3 ms·

Why does Uber agree to pay most of the arbitration fee? Why don't they write a contract that requires drivers to pay it?

jellicle 7y ago
Presumably because they wanted to make sure the arbitration company was strongly biased towards them - obviously the arbitrator will lose the contract from Uber if they don't decide most cases in Uber's favor. It was a good plan with the only flaw being they didn't anticipate so many drivers banding together to file for arbitration that the fees themselves are annoyingly high.
SilasX 7y ago
NAL but speculating: I assume it was because arbitration clauses (contrary to the popular perception) have to make some attempt at fairness in order to hold up in court, so Uber's lawyers figured that, by making Uber responsible for the fee, it would look more like a reasonable arrangement that a driver with actual bargaining power might agree to.
- koala_man 7y ago
  Especially given that Uber chooses the arbiter. Arbitration clauses don't work as intended if the company can't choose a biased arbiter to rule in their favor, so this is always part of the contract.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Uber having sole choice over the arbiter would go against my explanation being the right one. Biased selection of the arbiter is also a reason why (AIUI) such a contract wouldn't hold up in court.
    - koala_man 7y ago
      I meant that the contract would seem especially unfair if Uber could choose an arbiter they didn't have to pay for. Even if they didn't outright choose an expensive one to squash claims, it would be unfair to make an individual pay for a service they can and want to get cheaper elsewhere (on less favorable terms for Uber). Unless there's blatant cronyism and abuse of power, I don't think biased arbitration by itself would fail to hold up. Judges are humans with personal ideologies too, so you can pick some that do everything by the book and still skew the result in your favor (especially averaged over 60,000 cases)

jellicle 7y ago

Presumably because they wanted to make sure the arbitration company was strongly biased towards them - obviously the arbitrator will lose the contract from Uber if they don't decide most cases in Uber's favor. It was a good plan with the only flaw being they didn't anticipate so many drivers banding together to file for arbitration that the fees themselves are annoyingly high.

SilasX 7y ago

NAL but speculating: I assume it was because arbitration clauses (contrary to the popular perception) have to make some attempt at fairness in order to hold up in court, so Uber's lawyers figured that, by making Uber responsible for the fee, it would look more like a reasonable arrangement that a driver with actual bargaining power might agree to.

koala_man 7y ago
Especially given that Uber chooses the arbiter. Arbitration clauses don't work as intended if the company can't choose a biased arbiter to rule in their favor, so this is always part of the contract.
- SilasX 7y ago
  Uber having sole choice over the arbiter would go against my explanation being the right one. Biased selection of the arbiter is also a reason why (AIUI) such a contract wouldn't hold up in court.
  - koala_man 7y ago
    I meant that the contract would seem especially unfair if Uber could choose an arbiter they didn't have to pay for. Even if they didn't outright choose an expensive one to squash claims, it would be unfair to make an individual pay for a service they can and want to get cheaper elsewhere (on less favorable terms for Uber). Unless there's blatant cronyism and abuse of power, I don't think biased arbitration by itself would fail to hold up. Judges are humans with personal ideologies too, so you can pick some that do everything by the book and still skew the result in your favor (especially averaged over 60,000 cases)