13 ms·

Uber Eliminates Forced Arbitration for Sexual Misconduct Claims

185 points by sna1l 8y ago

sharkweek 8y ago
A step in the right direction, but I still can't believe forced arbitration was ever a thing, especially in these cases. Still haven't re-installed Uber in over a year, don't miss it at all. It does make me wonder how many ToS I've agreed to with forced arbitration clauses written on page 84 in size six font.
- jbigelow76 8y ago
  It does make me wonder how many ToS I've agreed to with forced arbitration clauses written on page 84 in size six font. The vast majority of them, at least, all of them wouldn't be surprising.
- TwoNineA 8y ago
  "A step in the right direction" What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? How can people still work for this evil company?
  - rectang 8y ago
    > What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? Susan Fowler advocated for ending forced arbitration as the "the single most important thing a company can do to prove to its employees that it is dedicated to acting ethically, legally, responsibly, and transparently": https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech-companies-can-do-better https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech... No-forced-arbitration should be the norm. What other companies have the worst forced arbitration clauses?
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > No-forced-arbitration should be the norm. I'd go further to say that forced arbitration should be illegal/unenforceable without clear evidence informed affirmative consent, and that the offering of services cannot be made conditional on accepting it. I think a lot of the consent concepts pioneered in the GDPR could be reasonably applied to many consumer-unfriendly practices.
      - gowld 8y ago
        We have a lot of that in finance, like when you get a mortgage -- you have to sign a bunch of separate documents, one for each major concession. Informed consent may help, but it won't solve the root problem of "selling your fundamental rights", which some consider "unconscionable" (legal term for an agreement that is barred by law even if both parties claim they agree to it)
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        One of the key provisions of the GDPR is that the provider cannot shut you out of the service if you don't give consent, unless the data is vital to the operation of the feature. And needing to use the data for targeted advertising doesn't count.
  - ben_jones 8y ago
    A lawyer being paid to mitigate risk for the company using industry best practices? Uber has 6700 employees are you calling them all bad people for choosing to make a living working for one of the premier tech companies? The world isn't black and white where you're on the good side and those people tangentially related to that thing you don't like are bad people. If we really want to improve on these problems we can't be so self-righteous.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You're tangentially related to your full time job? I think your employer is getting ripped off. The world is not black and white, but that doesn't mean we can't consider that certain groups have crossed a threshold (or ten) to one side of the spectrum.
  - lhorie 8y ago
    > How can people still work for this evil company? Uber has been doing a lot recently (i.e. as of about mid last year) to fix itself - things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, a top-down directive to permanently halt spying-related work in intelligence gathering, cooperating with authorities on the Tempe incident, etc. Generally speaking, people aren't inherently evil and want to do the right thing. Uber's new leadership now does too. Uber moves fast and I think it's time to re-evaluate whether the data points backing your opinion are outdated.
    - gaius 8y ago
      things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, Still not paying their taxes tho’. There’s a shedload Of Employer’s NI they owe us.
      - lhorie 8y ago
        > Still not paying their taxes Sorry, not familiar with this and googling isn't turning up anything. Is this the IRS's opinion or just your own?
        gaius 8y ago
        Is this the IRS's opinion or just your own? IRS? Why would they be collecting a tax that only exists in the U.K.? The issue of Uber drivers being concealed employees is often in the papers and the courts. It is very surprising that you can’t find any mention. Perhaps you didn’t actually look?
        lhorie 8y ago
        Oh, in the UK. Thanks, that helps me find more information. I'm not too familiar with taxation matters, but again, afaik, at the end of the day, it comes down to whether the IRS/HMRC/other countries tax depts are pursuing tax evasion charges, right? Is this actually the case?
  - zethraeus 8y ago
    Because it's not actually evil. Source: my personal experience. :)
    - iamcasen 8y ago
      Right? The public perception of Uber over the years has been fascinating to me. I worked there for quite a while, and I always had a laugh at how the media would portray something. It was almost always grasping at straws in an attempt to paint Uber evil. There has been legit bad news about Uber, especially the stuff Susan Fowler talked about. But you know what? We all give money to equally, or often times far more sinister organizations on a daily basis without batting an eye-lash. Why hold Uber more accountable than everyone else?
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        And most of that negative perception appears to come from Uber's early (not so much, anymore) flouting of what could charitably be described as regulatory capture nonsense. It basically took them coming in and ignoring the taxi laws to put the lie to the entrenched interests and say "See? The world didn't end after all."
      - zethraeus 8y ago
        IMO: Uber fucked up tremendously before. It's not doing so now.
      - gowld 8y ago
