4 ms·

> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In theory, people enter into contracts under their own free will. In reality, Uber has tremendous relative power

> Uber isn't "forcing" anybody to do anything. In theory, people enter into contracts under their own free will. In reality, Uber has tremendous relative power in that relationship, like every relationship between a large corporation and an individual worker. Contract law, if I understand correctly, takes into account the relative power of the parties. As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; many/most will not grasp the legal implications and they almost certainly can't negotiate it. I'm not saying that invalidates all contracts and that the employee has no free choice, but it's false to say that Uber does not have much greater leverage.

capdeck 8y ago
> As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; I don't understand how legal system can be fair till the above is true. Individual, from the start, is on the loosing side. It should be illegal to sign things you are not qualified to understand. You can't get a prescription medication without a doctor reviewing your case first -- why can you sign a 100-page legalese? You are certain not to know what you are doing. Arbitration is nothing more than a spectacle. Everyone is on the company payroll there, directly or otherwise -- house always wins.
- rectang 8y ago
  Or at least there can be consumer protection laws which limit the power of such agreements, a la Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope > "Unfair terms are void, where they appear in standard form contracts signed with individuals "whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption."' This would not apply to the Uber driver case, but it would be a welcome change nonetheless.
- currymj 8y ago
  My understanding is that arbitrators do actually rule against the company from time to time, it's not a pure rubber stamp. It seems like one thing to do would be to make sure to rule against the company for small cases with limited damages, to keep up your credibility and ensure that the big cases always go in the company's favor. I don't know if arbitrators do this, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Because meeting of the minds is dead under arbitration and contracts of adhesion. You do not have to understand your loss of rights to lose them under arbitration. You do not have to understand that your right to free speech will be squashed because the proceedings of arbitration may be mandated as secret. You and your rights are bound.
vec 8y ago
> Contract law, if I understand correctly, takes into account the relative power of the parties. It really doesn't, at least not in the US. There are a bunch of things that are necessary for a contract to be considered enforceable, but the two that are relevant here are "meeting of the minds" and "duress". "Duress" is the obvious one, but it's a really high bar. It usually means something like physically threatened or blackmailed or literally locked in a room and told you can't leave until you sign. There's not generally a case that an employee or contractor was under duress from their future employer because they always had the option to not take the job in the first place. "Meeting of the minds" is a bit more subtle. The parties have to believe they're agreeing to the same thing. This is also hard to show, though. Generally speaking, if you've been given the full text of the contract and had ample time to read through it then you are legally considered to know and understand its contents. There are a few cases where shrinkwrap licenses and extremely one sided terms of service get rejected under this theory, but it normally requires the parties to have signed materially different documents or for one party to be able to show that they weren't given adequate access to the document before they signed. It's also worth noting that contracts are basically considered valid until proven otherwise. So even if there is a case to make that you shouldn't need to comply with some terms of a contract you are bound by you still need the resources (both in terms of relevant supporting documents and in terms of time and money) to actually prove that case in a court of law.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > It really doesn't, at least not in the US. I've had American attorneys consistently tell me otherwise, though I've never had to put the idea into practice myself. > So even if there is a case to make that you shouldn't need to comply with some terms of a contract you are bound by you still need the resources (both in terms of relevant supporting documents and in terms of time and money) to actually prove that case in a court of law. Perhaps in theory, but IME the reality is the opposite: A contract is only worth what you are willing to invest the resources - money, time, attention, and frequently social/political capital - in enforcing.

capdeck 8y ago

> As a simple example, Uber has a legal department to create and review the contract; most drivers don't have attorneys to even review it; I don't understand how legal system can be fair till the above is true. Individual, from the start, is on the loosing side. It should be illegal to sign things you are not qualified to understand. You can't get a prescription medication without a doctor reviewing your case first -- why can you sign a 100-page legalese? You are certain not to know what you are doing. Arbitration is nothing more than a spectacle. Everyone is on the company payroll there, directly or otherwise -- house always wins.

rectang 8y ago
Or at least there can be consumer protection laws which limit the power of such agreements, a la Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Consumer_Law#Scope > "Unfair terms are void, where they appear in standard form contracts signed with individuals "whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption."' This would not apply to the Uber driver case, but it would be a welcome change nonetheless.
currymj 8y ago
My understanding is that arbitrators do actually rule against the company from time to time, it's not a pure rubber stamp. It seems like one thing to do would be to make sure to rule against the company for small cases with limited damages, to keep up your credibility and ensure that the big cases always go in the company's favor. I don't know if arbitrators do this, but I wouldn't be surprised.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
Because meeting of the minds is dead under arbitration and contracts of adhesion. You do not have to understand your loss of rights to lose them under arbitration. You do not have to understand that your right to free speech will be squashed because the proceedings of arbitration may be mandated as secret. You and your rights are bound.

vec 8y ago

> Contract law, if I understand correctly, takes into account the relative power of the parties. It really doesn't, at least not in the US. There are a bunch of things that are necessary for a contract to be considered enforceable, but the two that are relevant here are "meeting of the minds" and "duress". "Duress" is the obvious one, but it's a really high bar. It usually means something like physically threatened or blackmailed or literally locked in a room and told you can't leave until you sign. There's not generally a case that an employee or contractor was under duress from their future employer because they always had the option to not take the job in the first place. "Meeting of the minds" is a bit more subtle. The parties have to believe they're agreeing to the same thing. This is also hard to show, though. Generally speaking, if you've been given the full text of the contract and had ample time to read through it then you are legally considered to know and understand its contents. There are a few cases where shrinkwrap licenses and extremely one sided terms of service get rejected under this theory, but it normally requires the parties to have signed materially different documents or for one party to be able to show that they weren't given adequate access to the document before they signed. It's also worth noting that contracts are basically considered valid until proven otherwise. So even if there is a case to make that you shouldn't need to comply with some terms of a contract you are bound by you still need the resources (both in terms of relevant supporting documents and in terms of time and money) to actually prove that case in a court of law.

forapurpose 8y ago
> It really doesn't, at least not in the US. I've had American attorneys consistently tell me otherwise, though I've never had to put the idea into practice myself. > So even if there is a case to make that you shouldn't need to comply with some terms of a contract you are bound by you still need the resources (both in terms of relevant supporting documents and in terms of time and money) to actually prove that case in a court of law. Perhaps in theory, but IME the reality is the opposite: A contract is only worth what you are willing to invest the resources - money, time, attention, and frequently social/political capital - in enforcing.