13 ms·

No class action for unhappy Uber drivers: U.S. appeals court

129 points by rectang 8y ago

rectang 8y ago
Is there a practical distinction between agreeing to arbitration and agreeing in advance to lose? Compared to court cases, how many arbitration cases are actually decided in favor of the petitioner?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >Consumers obtain relief regarding their claims in only 9 percent of disputes. On the other hand, when companies make claims or counterclaims, arbitrators grant them relief 93 percent of the time—meaning they order the consumer to pay. If you consider both sides of this equation, in arbitration, the average consumer is ordered to pay $7,725 to the bank or lender. https://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consumers-fare-better-under-class-actions-than-arbitration/ https://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consum... Note that it's limited to arbitration involving financial companies though. Absolutely terrible to see what happens to normal people when companies can privatize justice.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Of course, that prompts the question about how many of the customer complaints were legitimate, and how many of the company complaints were legitimate.
- ergothus 8y ago
  https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ Cant say the quality of this study, but it came up in recent discussions about the topic when the US supreme court ruled on a related matter, and claims "employees win 21 percent of arbitration cases, compared to 57 percent of cases in state court. " and "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary)
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary) There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well. For an employee who is successful, arbitration is also a lot cheaper than a court case.
    - staticautomatic 8y ago
      No its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > No its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers. "Contingency" doesn't mean it's free. If the case is won (which is the situation we're talking about), the lawyer gets paid out of the net recovery.
        treis 8y ago
        Typically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Typically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math. Yes, typically 33-45%. As I said in the original comment: > There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well
        GW150914 8y ago
        So it’s somewhere between double and triple the award considering costs. That’s huge and if your point isn't purely pedantic then I’m missing it.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  No. As they are secret courts, fundamentally biased against the human when against a corporation by virtue of money, and not required to follow the law, they indistinguishable from an agreement to lose. https://www.centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.pdf https://www.centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.... https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_1/02_leroy.pdf https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dd36 8y ago
  We publish summary data on our homepage: https://levelplayingfield.io/ https://levelplayingfield.io/
s73v3r_ 8y ago
But, if they're not employees, then how can Uber do this?
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  A contract is a contract is a contract. You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts. You actually cannot sign away your basic rights as contract cannot supersede state or federal law. You may argue that one's right to litgation _should_ be considered a basic right, but currently it's not.
    - makomk 8y ago
      The difference between signing away your basic rights and signing away your ability to enforce those rights is basically non-existent.
    - kevin_b_er 8y ago
      We may weep for the 7th amendment, which guaranteed the right to a trial by jury in disputes, as long having been bypassed and a currently dead amendment. Alexender Hamilton: "The civil jury is a valuable safeguard to liberty." Thomas Jefferson: "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." They tried, but greed is too strong. You've lost the right to a trial by jury. What little bit is left is dead under mandatory binding arbitration.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        Ok, but the supreme court disagrees: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceability-of-employment-arbitration-agreements/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceabilit...
gwright 8y ago
Another title might be: "U.S. appeals court: Contracts with an arbitration clause are enforceable." Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. The court is saying the contract is valid and the parties must work within the context of that contract.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  If the ninth circuit won't overturn it, then it's safe to say no one will.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    Dammit. This is a true threat to everyman. Class actions don't benefit everyman directly, but they are indeed very powerful shapers of corporate behavior. Congress needs to act ... oh wait, silly me, I forgot they are beholden to corporations not voters.
    - dctoedt 8y ago
      November is coming.
      - dmoy 8y ago
        Wait, what happens to the 9th circuit in November?
- Y_Y 8y ago
  Can't Uber force a driver it has a dispute with to engage in binding arbitration, rather than resolve the case in court, which is typically the entitlement of both parties?