        We hold everyone as accountable as we can. Not sure why you think differently.
        iamcasen 8y ago
        I'm glad you do, but I don't think that's true for most. You see constant praise of Lyft, but constant demonization of Uber. Lyft has quite literally done all of the "dirty" business tactics that Uber has. In fact, most of the reason Uber started operating UberX in cities without express permission is because Lyft was already doing so, and Uber noticed that there was no backlash against them for it. Unfortunately for the tech world, sexual harassment and misogyny is all too common. There are numerous reports about women in tech, and how hard it is and why many of them ultimately leave their careers. This is not something that has only occurred at Uber, and yet, all of the news about it is about Uber. All of the outrage about it is directed at Uber. For some reason, it's fun to hate on Uber, and it always has been. Let's hold Uber accountable, but let's also hold every other company accountable too. Let's have equal outrage for google, facebook, snapchat, and every other tech company that has done the same stuff. Let's have outrage for Blackwater(or whatever they changed their name to now): a company who literally profits off murder and the destabilization of world order. I say all of this as someone who experienced a lot of negativity while working for Uber, and I would never work there again. I don't think it is an "evil company" I just think they have chewed up and spit out a lot of folks on the way to the top.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bln_wgc 8y ago
  Lyft for example? Or Airbnb? They have forced arbitration clauses as well. We'll see if they match Uber's commitment here.
  - ProAm 8y ago
    I think its more important for Uber because they have a history of their drivers committing rape. I don't know if there are cases of that for Lyft or Airbnb but I have not heard about it from those companies.
    - austenallred 8y ago
      Because of forced arbitration?
    - bln_wgc 8y ago
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-lyft-drivers-sexual-assault-passengers-report/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-lyft-drivers-sexual-assaul... Incidence rate is similar on both platforms.
    - googlemike 8y ago
      What does the ride hailing service and infrastructure (platform?) have to do with the drivers beyond screening them to the best of their ability? It's like saying Mcdonalds, the post office, or any large employer should be held accountable for the crimes of their employees. I googled the most trivial of searches and got dozens of responses, here's a few. In any of these cases, is it really fair to say any of these were Uber's fault? Or Lyft's? I do not think so. Do you? https://nypost.com/2018/03/05/woman-raped-twice-trying-to-take-a-lyft-home-cops/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/05/woman-raped-twice-trying-to-ta... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/davie/fl-sb-davie-lyft-sex-battery-20171019-story.html http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/davie/fl-sb-davie-... https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rape-victim-suing-lyft-for-failing-to-screen-out-driver-who-attacked-her-300552177.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rape-victim-suing-l... https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/boone-county/lyft-driver-accused-of-raping-zionsville-woman-before-driving-her-home https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/boone-county/...
- whyaduck 8y ago
  If you're in the US, then, at a minimum, you've agreed to one for every credit card in your wallet, as well as every other financial account you have.
Lionsion 8y ago
These arbitration clauses should be illegal to begin with. You shouldn't have to depend on the largess of a company to have access to the real legal system to resolve disputes with them. It's screwed up that corporations now have access to something like sovereign immunity [1]: the ability to not be sued in court by their customers or employees unless they consent to the suit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...
- mattmanser 8y ago
  It is insane that the rule of law can be so easily circumvented by something as simple as an EULA and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ideologically committed to "starving the [state]." [1] The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a hand in designing and implementing this arbitration strategy, before he was appointed to the court. Afterwards he supported it in his opinions. [2] The current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is actively trying to undermine its mission [3], and wants to shift its focus away from consumer protection to "business costs." [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra... [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvaney-killing-the-cfpb-20180417-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvan... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business-costs-in-cfpb-reorganization-1525972114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business...
    - Domenic_S 8y ago
      I’m out.
testplzignore 8y ago
I don't understand how "sexual assault" was part of this. That would fall under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber due to the ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime could still be arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process. Is that correct?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- snark42 8y ago
