- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
That Little Lawsuit Against Uber Just Got Bigger — And Could Take Them Down
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:37 am
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:37 am
quote:
Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan first filed suit against Uber back in 2013, on behalf of four Uber drivers in San Francisco who wanted the company to reimburse them for their business expenses. Uber claims it's not required to pay for things like gas, insurance, and car-maintenance since drivers are not employees, but rather independent contractors.
This past September, US District Court Judge Edward Chen granted the suit class-action status, clearing the way for drivers across the state to be included. Uber then tried to limit the size of that class, by saying many of its drivers had signed an "arbitration clause" — a legal agreement designed to force employees to settle grievances outside of the courts — that barred them from filing suit. Uber quietly inserted the clause into its driver agreement back in 2014.
But on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Edward Chen rejected the validity of the arbitration clause, expanding the group of drivers eligible to sue Uber to as many as 160,000. He called the clause "both procedurally and substantively unconscionable," since there was no clear way for drivers to opt out.
LINK
TL;DR "Employees" STAAACKED, Uber FUUUCKED.
FTR I've used Uber about 4 times and have had exemplary experiences all but one time in Miami.
20
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:39 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
What don't these Uber drivers understand about "independent contractor"?
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:39 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
He called the clause "both procedurally and substantively unconscionable," since there was no clear way for drivers to opt out.
I can't stand judges like this.
There WAS/IS a clear way to opt out... don't drive for Uber
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:42 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
I'm on ubers side. These but munches that thunk they are owed an employee agreement for picking people up on the way to work and home can pound sand.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:43 am to jonboy
Just labeling someone as an independent contractor doesn't mean they're an independent contractor
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:43 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
So a few idiots are going to ruin Uber for all of us.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:44 am to Mr.Perfect
yea judges like that are the worst.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:44 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Won't be a big deal. Bunch of whiney arse employees.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:44 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
So a few idiots
Potentially 160,000 and that's only one state.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:48 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
There WAS/IS a clear way to opt out... don't drive for Uber
This
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:49 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Über has disrupted the taxi industry. The taxi industry is unionized. Unions and the Democrats are thick as thieves. Any state run by Democrats is eventually going to find a way to crush Uber for the Teamsters.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:49 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
That's ridiculous.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:49 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
It's your choice if you want to work for them.
Idiots!!!
Last night my company had a Christmas party and set up a deal with Uber. Using a promo code, each person was allowed a ride to and from the party with a $50 each way allowance.
Didn't cost me a dime and was see easy doing Uber instead of messing with the stupid cabbies.
Idiots!!!
Last night my company had a Christmas party and set up a deal with Uber. Using a promo code, each person was allowed a ride to and from the party with a $50 each way allowance.
Didn't cost me a dime and was see easy doing Uber instead of messing with the stupid cabbies.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:51 am to Scoop
Solid post and extremely accurate.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:55 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
There's like a .000001% chance this case ever makes it to trial. Too many implications for too many people.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:59 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
both procedurally and substantively unconscionable
this is the court saying, "people are too stupid to make their own agreements"
this is the type of shite that is going to swing people over to more libertarian-leaning positions
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:59 am to Seymour
quote:
There's like a .000001% chance this case ever makes it to trial. Too many implications for too many people.
Agreed Uber will settle for a couple million dollars. The thing is this is only California. Once they do settle the snowball effect is going to topple their entire model.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:00 am to TheOcean
quote:
ust labeling someone as an independent contractor doesn't mean they're an independent contractor
but in Uber's case, they pretty much pass the IC test with flying colors, which is why courts have to reach for bullshite like unconscionably. the UC argument is the most perverse argument in contract law, and is a white flag that you've lost the argument and are appealing to emotion
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:00 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Once they do settle the snowball effect is going to topple their entire model.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:02 am to Scoop
quote:
Über has disrupted the taxi industry. The taxi industry is unionized. Unions and the Democrats are thick as thieves. Any state run by Democrats is eventually going to find a way to crush Uber for the Teamsters.
it's not just that
Uber doesn't have that magical status of being regulated like taxis are. states, esp authoritarian ones likes california, can't stand an idea being so progressive that it consistently avoids their grasp. their whole government complex is built on an insatiable desire to control the lives of its citizenry. why? because the government of California believes that it's citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions, and that's exactly the justification that the judge used in its ruling
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News