3 ms·

> 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 h

> 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.

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.