  > That would fall under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber due to the ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime could still be arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process. Is that correct? Yep. Uber doesn't want to end up in court because they connected you with a rapist contractor. They'd end up getting sued and losing the emotional appeal to the jury, even if they hadn't been negligent in their process of connecting you with a "safe" driver by doing reasonable background checks.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    This is about employment contracts, where the company can indeed be held liable if they didn't take steps to prevent it.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
It is entirely unconscionable that this was a thing to begin with. There is no justification whatsoever for compelling arbitration on these people, other than pure evil.
lhorie 8y ago
Off-topic question: what's HN's stance on paywalls? I've noticed a growing number of paywalled articles from various media outlets, and I'm not entirely sure people are even reading them before commenting here.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  People gotta eat.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  HN's stance is here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
  - lhorie 8y ago
    Thanks!
- wolco 8y ago
  I rarely read the article these days because the comments can give you context the article doesn't
saagarjha 8y ago
> Mr. West said the company struggled with the decision to commit to a safety transparency report for its rides, because he knows that it will be “disturbing” when the actual number of assaults that happen on Uber is announced — in part because of the company’s size and the ease with which customers can report an incident. This seems like the wrong attitude to have…
- icebraining 8y ago
  Not really, it's perfectly reasonable to fear overreactions from the public. They could even have the best number in the industry, but if the others don't publish and it sounds big, people will freak out.
  - imtyler 8y ago
    Regardless of how the numbers compare, if they're bad, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the company to attempt to alleviate the problem (instead of just covering it up)? I suppose they could technically do both, but not acknowledging problems of substantial magnitude could be considered endangerment. Like the mayor from Jaws.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're absolutely right! It is beyond any doubt that it is Uber's responsibility to alleviate the problem as best they are able. It may be possible that there could be some reasonable questions around if a publicity blowup is a helpful part of addressing the problem.
    - gowld 8y ago
      What if the numbers are not bad -- what if riding an Uber is safer than cab/bus/walking, but there's no way to know because the stats on cab/bus/walking are not known, so people wrongly assume they are lower than Uber's?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
googlemike 8y ago
I doubt lyft will follow suit. They have the same rate of incidents on their service with the ability to defend themselves as well (less screening, no human support #s, less emergency support systems than Uber).
- gnicholas 8y ago
  Apparently they did follow suit, and quickly: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-ends-arbitration-sex-assault-claims-passengers-employees/610616002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-end...
swami26 8y ago
It is possible that Uber decided to waive forced arbitration for sexual misconduct otherwise risk their whole arbitration policy being called into legality. This action might also indicate that sexual misconduct was systemic enough to risk challenging Uber's forced arbitration policies.
ransom1538 8y ago
You can sign away your right to trial. Can you sign away your right to not be enslaved? Can you sign away your future right to freedom of religion? After you are charged with a crime can you sign up for cruel and unusual punishment? "Your honor the defendant signed up for cruel and unusual punishment as well as signing away the right to trial and ability to speak. HERE! is his signature (sorry) it is hard to read..."
- NegativeK 8y ago
  I've downvoted you because: Arbitration applies to civil suits. Criminal suits are not civil suits.
  - ransom1538 8y ago
    Plea bargains exist. The jails are filled with people that have not gone through trial. (It is over %90). Criminals these days don't see a trial. You can't be serious or even remotely correct. But yes, use your powerful downvote.
    - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
      What? He's totally correct that arbitration only applies to civil suits. That has nothing to do with plea bargains, which are part of criminal suits, and don't involve someone losing their right to a trial.
      - ransom1538 8y ago
        Signing away trial, is the signing away trial. Criminal vs civil is irrelevant.
        Matticus_Rex 8y ago
        Deciding not to have a trial is not giving up your right to a trial any more than deciding not to vote in an election is giving up your right to vote. Choosing not to exercise a right is not giving up your right.
qbaqbaqba 8y ago
Totally unthinkable in Europe.
st1ck 8y ago
Maybe I don't really get it (I'm not American), but why would victims sue Uber in the first place? It seems to make sense if they sue the sex offender (e.g. driver or passenger).
- malandrew 8y ago
  In America, you have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time. The plaintiff's lawyer may file a motion to dismiss or a judge may dismiss a case, but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to sue in the first place. That being said, people sue companies because companies have money and companies are more likely to settle so they can go about focusing on their core business (which is not litigation except for patent trolls). All this boils down to greed regardless what side you favor in this issue. Companies want to keep money they believe if rightfully theirs and individuals want to take money if they think they can get it. The fact that individuals are consistently lionized and companies are consistently is vilified is quite absurd.

