be able to force the independent contractor nonsense on drivers but still treating them like employees.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not necessarily the end. They would simply have to start playing nice with drivers and get rid of the pointless money spending that they have been doing since their inception. There would be a lot of cleaning up to do, but I think the model can still work if done right.
> 
> Drivers would get a lot more control over what they do because they wouldn't be able to force the independent contractor nonsense on drivers but still treating them like employees.


Yeah that was a bit of hyperbole in my first paragraph. If the court cases start mounting up and if they start loosing they will have to change significantly.

They'll have to increase their rates and take a smaller percentage, and pay drivers a lot more.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

What's funny about all of this is that all of you had the ability to opt out of binding arbitration when you signed up, something like 99.8% of drivers don't bother so as a result no one has ever been able to get a really good class action law suit going for the million + drivers in the country.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> What's funny about all of this is that all of you had the ability to opt out of binding arbitration when you signed up, something like 99.8% of drivers don't bother so as a result no one has ever been able to get a really good class action law suit going for the million + drivers in the country.


that's 'cause new drivers don't know too

even so, without the ability to set aside thhe arbitration clause, no driver is ever able to force meaningful change through the courts


----------



## Driver100 (Aug 1, 2015)

Your source is very biased and misses the context; a description is at the Court site, where you can read J. Gorsuch's very clear opinion:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-prime-inc-v-oliveira/

The case was about interpreting a federal statutue, interpreting that, which was clearly written to exclude IK contractors in transportation from the arbitration requirement. A clear cut case of statutory interpretation, which is the Court's job.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Disgusted Driver said:


> What's funny about all of this is that all of you had the ability to opt out of binding arbitration when you signed up, something like 99.8% of drivers don't bother so as a result no one has ever been able to get a really good class action law suit going for the million + drivers in the country.


As someone else noted that's most likely because people just don't know that it's an option at the time they sign up. I don't recall reading anything about it when I signed on.

Still I would have thought we would have the opportunity to decline arbitration every time they make a significant change to the terms of the contract, for example when they arbitrarily impose a price change specifically, but not exclusively a price reduction among other significant changes, and I don't ever hear anyone saying anything about that.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Wonkytonk said:


> Still I would have thought we would have the opportunity to decline arbitration every time they make a significant change to the terms of the contract, for example when they arbitrarily impose a price change specifically, but not exclusively a price reduction among other significant changes, and I don't ever hear anyone saying anything about that.


I agree. I actually think any time they change the contract terms we should have to re-agree to the arbitration clause. Not sure why Shannon didn't think of that before. But lawyers don't know everything.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I agree. I actually think any time they change the contract terms we should have to re-agree to the arbitration clause. Not sure why Shannon didn't think of that before. But lawyers don't know everything.


I know right. Like cell phone contracts, any time they change the contract you're allowed out of yours but only if you insist.

We should insist on no more arbitration when Uber and the other rideshare companies change their contracts.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

RDWRER said:


> That's exactly how it works. Federal law requires Federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is in interstate commerce not intrastate commerce.
> 
> If you want it to apply to intrastate commerce then you'd have to see if it violates State law.


I do not think the transaction between driver and customer is what would be subject to the interstate test. Tecnically, the transaction is between the pax and Uber, and yet another transaction applies when Uber pays the partner. Since uber is headquartered in California and does business nationally, as well as globally, we should meet the requirement.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> I do not think the transaction between driver and customer is what would be subject to the interstate test. Tecnically, the transaction is between the pax and Uber, and yet another transaction applies when Uber pays the partner. Since uber is headquartered in California and does business nationally, as well as globally, we should meet the requirement.


Uber _claims _that we, the drivers, are being paid by the passengers and not by Uber itself and that Uber is merely our broker collecting the payments on our behalf. This is one of their many ways to avoid calling drivers "employees" and until proven otherwise in court is the established relationships that exist among all three. As such it would definitely appear to at least currently depend on that transaction between the driver and the passengers.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

RDWRER said:


> Uber _claims _that we, the drivers, are being paid by the passengers and not by Uber itself and that Uber is merely our broker collecting the payments on our behalf. This is one of their many ways to avoid calling drivers "employees" and until proven otherwise in court is the established relationships that exist among all three. As such it would definitely appear to at least currently depend on that transaction between the driver and the passengers.


That should be easy to disprove. They collect the money.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Do you really see it going anywhere soon? The cost to ensure them would be prohibitive for the foreseeable future.


Nothing complex like long distance or ltls but in short distances with pilots yes

Even sdcs will be limited to small areas like the Olympic village in Tokyo


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> I do not think the transaction between driver and customer is what would be subject to the interstate test. Tecnically, the transaction is between the pax and Uber, and yet another transaction applies when Uber pays the partner. Since uber is headquartered in California and does business nationally, as well as globally, we should meet the requirement.


Yes, brave Uber soldier, always obey rules, requirements and laws.
NEVER disobey. Be a good ant. Follow orders.

BTW: That's not the way the United States was born. It was birthed by traitors to the crown. Miscreants, felons of the worst type. If George Washington had been caught by King George he'd of been hung for sedition, and rightfully so.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> Yes, brave Uber soldier, always obey rules, requirements and laws.
> NEVER disobey. Be a good ant. Follow orders.


Do YOU even know what you are talking about?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> Do YOU even know what you are talking about?


Mebe not.
I was responding to the last few words.

I do not automatically "meet the requirements'' set by governments, employers, judges, cops, wives or anyone else. And, I don't care if they are headquartered in California, DC or Moscow.