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    If the driver agreed to a contract that has a clause that expressly said that they could, then yes. The court ruled that such clauses in contracts can be enforced. Without the contract saying so, Uber wouldn't have been able to do this at all.
qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
Bought.
duxup 8y ago
I wonder at what point arbitration is not really an "option". I looked around, the only ISPs in my area all include arbitration clauses. Is it really a choice when the choice is no home internet, or arbitration that eliminates my access to the courts?
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Well, you sometimes have the “option” to opt out within 30 days or so of signing the contract
- JBlue42 8y ago
  Same for the last two normal jobs I've taken. I was surprised to also be presented with an arbitration agreement when visiting a new doctor for the first time. I think it's become quite standard since no one is really able to stand up against them.
ethagnawl 8y ago
Have any small business owners, contractors, freelancers, etc. had success pushing back against arbitration clauses during contract negotiations? I've spent money on lawyers' fees in order to make changes to offered contracts in the past, only to have them rejected outright. (It makes a certain amount of sense, as $CORP isn't going to have their legal team spend hours negotiating/revising a contract with a vendor that's only worth $NNk.) Unsurprisingly, this is not an area I and, I would imagine, others like me have a lot of room to experiment in: 1) lawyers are expensive and 2) missing out on that contract might mean missing out on $BILL payment. However, _most_ contracts I'm given these days contain an arbitration clause. Having had to sue someone in small claims court (I was successful!), I _loathe_ the idea of being forced into a kangaroo court. Anyways, I'm not looking for free legal advice, I'm just curious to know how others are navigating this issue.
- slededit 8y ago
  Arbitration clauses are usually in everyone's favor because it dramatically reduces the cost of dispute resolution. The only downside is they prevent class action suites. In a b2b contract that usually isn't a consideration and so arbitration is a benefit - it would be foolish to try and remove it.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Arbitration clauses are explicitly not in everyone's favor and that is the sort of incorrect information companies like to spread around. Frequently the company is the one picking the arbitrator, which I hope has obvious problems with them being unbiased. Even in cases where the arbitrator is a "neutral" party that both sides have to agree to, the companies are the ones bringing in the lion's share of work to the arbitrators and they are not going to agree to an arbitrator who rules against them in any significant quantities
    - hcurtiss 8y ago
      This presumes the company is frequently in arbitration. That is not frequently the case. With few exceptions, most companies want to (and do) avoid these kinds of disputes. My critique of arbitration is that, under AAA rules, it's not actually much cheaper than just going to court. The only real advantage is that it cuts off appeals, but that cuts both ways. These days I find clients are relatively ambivalent about whether to include arbitration in B2B contracts.
balozi 8y ago
I should invest in an arbitration-as-a-service startup.
- jameskegel 8y ago
  I'd imagine there's an entire secondary market of arbitrators. The real juice would be in some sort of ranking system for them, like a reverse-glassdoor.
- monocasa 8y ago
  fn arbitration() { return rulingFor(billing.client); } Bam, can I get my cut?
DanielBMarkham 8y ago
Related personal story. I had dealings with a national technology-based company over the past several years that involved fraud. Not on my part. It was obvious to me after some investigation that they had stolen several hundred dollars from me by causing charges on another account without asking my permission or clearly indicating that charges were being made. (I had to investigate to figure it out) I was willing to let it slide and move on. Lesson learned. Then I saw a commercial for the company and realized: they were doing the same thing to tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of other customers. It was really kind of mind-boggling when I thought about it. Who knows how much money was involved. So I looked up a lawyer in a nearby large town who had experience and knowledge about class action suits in the technology arena. We had a nice chat. I had accumulated a ton of paperwork to show what was going on. He agreed. They were hurting a lot of people. On purpose. But he couldn't take the case. Was it lack of proof? Broken laws? What? It was arbitration. If I understood him correctly, arbitration clauses are destroying class action lawsuits. So you can legally screw over tons of people, then insist arbitration with the few that care if you get caught. And you get screwed over? You'd better not say anything about it because then you'd be slandering the company. After all, they haven't been found guilty of anything, right? So how about regulatory agencies, I asked? Surely this violates some regulation that they operate under. His view, if I understood him correctly, was that regulation was entirely political. It had nothing to do with them breaking any rules. It certain political contexts certain companies got the hammer. In certain other political contexts, they did not. In this particular case, he knew from the lay of the land that it was not worth pursuing. I'm still taken back by our conversation. I had no idea that arbitration had effectively destroyed class action. I don't remember this ever being reported anywhere.
- protonfish 8y ago