185 points by sna1l 8y ago

A step in the right direction, but I still can't believe forced arbitration was ever a thing, especially in these cases. Still haven't re-installed Uber in over a year, don't miss it at all. It does make me wonder how many ToS I've agreed to with forced arbitration clauses written on page 84 in size six font.

jbigelow76 8y ago
It does make me wonder how many ToS I've agreed to with forced arbitration clauses written on page 84 in size six font. The vast majority of them, at least, all of them wouldn't be surprising.
TwoNineA 8y ago
"A step in the right direction" What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? How can people still work for this evil company?
- rectang 8y ago
  > What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? Susan Fowler advocated for ending forced arbitration as the "the single most important thing a company can do to prove to its employees that it is dedicated to acting ethically, legally, responsibly, and transparently": https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech-companies-can-do-better https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech... No-forced-arbitration should be the norm. What other companies have the worst forced arbitration clauses?
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > No-forced-arbitration should be the norm. I'd go further to say that forced arbitration should be illegal/unenforceable without clear evidence informed affirmative consent, and that the offering of services cannot be made conditional on accepting it. I think a lot of the consent concepts pioneered in the GDPR could be reasonably applied to many consumer-unfriendly practices.
    - gowld 8y ago
      We have a lot of that in finance, like when you get a mortgage -- you have to sign a bunch of separate documents, one for each major concession. Informed consent may help, but it won't solve the root problem of "selling your fundamental rights", which some consider "unconscionable" (legal term for an agreement that is barred by law even if both parties claim they agree to it)
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        One of the key provisions of the GDPR is that the provider cannot shut you out of the service if you don't give consent, unless the data is vital to the operation of the feature. And needing to use the data for targeted advertising doesn't count.
- ben_jones 8y ago
  A lawyer being paid to mitigate risk for the company using industry best practices? Uber has 6700 employees are you calling them all bad people for choosing to make a living working for one of the premier tech companies? The world isn't black and white where you're on the good side and those people tangentially related to that thing you don't like are bad people. If we really want to improve on these problems we can't be so self-righteous.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    You're tangentially related to your full time job? I think your employer is getting ripped off. The world is not black and white, but that doesn't mean we can't consider that certain groups have crossed a threshold (or ten) to one side of the spectrum.
- lhorie 8y ago
  > How can people still work for this evil company? Uber has been doing a lot recently (i.e. as of about mid last year) to fix itself - things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, a top-down directive to permanently halt spying-related work in intelligence gathering, cooperating with authorities on the Tempe incident, etc. Generally speaking, people aren't inherently evil and want to do the right thing. Uber's new leadership now does too. Uber moves fast and I think it's time to re-evaluate whether the data points backing your opinion are outdated.
  - gaius 8y ago
    things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, Still not paying their taxes tho’. There’s a shedload Of Employer’s NI they owe us.
    - lhorie 8y ago
      > Still not paying their taxes Sorry, not familiar with this and googling isn't turning up anything. Is this the IRS's opinion or just your own?
      - gaius 8y ago
        Is this the IRS's opinion or just your own? IRS? Why would they be collecting a tax that only exists in the U.K.? The issue of Uber drivers being concealed employees is often in the papers and the courts. It is very surprising that you can’t find any mention. Perhaps you didn’t actually look?
        lhorie 8y ago
        Oh, in the UK. Thanks, that helps me find more information. I'm not too familiar with taxation matters, but again, afaik, at the end of the day, it comes down to whether the IRS/HMRC/other countries tax depts are pursuing tax evasion charges, right? Is this actually the case?
- zethraeus 8y ago
  Because it's not actually evil. Source: my personal experience. :)
  - iamcasen 8y ago
    Right? The public perception of Uber over the years has been fascinating to me. I worked there for quite a while, and I always had a laugh at how the media would portray something. It was almost always grasping at straws in an attempt to paint Uber evil. There has been legit bad news about Uber, especially the stuff Susan Fowler talked about. But you know what? We all give money to equally, or often times far more sinister organizations on a daily basis without batting an eye-lash. Why hold Uber more accountable than everyone else?
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      And most of that negative perception appears to come from Uber's early (not so much, anymore) flouting of what could charitably be described as regulatory capture nonsense. It basically took them coming in and ignoring the taxi laws to put the lie to the entrenched interests and say "See? The world didn't end after all."
    - zethraeus 8y ago
      IMO: Uber fucked up tremendously before. It's not doing so now.
    - gowld 8y ago
      We hold everyone as accountable as we can. Not sure why you think differently.
      - iamcasen 8y ago
        I'm glad you do, but I don't think that's true for most. You see constant praise of Lyft, but constant demonization of Uber. Lyft has quite literally done all of the "dirty" business tactics that Uber has. In fact, most of the reason Uber started operating UberX in cities without express permission is because Lyft was already doing so, and Uber noticed that there was no backlash against them for it. Unfortunately for the tech world, sexual harassment and misogyny is all too common. There are numerous reports about women in tech, and how hard it is and why many of them ultimately leave their careers. This is not something that has only occurred at Uber, and yet, all of the news about it is about Uber. All of the outrage about it is directed at Uber. For some reason, it's fun to hate on Uber, and it always has been. Let's hold Uber accountable, but let's also hold every other company accountable too. Let's have equal outrage for google, facebook, snapchat, and every other tech company that has done the same stuff. Let's have outrage for Blackwater(or whatever they changed their name to now): a company who literally profits off murder and the destabilization of world order. I say all of this as someone who experienced a lot of negativity while working for Uber, and I would never work there again. I don't think it is an "evil company" I just think they have chewed up and spit out a lot of folks on the way to the top.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bln_wgc 8y ago
Lyft for example? Or Airbnb? They have forced arbitration clauses as well. We'll see if they match Uber's commitment here.
- ProAm 8y ago
  I think its more important for Uber because they have a history of their drivers committing rape. I don't know if there are cases of that for Lyft or Airbnb but I have not heard about it from those companies.
  - austenallred 8y ago
    Because of forced arbitration?
  - bln_wgc 8y ago
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-lyft-drivers-sexual-assault-passengers-report/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-lyft-drivers-sexual-assaul... Incidence rate is similar on both platforms.
  - googlemike 8y ago
    What does the ride hailing service and infrastructure (platform?) have to do with the drivers beyond screening them to the best of their ability? It's like saying Mcdonalds, the post office, or any large employer should be held accountable for the crimes of their employees. I googled the most trivial of searches and got dozens of responses, here's a few. In any of these cases, is it really fair to say any of these were Uber's fault? Or Lyft's? I do not think so. Do you? https://nypost.com/2018/03/05/woman-raped-twice-trying-to-take-a-lyft-home-cops/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/05/woman-raped-twice-trying-to-ta... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/davie/fl-sb-davie-lyft-sex-battery-20171019-story.html http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/davie/fl-sb-davie-... https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rape-victim-suing-lyft-for-failing-to-screen-out-driver-who-attacked-her-300552177.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rape-victim-suing-l... https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/boone-county/lyft-driver-accused-of-raping-zionsville-woman-before-driving-her-home https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/boone-county/...
whyaduck 8y ago
If you're in the US, then, at a minimum, you've agreed to one for every credit card in your wallet, as well as every other financial account you have.