I have carried a pistol my entire adult life. Sometimes legally, often not. The only time I'm not armed is in the shower. I don't care what the rules, regulations or requirements are. My right to defend myself and my family are GOD GIVEN. They can not be taken away, restricted or abridged by anyone other than God. And, I will always have the best tools available to me to do that job.


----------



## RideshareSpectrum (May 12, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I can see Shannon being forced to take the lower appeals court ruling all the way to the Supreme Court now that this ruling has came down.
> 
> Even though it appears to be applying to interstate commerce, I can see no problem with Shannon asking for it to be applied to intrastate commerce as well.
> 
> One thing we can be sure of is that Uber will now try to expedite the settlement checks going to CA and MA drivers instead of playing the draw it out game !!!


Glad I didn't jump on board and decided to wait for a real pay off.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> I think it's awesome that Prime's argument settled on the fact that as independent contractors their drivers don't qualify as employees and therefore weren't subject to the protections granted by the law where Gorsuch countered that at the time of the writing of the law the definition of employment essentially meant the performance of work, and therefore logically one can deduce that an employee was the performer of said work, and not the way the term is "artfully" used today to create the distinction between employee, and independent contractor.
> 
> Ginsburg chimed in with a helpful note that congress can change legislation if strict adherence to current law thwarts current congressional intent which strikes me as sort of a dare for them to bring it up to current legislators for a change in the law more to Prime's liking which I doubt in the current mood would happen.
> 
> Nice find. Hopefully more drivers will read it because it's great news for drivers.


I see this differently.

Uber is in a battle to ALLOW this result in California. For individual arbitration, Uber must front $1500 to the mediator for each claim, many of which are redundant on the merits. They are facing a bill for $88mm for the start of just one batch of claims in CA. 
Should they adhere to the current driver agreement, they will die a thousand cuts (at $1500 a whack)



uberdriverfornow said:


> this ruling, in practice, only would force them to stop requiring arbitration


Arbitration was cheaper for Uber in the beginning because Driver's feared the process.

Now that Uber has grown so large, aggregator's are packaging up swaths of legal claims and getting drivers started. Facing this new risk, Uber would now rather fight long, drawn out class actions, than allowing arbitration aggregation to burn cash in perpetuity.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Diamondraider said:


> I see this differently.
> 
> Uber is in a battle to ALLOW this result in California. For individual arbitration, Uber must front $1500 to the mediator for each claim, many of which are redundant on the merits. They are facing a bill for $88mm for the start of just one batch of claims in CA.
> Should they adhere to the current driver agreement, they will die a thousand cuts (at $1500 a whack)
> ...


The funny thing is if drivers _really _wanted to be mean about it would could sue them in court to force them to hold up their end of the bargain and cause them to spend themselves into oblivion.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Diamondraider said:


> I
> Arbitration was cheaper for Uber in the beginning because Driver's feared the process.
> 
> Now that Uber has grown so large, aggregator's are packaging up swaths of legal claims and getting drivers started. Facing this new risk, Uber would now rather fight long, drawn out class actions, than allowing arbitration aggregation to burn cash in perpetuity.


I _love _arbitration. I've been involved in several.

I think that companies are catching on to this.
My medical insurance company sent me a 'notice' that they wanted to be reimbursed for payments they made for a recent auto accident, that was covered by the other guy (after I sued him.) Makes sense and I agree with the premise. But not the amount. They went back for six months before and after the accident and want reimbursement for every visit I made to my doc for blood pressure checks, a strained tendon, flu shots, etc. 
I pointed out their own ICD9 codes that indicated "auto accident" or "cervical strain", added them up and offered $186 as full settlement (not $ 2,658).
They wanted me to send ALL medical records ... just copies and postage would have cost me many $'s. I sent my explanation and highlighting on their worksheet and in the letter said that if they can't see things my way, please send requirements and paperwork for arbitration.
They settled for the $186.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Diamondraider said:


> I see this differently.
> 
> Uber is in a battle to ALLOW this result in California. For individual arbitration, Uber must front $1500 to the mediator for each claim, many of which are redundant on the merits. They are facing a bill for $88mm for the start of just one batch of claims in CA.
> Should they adhere to the current driver agreement, they will die a thousand cuts (at $1500 a whack)


That line of logic has little bite when you consider that if that were uber's goal all they have to do is modify the driver agreement to exclude CA drivers from the arbitration terms. No fuss, no muss.

They don't want those class action lawsuits that whether they like it or not are coming their way.

In class action litigation the restitution they'll be required to make pales in comparison to what they would be faced with in arbitration.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Diamondraider said:


> I see this differently.
> 
> Uber is in a battle to ALLOW this result in California. For individual arbitration, Uber must front $1500 to the mediator for each claim, many of which are redundant on the merits. They are facing a bill for $88mm for the start of just one batch of claims in CA.
> Should they adhere to the current driver agreement, they will die a thousand cuts (at $1500 a whack)
> ...


No, they'd rather do what they're currently doing and have been doing since their inception, call us IE's, deny us benefits, hold us to the arbitration clause, and don't proceed with any arbitration hearings while just making up random stuff to drag it out by doing things like having an old attorney represent a bunch of Uber clients so they can say that the lawyer is the reason they won't proceed and, again, just drawing it all out as long as they can.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the one lawyer attempting to represent most Uber drivers just happens to be a former Uber lawyer ? What are the odds ? You gotta learn to look at the big picture.

The long run-on sentence was on purpose.


----------