  I literally don't understand how if a person takes $100 out of my wallet I can report them for criminal theft, but if that same person does it as part of a business, that's somehow a civil issue.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    In a civil issue they either have it given by you, or they hold back when giving you something, but they don't take from you - or they have your written general permission to take. It's criminal exactly when there is no other law code allowing it. Very simple. Very wrong but based on good faith.
steveeq1 8y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but what are the negatives to arbitration? Isn't that basically a private court system used because the government court system is so slow and inefficient? Isn't that a good thing?
- tnorthcutt 8y ago
  The company chooses the arbitrator. The arbitrator is therefore incentivized to find in the company's favor. If they find in favor of the "plaintiff" (I would imagine that's not what they're called in arbitration) too often, then the company can simply find a more friendly arbitrator.
  - bigpicture 8y ago
    As an example, look at the Comcast arbitration agreement [1]. They do not want to choose. They want it to be either the AAA or a judge making the choice. You might also notice that they are totally fine with you suing them in your local small claims court. [1] https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/SubscriberAgreement https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/Subscri...
syntaxing 8y ago
This is why Unions are so important. I understand how it might not make much sense for high wage jobs like engineering to Unionize but I really can't see the negative side to Unions for low wage jobs for everyone besides the employer (I do not buy the increase consumer price or laissez-faire arguments). One of the best benefits from a Union is a sponsored lawyer to represent you when you don't have the money to fight the big guys.
- seibelj 8y ago
  If a union only kept to things like safety and minimum salaries I could understand the argument better, although I still don’t support them. The problem is when they start putting in seniority rules (as if all employees are replaceable cogs), banning people from helping out with different jobs (“only the pipe fitter can replace this particular screw”), and making it extremely difficult to fire people.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Unions are a very broad umbrella term, like corporations, to describe a type of organized labor. Corporations, unions, and their practices all exit on a spectrum of good and bad.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      A union exists to tell the business owner how to run their business by force. The threat is a strike, or worse (damaging equipment and reputation). The reasons to allow a non-owner, non-governmental power like a union to force the business to change can make sense and pull at your heart strings. I would prefer, if we are to encourage unions, that it stays about safety and let the free market sort the rest out. People can always find new jobs.
      - WalterSear 8y ago
        > People can always find new jobs. If that was the case, we would not need unions.
dang 8y ago
Unless Reuters changed their own title, the submitter broke the site guidelines by editorializing (submitted title was "Uber can force drivers into arbitration: U.S. appeals court".) Please don't do that. Accounts that do it eventually lose submission privileges on HN. From the guidelines: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One reason we have this rule is that when people break it—especially when they break it to editorialize—the comments tend to fill up with distracting arguments about the title.
- rectang 8y ago
  Reuters changed the title. I copied and pasted the original title, as I always do -- I'm familiar with the guidelines (and have in fact brought similar issues to the mod's attention before). Thank you for addressing the issue.
  - dang 8y ago
    Ah. That makes me glad I put that bit in at the beginning! Thanks for being conscientious about the guidelines and thanks for replying so nicely. I will mark this subthread offtopic and collapse it, and delete my other comment about the title.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Thanks as always for your good work. :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mhneu 8y ago
Link to full opinion is here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/25/14-16078.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/25/14... Three-judge panel, 9th Circuit. - Richard R. Clifton, authored opinion (app. GW Bush, Repub.) - Richard C. Tallman (app. Bill Clinton, Repub- see wikipedia) - Sandra S. Ikuta (app. GW Bush, Repub, Fed Soc member)
lsiebert 8y ago
The biggest negative of arbitration isn't that individuals lose, though they do. It's that class action lawsuits are undermined. It used to be that a legal firm could find a group of people harmed by a company, create a class action lawsuit, and make money if they won/settled that one case. Often class action settlements had requirements that bound the company. But each arbitration is it's own case with it's own particulars. If a company screws over thousands of people, taking each of those to arbitration means that's thousands of hours more work then a single class action. Further, settlements are generally restricted to the specific issues a particular party has issue with, and there is generally no way to guarantee changes for the benefit of similar parties. There are only two ways to counter unequal power in deciding contract terms that mandate arbitration, regulation or concerted action. But not a class action. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1631&context=sportslaw https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...