Lionsion 8y ago

These arbitration clauses should be illegal to begin with. You shouldn't have to depend on the largess of a company to have access to the real legal system to resolve disputes with them. It's screwed up that corporations now have access to something like sovereign immunity [1]: the ability to not be sued in court by their customers or employees unless they consent to the suit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...

mattmanser 8y ago
It is insane that the rule of law can be so easily circumvented by something as simple as an EULA and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power.
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ideologically committed to "starving the [state]." [1] The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a hand in designing and implementing this arbitration strategy, before he was appointed to the court. Afterwards he supported it in his opinions. [2] The current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is actively trying to undermine its mission [3], and wants to shift its focus away from consumer protection to "business costs." [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra... [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvaney-killing-the-cfpb-20180417-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvan... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business-costs-in-cfpb-reorganization-1525972114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business...
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    I’m out.

testplzignore 8y ago

I don't understand how "sexual assault" was part of this. That would fall under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber due to the ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime could still be arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process. Is that correct?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
snark42 8y ago
> That would fall under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber due to the ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime could still be arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process. Is that correct? Yep. Uber doesn't want to end up in court because they connected you with a rapist contractor. They'd end up getting sued and losing the emotional appeal to the jury, even if they hadn't been negligent in their process of connecting you with a "safe" driver by doing reasonable background checks.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  This is about employment contracts, where the company can indeed be held liable if they didn't take steps to prevent it.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

