• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Binding Arbitration | Uber’s Attempt To Silence Its Drivers May Have Just Backfired

chi1cabby

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
Search Results for Query: Welcome forum partnership agreement binding arbitration

Those are the search results for my standard welcome for New Forum Members. I propose that All New Members be reminded to Opt-out of the Binding Arbitration. Drivers who have opted out have the right to get their disputes & grievances with Uber resolved in a Court of Law, individually or collectively through Class Action Lawsuits.

Please greet New Forum Members with this:

Hi @****, welcome to the forum.

Please read your Partnership Agreement. New Drivers have 30 Days to Opt-out of
Binding Arbitration
 
Last edited:

chi1cabby

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?
Drivers who never opted out are stuck with only having binding arbitration as a means of dispute resolution.

Thankfully, Judge Chen recognized the unfairness that “permeated” Uber’s terms with Gillette, Mohamed, and the other drivers in their lawsuit and found it unenforceable. Uber has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—remember, the kind of appeal that is not allowed under forced arbitration—so we will soon find out if other judges share Judge Chen’s perspective on what is fair and what is not.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
What happens to those of us who never opted out in time?
The binding arbitration clause can be challenged - as in the case described above. Those who did not opt-out, as chi1cabby has been pleading for them to do, can still bring suit in court... it's just that the first part of the suit will be to deal with a motion to dismiss (from Uber) claiming that binding arbitration clause is enforceable.
 

chi1cabby

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
The binding arbitration clause can be challenged - as in the case described above.
Agreed!
But having hordes of Drivers who've opted out makes it easier to find Attorneys willing to sue Uber.

Would you and other notable forum members please start greeting new forum members with:
Hi @****, welcome to the forum.

Please read your Partnership Agreement. New Drivers have 30 Days to Opt-out of
Binding Arbitration
UberComic, UberDude2, Optimus Uber arto71 Raquel Casuale Haberdasher Desert Driver UberXTampa UberHammer Txchick Fuzzyelvis LAuberX elelegido JaxBeachDriver MrsUberJax Gemgirlla UberFrolic Showa50
UberRidiculous OCBob Sacto Burbs

We have over 100 new members per day. We need to seek em out, and remind em to read the Partnership Agreement, and that they only have 30 Days to Opt-out of Binding Arbitration.
 
Last edited:

Gemgirlla

Well-Known Member
Thank god for Judge Chen.

"Frequently lost amid the discussion over disrupting existing industries, however, is the fact that workers in this new economy often get the short-shrift. That fact was made extremely evident in a recent order against the company written by U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen in which he found that the terms Uber imposes upon its drivers as a condition of driving for the company, including a forced arbitration clause, are unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. In plain English, he ruled that the provisions were so unfair and one-sided in favor of Uber that they could not be enforced in a court of law."

"Judge Chen reviewed all of the language in Uber’s contracts, taking readers of his opinion on a tour of the worst aspects of this one-sided deal.
  • First, the clause prohibited the plaintiffs from bringing enforcement actions on behalf of other individuals—an essential tool for enforcing civil rights laws—as provided for by California state law.
  • Second, the clause required the plaintiffs to pay a portion of the arbitrator’s costs and fees, whereas in court they would not have to pay a judge for his or her time.
  • Third, the clause required that any arbitration proceeding be confidential, contrary to open access to court proceedings.
  • Fourth, in a brazen move, while Uber denied its drivers access to court and forced them to proceed to arbitration, it carved out a provision which enabled the company to bring a case in court under certain circumstances.
  • Fifth, and last, the provision allowed Uber to modify the terms of the contract at any time, without granting its drivers the same ability." Unbelievable...
 

UberNorthStar

Well-Known Member
Gemgirlla said:
Fifth, and last, the provision allows Uber to modify the terms of the contract at any time, without granting its drivers the same ability." Unbelievable...
That is my biggest beef. Uber constantly changes agreement. Drivers either accept new conditions or they are denied access to the UBER app. There is no representation of ICs when changes are being determined.. Now it is clear why unions were started.
 

Sacto Burbs

Well-Known Member
Binding arbitration has been good to me. Quick, fast and I got to move on with my life rather than being trapped in the legal system
 

chi1cabby

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
Binding arbitration has been good to me. Quick, fast and I got to move on with my life rather than being trapped in the legal system
Specifics please?
You're the first one I've come across who's singing praises of Binding Arbitration.
And btw, Opting Out of Binding Arbitration doesn't preclude a Driver seeking Arbitration for dispute resolution. Opting Out just preserves a Drivers right to sue if he/she so chooses.
 
Last edited:

Gemgirlla

Well-Known Member
In cases against large companies, binding arbitration usually always favors the corporations. The small guy has much better chances of winning when the case is heard by a jury. Also, discovery is limited in arbitration, which generally only helps the large corporations since they are the ones who have a great deal more documents. Moreover, arbitration isn't near as cheap as it used to be. Arbitrators, especially JAMS, charge exorbitant fees (in my opinion). Arbitration also allows bad actors to keep the proceedings confidential and thus, their "bad" acts aren't disclosed to the general public.

However, it is generally a quicker way to get a resolution but, that's not helpful if you're likely to lose....
 

Sacto Burbs

Well-Known Member
Specifics please?
You're the first one I've come across who's singing praises of Binding Arbitration.
And btw, Opting Out of Binding Arbitration doesn't preclude a Driver seeking Arbitration for dispute resolution. Opting Out just preserves a Drivers right to sue if he/she so chooses.
An insurance case. I won it too, took no time at all, because the arbitrators were independent, approved by both parties.

Same in a personal lawsuit. Both parties had a lawyer, approved the judge and we were able to negotiate a good outcome. Quick, fast both parties happy.

And I am in California.
 

Gemgirlla

Well-Known Member
An insurance case. I won it too, took no time at all, because the arbitrators were independent, approved by both parties.

Same in a personal lawsuit. Both parties had a lawyer, approved the judge and we were able to negotiate a good outcome. Quick, fast both parties happy.

And I am in California.
I'm in California as well and have personally been involved in arbitrations. In some cases, it can be a decent dispute resolution mechanism, particularly when both parties have the same bargaining power.

However, in consumer protection, employment and other cases involving a large class of plaintiffs with the same injury, being able to go to court is essential so they can get class certification and have their cases heard by a jury. It is also not possible to get punitive damages in arbitration and the rulings are not binding on other parties.

Moreover, in the case of Uber drivers, they need to be able to have the option to go to small claims court for smaller disputes rather than take these to arbitration.

Depending on how the arbitration provision is written, it can end up being costly for the injured party to arbitrate.
 

UberNorthStar

Well-Known Member
If you read the Uber agreement, Uber chooses the arbitrator. Not good for the driver. :frown:

<Edit: WRONG. I just went over the 11/2014 agreement I signed and it states,

"15.3.iii.
Selecting The Arbitrator and Location of the Arbitration. The Arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement of the Company and you. . . ."
 
Last edited:
Top