129 points by rectang 8y ago

Is there a practical distinction between agreeing to arbitration and agreeing in advance to lose? Compared to court cases, how many arbitration cases are actually decided in favor of the petitioner?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Consumers obtain relief regarding their claims in only 9 percent of disputes. On the other hand, when companies make claims or counterclaims, arbitrators grant them relief 93 percent of the time—meaning they order the consumer to pay. If you consider both sides of this equation, in arbitration, the average consumer is ordered to pay $7,725 to the bank or lender. https://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consumers-fare-better-under-class-actions-than-arbitration/ https://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consum... Note that it's limited to arbitration involving financial companies though. Absolutely terrible to see what happens to normal people when companies can privatize justice.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Of course, that prompts the question about how many of the customer complaints were legitimate, and how many of the company complaints were legitimate.
ergothus 8y ago
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ Cant say the quality of this study, but it came up in recent discussions about the topic when the US supreme court ruled on a related matter, and claims "employees win 21 percent of arbitration cases, compared to 57 percent of cases in state court. " and "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary)
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > "Workers also get less money when they're successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court" (quotes pulled from a digg summary) There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well. For an employee who is successful, arbitration is also a lot cheaper than a court case.
  - staticautomatic 8y ago
    No its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > No its not because the kinds of employment cases that can net $575k in court are typically taken on contingency by the plaintiff's lawyers. "Contingency" doesn't mean it's free. If the case is won (which is the situation we're talking about), the lawyer gets paid out of the net recovery.
      - treis 8y ago
        Typically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Typically a third and would obviously still come out way ahead if you do the basic math. Yes, typically 33-45%. As I said in the original comment: > There is definitely a difference, but that has to be adjusted for the difference in expenses as well
        GW150914 8y ago
        So it’s somewhere between double and triple the award considering costs. That’s huge and if your point isn't purely pedantic then I’m missing it.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
No. As they are secret courts, fundamentally biased against the human when against a corporation by virtue of money, and not required to follow the law, they indistinguishable from an agreement to lose. https://www.centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.pdf https://www.centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.... https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_1/02_leroy.pdf https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dd36 8y ago
We publish summary data on our homepage: https://levelplayingfield.io/ https://levelplayingfield.io/

s73v3r_ 8y ago

But, if they're not employees, then how can Uber do this?

kevin_b_er 8y ago
A contract is a contract is a contract. You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts. You actually cannot sign away your basic rights as contract cannot supersede state or federal law. You may argue that one's right to litgation _should_ be considered a basic right, but currently it's not.
  - makomk 8y ago
    The difference between signing away your basic rights and signing away your ability to enforce those rights is basically non-existent.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    We may weep for the 7th amendment, which guaranteed the right to a trial by jury in disputes, as long having been bypassed and a currently dead amendment. Alexender Hamilton: "The civil jury is a valuable safeguard to liberty." Thomas Jefferson: "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." They tried, but greed is too strong. You've lost the right to a trial by jury. What little bit is left is dead under mandatory binding arbitration.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      Ok, but the supreme court disagrees: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceability-of-employment-arbitration-agreements/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceabilit...

gwright 8y ago

Another title might be: "U.S. appeals court: Contracts with an arbitration clause are enforceable." Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. The court is saying the contract is valid and the parties must work within the context of that contract.

creaghpatr 8y ago
If the ninth circuit won't overturn it, then it's safe to say no one will.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  Dammit. This is a true threat to everyman. Class actions don't benefit everyman directly, but they are indeed very powerful shapers of corporate behavior. Congress needs to act ... oh wait, silly me, I forgot they are beholden to corporations not voters.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    November is coming.
    - dmoy 8y ago
      Wait, what happens to the 9th circuit in November?
Y_Y 8y ago
Can't Uber force a driver it has a dispute with to engage in binding arbitration, rather than resolve the case in court, which is typically the entitlement of both parties?
- roywiggins 8y ago
  If the driver agreed to a contract that has a clause that expressly said that they could, then yes. The court ruled that such clauses in contracts can be enforced. Without the contract saying so, Uber wouldn't have been able to do this at all.

qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago

Bought.

duxup 8y ago

I wonder at what point arbitration is not really an "option". I looked around, the only ISPs in my area all include arbitration clauses. Is it really a choice when the choice is no home internet, or arbitration that eliminates my access to the courts?