It is entirely unconscionable that this was a thing to begin with. There is no justification whatsoever for compelling arbitration on these people, other than pure evil.

lhorie 8y ago

Off-topic question: what's HN's stance on paywalls? I've noticed a growing number of paywalled articles from various media outlets, and I'm not entirely sure people are even reading them before commenting here.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
People gotta eat.
chrisseaton 8y ago
HN's stance is here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
- lhorie 8y ago
  Thanks!
wolco 8y ago
I rarely read the article these days because the comments can give you context the article doesn't

saagarjha 8y ago

> Mr. West said the company struggled with the decision to commit to a safety transparency report for its rides, because he knows that it will be “disturbing” when the actual number of assaults that happen on Uber is announced — in part because of the company’s size and the ease with which customers can report an incident. This seems like the wrong attitude to have…

icebraining 8y ago
Not really, it's perfectly reasonable to fear overreactions from the public. They could even have the best number in the industry, but if the others don't publish and it sounds big, people will freak out.
- imtyler 8y ago
  Regardless of how the numbers compare, if they're bad, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the company to attempt to alleviate the problem (instead of just covering it up)? I suppose they could technically do both, but not acknowledging problems of substantial magnitude could be considered endangerment. Like the mayor from Jaws.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    You're absolutely right! It is beyond any doubt that it is Uber's responsibility to alleviate the problem as best they are able. It may be possible that there could be some reasonable questions around if a publicity blowup is a helpful part of addressing the problem.
  - gowld 8y ago
    What if the numbers are not bad -- what if riding an Uber is safer than cab/bus/walking, but there's no way to know because the stats on cab/bus/walking are not known, so people wrongly assume they are lower than Uber's?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

googlemike 8y ago

I doubt lyft will follow suit. They have the same rate of incidents on their service with the ability to defend themselves as well (less screening, no human support #s, less emergency support systems than Uber).

gnicholas 8y ago
Apparently they did follow suit, and quickly: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-ends-arbitration-sex-assault-claims-passengers-employees/610616002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-end...

swami26 8y ago

It is possible that Uber decided to waive forced arbitration for sexual misconduct otherwise risk their whole arbitration policy being called into legality. This action might also indicate that sexual misconduct was systemic enough to risk challenging Uber's forced arbitration policies.

ransom1538 8y ago

You can sign away your right to trial. Can you sign away your right to not be enslaved? Can you sign away your future right to freedom of religion? After you are charged with a crime can you sign up for cruel and unusual punishment? "Your honor the defendant signed up for cruel and unusual punishment as well as signing away the right to trial and ability to speak. HERE! is his signature (sorry) it is hard to read..."

NegativeK 8y ago
I've downvoted you because: Arbitration applies to civil suits. Criminal suits are not civil suits.
- ransom1538 8y ago
  Plea bargains exist. The jails are filled with people that have not gone through trial. (It is over %90). Criminals these days don't see a trial. You can't be serious or even remotely correct. But yes, use your powerful downvote.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    What? He's totally correct that arbitration only applies to civil suits. That has nothing to do with plea bargains, which are part of criminal suits, and don't involve someone losing their right to a trial.
    - ransom1538 8y ago
      Signing away trial, is the signing away trial. Criminal vs civil is irrelevant.
      - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
        Deciding not to have a trial is not giving up your right to a trial any more than deciding not to vote in an election is giving up your right to vote. Choosing not to exercise a right is not giving up your right.

qbaqbaqba 8y ago

Totally unthinkable in Europe.

st1ck 8y ago

Maybe I don't really get it (I'm not American), but why would victims sue Uber in the first place? It seems to make sense if they sue the sex offender (e.g. driver or passenger).

malandrew 8y ago
In America, you have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time. The plaintiff's lawyer may file a motion to dismiss or a judge may dismiss a case, but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to sue in the first place. That being said, people sue companies because companies have money and companies are more likely to settle so they can go about focusing on their core business (which is not litigation except for patent trolls). All this boils down to greed regardless what side you favor in this issue. Companies want to keep money they believe if rightfully theirs and individuals want to take money if they think they can get it. The fact that individuals are consistently lionized and companies are consistently is vilified is quite absurd.