- 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
re: That Little Lawsuit Against Uber Just Got Bigger — And Could Take Them Down
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:12 am to logjamming
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:12 am to logjamming
quote:
There's probably a handful of die hard employees pushing this.
There's really not. Most drivers understand the consequences. This is all being pushed by lawyers looking for a class action pay out. Nobody would benefit except the lawyers but the press is making it seem like it's a working man's fight. The whole thing is retarded.
1
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:18 am to LucasP
quote:
the press is making it seem like it's a working man's fight.
It is a working man's fight. It's a labor union fight.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:20 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:Why can't the employee decide what's reasonable?
He called the clause "both procedurally and substantively unconscionable,"
quote:I don't think I get this part, they're not obligated to work for Uber.
since there was no clear way for drivers to opt out.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:27 am to shel311
quote:
Why can't the employee decide what's reasonable?
because in the court's eyes, they're too stupid to make their own decisions (literally)
to give you the wiki definition of UC
quote:
Unconscionability (known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:31 am to shel311
Personally, I hope Uber is here to stay... but I find it interesting that the type of people who would normally champion states' rights are quick to revoke that idea for California. California had tough labor laws with contractors before Uber moved in, people were calling this fight when Uber started there. I find it interesting that states' rights are a concern only when a state tows the right line, otherwise they are part of some conspiracy.
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 10:33 am
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:33 am to Tigercat
quote:
but I find it interesting that the type of people who would normally champion states' rights are quick to revoke that idea for California.
wut? people are saying California has bad state policy but who is saying California shouldn't have the power to regulate its own state?
criticizing a policy doesn't mean that you are demanding the removal of the power to make that bad policy
quote:
I find it interesting that States rights are a concern only when a state tows the right line, otherwise they are part of some conspiracy.
what in the frick?
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That's amazing!
because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:36 am to shel311
hence why it's a "catch all" for social justice. there aren't any rules or clear definition. it's just "well one party got a bad deal, so we presume no reasonable person would have made this deal and the contract is invalid!"
the concept has a large place in my heart b/c that single concept unraveled my world view as a formerly huge liberal
RIP Jim Bowers
the concept has a large place in my heart b/c that single concept unraveled my world view as a formerly huge liberal
RIP Jim Bowers
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
as a formerly huge liberal
You were never truly a liberal. Just misguided
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:41 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Can't have nothin nice
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wut? people are saying California has bad state policy but who is saying California shouldn't have the power to regulate its own state?
How about ignoring the fact that California already had unique tough contractor guidelines, like when you quoted Federal guidelines to make your case.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 10:53 am to Breesus
quote:
I'm an Uber driver and I love it. There's no reason to frick a company because some PMSing entitled dipshits cry and bitch about a company.
You're in a town that still has flat rates even though there were recent rate cuts. Of course you're still gonna love it.
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 10:59 am
Posted on 12/12/15 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
likely
i don't think Uber makes THAT much money right now, before the effects of all these bullshite lawsuits take hold
it's a niche industry trying to establish itself
So in other words, it's a prime opportunity for someone to start a competitor company that provides the same exact service.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 11:42 am to Oates Mustache
Lyft and Sidecar already exist.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 11:49 am to c on z
This should really be a story about how judges in the 9th Circuit refuse to apply the law (especially with respect to pre-litigation arbitration agreements).
Recurring theme. Individuals sign binding arbitration agreement with company and then want out of it, sue in federal court, and then district court invalidates agreement due to unconscionability. 9th Circuit affirms, then SCOTUS summarily benchslaps the 9th Circuit. Same thing is gonna happen here.
Recurring theme. Individuals sign binding arbitration agreement with company and then want out of it, sue in federal court, and then district court invalidates agreement due to unconscionability. 9th Circuit affirms, then SCOTUS summarily benchslaps the 9th Circuit. Same thing is gonna happen here.
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 11:50 am
Posted on 12/12/15 at 11:57 am to rocket31
quote:
uber is a 5 year(?) startup so those numbers are staggering.
amazon facebook, etc (granted, different business models) never came close to $10B in revenue by year five.
Well, learning how to monetize social media took some time. That was, literally, an entirely new industry in which no one had a viable way to monetize anything yet.
Uber is just a disruptive technology in an already-existing industry, hence why they were able to get to 10 figure revenue more quickly.
IIRC, Amazon had pretty incredible growth so early, too. So did eBay.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 12:03 pm to Breesus
quote:
I'm an Uber driver
How are you handling the new insurance issues under the new terms and agreements? I drive and love it too, however I'm hesitant to drive unless I'm completely covered
Posted on 12/12/15 at 12:05 pm to Scoop
I say it any time something like this comes up, frick unions and the people that join them and support them.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 12:12 pm to Navajo61490
quote:
I drive and love it too, however I'm hesitant to drive unless I'm completely covered
If the next round of rate cuts come to BR, I'll be interested in seeing how the drivers here respond.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 12:32 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
it effectively operates as an employer under California law.
That's the problem, state laws.I don't think anyone can argue that under IRS guidelines, Uber drivers are independent contractors. The fight is going to be with the states that have laws or unclear laws that differ from IRS guidelines on IC.
Ultimately I think your going to see Uber operating in some states and not others. Much like the current operating standards of your daily fantasy sites.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News