colejohnson66 8y ago
Well, you sometimes have the “option” to opt out within 30 days or so of signing the contract
JBlue42 8y ago
Same for the last two normal jobs I've taken. I was surprised to also be presented with an arbitration agreement when visiting a new doctor for the first time. I think it's become quite standard since no one is really able to stand up against them.

ethagnawl 8y ago

Have any small business owners, contractors, freelancers, etc. had success pushing back against arbitration clauses during contract negotiations? I've spent money on lawyers' fees in order to make changes to offered contracts in the past, only to have them rejected outright. (It makes a certain amount of sense, as $CORP isn't going to have their legal team spend hours negotiating/revising a contract with a vendor that's only worth $NNk.) Unsurprisingly, this is not an area I and, I would imagine, others like me have a lot of room to experiment in: 1) lawyers are expensive and 2) missing out on that contract might mean missing out on $BILL payment. However, _most_ contracts I'm given these days contain an arbitration clause. Having had to sue someone in small claims court (I was successful!), I _loathe_ the idea of being forced into a kangaroo court. Anyways, I'm not looking for free legal advice, I'm just curious to know how others are navigating this issue.

slededit 8y ago
Arbitration clauses are usually in everyone's favor because it dramatically reduces the cost of dispute resolution. The only downside is they prevent class action suites. In a b2b contract that usually isn't a consideration and so arbitration is a benefit - it would be foolish to try and remove it.
- lovich 8y ago
  Arbitration clauses are explicitly not in everyone's favor and that is the sort of incorrect information companies like to spread around. Frequently the company is the one picking the arbitrator, which I hope has obvious problems with them being unbiased. Even in cases where the arbitrator is a "neutral" party that both sides have to agree to, the companies are the ones bringing in the lion's share of work to the arbitrators and they are not going to agree to an arbitrator who rules against them in any significant quantities
  - hcurtiss 8y ago
    This presumes the company is frequently in arbitration. That is not frequently the case. With few exceptions, most companies want to (and do) avoid these kinds of disputes. My critique of arbitration is that, under AAA rules, it's not actually much cheaper than just going to court. The only real advantage is that it cuts off appeals, but that cuts both ways. These days I find clients are relatively ambivalent about whether to include arbitration in B2B contracts.

balozi 8y ago

I should invest in an arbitration-as-a-service startup.

jameskegel 8y ago
I'd imagine there's an entire secondary market of arbitrators. The real juice would be in some sort of ranking system for them, like a reverse-glassdoor.
monocasa 8y ago
fn arbitration() { return rulingFor(billing.client); } Bam, can I get my cut?

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

Related personal story. I had dealings with a national technology-based company over the past several years that involved fraud. Not on my part. It was obvious to me after some investigation that they had stolen several hundred dollars from me by causing charges on another account without asking my permission or clearly indicating that charges were being made. (I had to investigate to figure it out) I was willing to let it slide and move on. Lesson learned. Then I saw a commercial for the company and realized: they were doing the same thing to tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of other customers. It was really kind of mind-boggling when I thought about it. Who knows how much money was involved. So I looked up a lawyer in a nearby large town who had experience and knowledge about class action suits in the technology arena. We had a nice chat. I had accumulated a ton of paperwork to show what was going on. He agreed. They were hurting a lot of people. On purpose. But he couldn't take the case. Was it lack of proof? Broken laws? What? It was arbitration. If I understood him correctly, arbitration clauses are destroying class action lawsuits. So you can legally screw over tons of people, then insist arbitration with the few that care if you get caught. And you get screwed over? You'd better not say anything about it because then you'd be slandering the company. After all, they haven't been found guilty of anything, right? So how about regulatory agencies, I asked? Surely this violates some regulation that they operate under. His view, if I understood him correctly, was that regulation was entirely political. It had nothing to do with them breaking any rules. It certain political contexts certain companies got the hammer. In certain other political contexts, they did not. In this particular case, he knew from the lay of the land that it was not worth pursuing. I'm still taken back by our conversation. I had no idea that arbitration had effectively destroyed class action. I don't remember this ever being reported anywhere.

