4 ms·
>Result: Police cannot obtain 127 days' worth of cell-site location information about a criminal suspect without a warrant. This was a weird one, because it se
by mfoy_ 8y ago
>Result: Police cannot obtain 127 days' worth of cell-site location information about a criminal suspect without a warrant.
This was a weird one, because it seemed like they were cool with about 6 days of unwarranted cell-site data. What's so special about 6 days?
>Result: Workers that sign arbitration agreements are bound to them and can’t use the federal court system to adjudicate labor claims—making class-action lawsuits in such scenarios all but impossible.
Ouch. This one sucks.
- chki 8y agoJust had a law class (in Europe) and our professor told us that this is one of the main reasons that arbitration exists (and is so prevalent) in the US: to prevent class-action lawsuits.
- mfoy_ 8y agoThe sentiment regarding unions and labour rights in the U.S. isn't really moving in the right direction. This type of clause is especially scummy, however... see the following article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-uber-appeal-1.4963792 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-uber-appeal-1... EDIT: Especially read the bottom of the article. The arbitration clause required over $10k USD to even begin, and takes place in the Netherlands... What. the. actual. fuck.
- walshemj 8y agoHow exactly did uber try to move the case to an EU country for Canada? There are some super rare edge case legal arguments about jurisdictions and which laws apply within the eu for employees/workers who regularly work in different countries but not non eu countries and eu ones.
- mfoy_ 8y agoIt's not "a case", it's "arbitration". Arbitration is extremely... arbitrary.
- walshemj 8y agoSorry was using HR/IR slang and legally binding arbitration is not normally arbitrary.
- ABCLAW 8y agoThey didn't 'try to move the case'. They had a choice of forums clause in their agreement with drivers. Choice of forums clauses are supposed to give certainty to the location that a dispute would be heard in the event of a dispute. Theoretically they should be used to clarify the jurisdiction to govern the contract in the event of a complicated international enterprise so that parties can avoid fighting over the proper location to litigate the dispute. The court found that in this case 1) the clause functionally was just an attempt to circumvent Ontario labour standards, 2) the clause was the result of a disparity between the power of Uber and the power of their drivers, and 3) Uber exercised their power here intentionally to deprive their drivers. Canada has been moving to incorporate more civilian-style protections into their common law contracts jurisprudence. Civilian style systems have much less of an issue striking down abusive clauses like the aforementioned arbitration clause. However, even if the abusive clause was struck down, recognize that the existence of the clause was still a net benefit to Uber; Prior to the ruling, there was the possibility that this litigation failed, and that the drivers or their lawyers (depending on their fee arrangement) would be saddled with the cost of fighting. The uncertainty itself is the aim of clauses like this one, even if most people recognize they are abhorrent. Without strict penalties for this type of contracting behaviour, it unfortunately still benefits employers to twist arms.
- mikeash 8y agoAccess to the courts needs to be considered a fundamental human right, something you can’t sign away any more then your right to life.
- zenexer 8y agoIt's backfired at least once, though. There are times when a class-action lawsuit would be significantly cheaper for the company. For example: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chipotle-mandatory-arbitration-agreements_us_5c1bda0de4b0407e90787abd https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chipotle-mandatory-arbi...