protonfish 8y ago
I literally don't understand how if a person takes $100 out of my wallet I can report them for criminal theft, but if that same person does it as part of a business, that's somehow a civil issue.
- posterboy 8y ago
  In a civil issue they either have it given by you, or they hold back when giving you something, but they don't take from you - or they have your written general permission to take. It's criminal exactly when there is no other law code allowing it. Very simple. Very wrong but based on good faith.

steveeq1 8y ago

Forgive my ignorance, but what are the negatives to arbitration? Isn't that basically a private court system used because the government court system is so slow and inefficient? Isn't that a good thing?

tnorthcutt 8y ago
The company chooses the arbitrator. The arbitrator is therefore incentivized to find in the company's favor. If they find in favor of the "plaintiff" (I would imagine that's not what they're called in arbitration) too often, then the company can simply find a more friendly arbitrator.
- bigpicture 8y ago
  As an example, look at the Comcast arbitration agreement [1]. They do not want to choose. They want it to be either the AAA or a judge making the choice. You might also notice that they are totally fine with you suing them in your local small claims court. [1] https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/SubscriberAgreement https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/Subscri...

syntaxing 8y ago

This is why Unions are so important. I understand how it might not make much sense for high wage jobs like engineering to Unionize but I really can't see the negative side to Unions for low wage jobs for everyone besides the employer (I do not buy the increase consumer price or laissez-faire arguments). One of the best benefits from a Union is a sponsored lawyer to represent you when you don't have the money to fight the big guys.

seibelj 8y ago
If a union only kept to things like safety and minimum salaries I could understand the argument better, although I still don’t support them. The problem is when they start putting in seniority rules (as if all employees are replaceable cogs), banning people from helping out with different jobs (“only the pipe fitter can replace this particular screw”), and making it extremely difficult to fire people.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Unions are a very broad umbrella term, like corporations, to describe a type of organized labor. Corporations, unions, and their practices all exit on a spectrum of good and bad.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    A union exists to tell the business owner how to run their business by force. The threat is a strike, or worse (damaging equipment and reputation). The reasons to allow a non-owner, non-governmental power like a union to force the business to change can make sense and pull at your heart strings. I would prefer, if we are to encourage unions, that it stays about safety and let the free market sort the rest out. People can always find new jobs.
    - WalterSear 8y ago
      > People can always find new jobs. If that was the case, we would not need unions.

dang 8y ago

Unless Reuters changed their own title, the submitter broke the site guidelines by editorializing (submitted title was "Uber can force drivers into arbitration: U.S. appeals court".) Please don't do that. Accounts that do it eventually lose submission privileges on HN. From the guidelines: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One reason we have this rule is that when people break it—especially when they break it to editorialize—the comments tend to fill up with distracting arguments about the title.

rectang 8y ago
Reuters changed the title. I copied and pasted the original title, as I always do -- I'm familiar with the guidelines (and have in fact brought similar issues to the mod's attention before). Thank you for addressing the issue.
- dang 8y ago
  Ah. That makes me glad I put that bit in at the beginning! Thanks for being conscientious about the guidelines and thanks for replying so nicely. I will mark this subthread offtopic and collapse it, and delete my other comment about the title.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Thanks as always for your good work. :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mhneu 8y ago

Link to full opinion is here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/25/14-16078.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/25/14... Three-judge panel, 9th Circuit. - Richard R. Clifton, authored opinion (app. GW Bush, Repub.) - Richard C. Tallman (app. Bill Clinton, Repub- see wikipedia) - Sandra S. Ikuta (app. GW Bush, Repub, Fed Soc member)

lsiebert 8y ago

The biggest negative of arbitration isn't that individuals lose, though they do. It's that class action lawsuits are undermined. It used to be that a legal firm could find a group of people harmed by a company, create a class action lawsuit, and make money if they won/settled that one case. Often class action settlements had requirements that bound the company. But each arbitration is it's own case with it's own particulars. If a company screws over thousands of people, taking each of those to arbitration means that's thousands of hours more work then a single class action. Further, settlements are generally restricted to the specific issues a particular party has issue with, and there is generally no way to guarantee changes for the benefit of similar parties. There are only two ways to counter unequal power in deciding contract terms that mandate arbitration, regulation or concerted action. But not a class action. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1631&context=sportslaw https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...