
Uber Eliminates Forced Arbitration for Sexual Misconduct Claims - sna1l
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/technology/uber-sex-misconduct.html
======
sharkweek
A step in the right direction, but I still can't believe forced arbitration
was ever a thing, especially in these cases.

Still haven't re-installed Uber in over a year, don't miss it at all.

It does make me wonder how many ToS I've agreed to with forced arbitration
clauses written on page 84 in size six font.

~~~
TwoNineA
"A step in the right direction"

What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? How can people
still work for this evil company?

~~~
lhorie
> How can people still work for this evil company?

Uber has been doing a lot recently (i.e. as of about mid last year) to fix
itself - things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more
frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, a top-down
directive to permanently halt spying-related work in intelligence gathering,
cooperating with authorities on the Tempe incident, etc.

Generally speaking, people aren't inherently evil and want to do the right
thing. Uber's new leadership now does too. Uber moves fast and I think it's
time to re-evaluate whether the data points backing your opinion are outdated.

~~~
gaius
_things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent
background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips,_

Still not paying their taxes tho’. There’s a shedload Of Employer’s NI they
owe us.

~~~
lhorie
> Still not paying their taxes

Sorry, not familiar with this and googling isn't turning up anything. Is this
the IRS's opinion or just your own?

~~~
DanBC
"Employer's NI" means "employer's contribution to national insurance" \- a UK
tax.

Here's one article: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-
uk-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-
self-employed-status)

There are many more.

~~~
malandrew
They pay NIC on their employees, but not their driver partners. The driver
partners like all contractors in the UK are responsible for paying their own
NI. I don't see why the contracting company is responsible for enforcing tax
law for its partners?

Self-employed people in the UK pay class 2 and class 4 NIC. Those that are
class 2 pay £2.95/wk on earnings of £6,205+ per year. Those that are class 4
pay 9% on annual profits of from £8,424 to £46,350 per year. They pay 2% on
profits over £46,350.

------
saagarjha
> Mr. West said the company struggled with the decision to commit to a safety
> transparency report for its rides, because he knows that it will be
> “disturbing” when the actual number of assaults that happen on Uber is
> announced — in part because of the company’s size and the ease with which
> customers can report an incident.

This seems like the wrong attitude to have…

~~~
icebraining
Not really, it's perfectly reasonable to fear overreactions from the public.
They could even have the best number in the industry, but if the others don't
publish and it sounds big, people will freak out.

~~~
imtyler
Regardless of how the numbers compare, if they're bad, shouldn't it be the
responsibility of the company to attempt to alleviate the problem (instead of
just covering it up)?

I suppose they could technically do both, but not acknowledging problems of
substantial magnitude could be considered endangerment. Like the mayor from
Jaws.

~~~
gowld
What if the numbers are _not_ bad -- what if riding an Uber is safer than
cab/bus/walking, but there's no way to know because the stats on
cab/bus/walking are not known, so people wrongly assume they are lower than
Uber's?

~~~
imtyler
I just don't think the _possibility_ of a backlash (for defensible numbers, no
less) justifies withholding information about personal safety. It's not like
we're talking about sales figures, production stats, or other trivial things.

~~~
icebraining
If people misread the numbers, for the reasons we've been talking, their
reaction might put them in greater danger than currently.

------
testplzignore
I don't understand how "sexual assault" was part of this. That would fall
under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber due to the
ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime could still be
arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process. Is that correct?

~~~
snark42
> That would fall under criminal law. So even if the victims couldn't sue Uber
> due to the ridiculous arbitration clause, the person committing the crime
> could still be arrested and go through the usual criminal justice process.
> Is that correct?

Yep. Uber doesn't want to end up in court because they connected you with a
rapist contractor. They'd end up getting sued and losing the emotional appeal
to the jury, even if they hadn't been negligent in their process of connecting
you with a "safe" driver by doing reasonable background checks.

~~~
s73v3r_
This is about employment contracts, where the company can indeed be held
liable if they didn't take steps to prevent it.

------
ransom1538
You can sign away your right to trial. Can you sign away your right to not be
enslaved? Can you sign away your future right to freedom of religion? After
you are charged with a crime can you sign up for cruel and unusual punishment?

"Your honor the defendant signed up for cruel and unusual punishment as well
as signing away the right to trial and ability to speak. HERE! is his
signature (sorry) it is hard to read..."

~~~
NegativeK
I've downvoted you because:

Arbitration applies to civil suits. Criminal suits are not civil suits.

~~~
ransom1538
Plea bargains exist. The jails are filled with people that have not _gone_
through trial. (It is over %90). Criminals these days don't see a trial.

You can't be serious or even remotely correct. But yes, use your powerful
downvote.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
What? He's totally correct that arbitration only applies to civil suits. That
has nothing to do with plea bargains, which are part of criminal suits, and
don't involve someone losing their right to a trial.

~~~
ransom1538
Signing away trial, is the signing away trial. Criminal vs civil is
irrelevant.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
Deciding not to have a trial is not giving up your right to a trial any more
than deciding not to vote in an election is giving up your right to vote.
Choosing not to exercise a right is not giving up your right.

~~~
tialaramex
A system that says "Oh yes, you're entitled to a trial... But if we go to
trial you're facing a minimum of eighteen years in person, instead of six
months, also you're going to be held in prison anyway for six weeks, hope you
don't lose your job" isn't giving you a "right to trial" in any meaningful
sense and they know it.

------
swami26
It is possible that Uber decided to waive forced arbitration for sexual
misconduct otherwise risk their whole arbitration policy being called into
legality. This action might also indicate that sexual misconduct was systemic
enough to risk challenging Uber's forced arbitration policies.

------
st1ck
Maybe I don't really get it (I'm not American), but why would victims sue Uber
in the first place? It seems to make sense if they sue the sex offender (e.g.
driver or passenger).

~~~
malandrew
In America, you have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time. The
plaintiff's lawyer may file a motion to dismiss or a judge may dismiss a case,
but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to sue in the first place.

That being said, people sue companies because companies have money and
companies are more likely to settle so they can go about focusing on their
core business (which is not litigation except for patent trolls).

All this boils down to greed regardless what side you favor in this issue.
Companies want to keep money they believe if rightfully theirs and individuals
want to take money if they think they can get it. The fact that individuals
are consistently lionized and companies are consistently is vilified is quite
absurd.

------
googlemike
I doubt lyft will follow suit. They have the same rate of incidents on their
service with the ability to defend themselves as well (less screening, no
human support #s, less emergency support systems than Uber).

~~~
gnicholas
Apparently they did follow suit, and quickly:
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-
end...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/05/15/uber-ends-
arbitration-sex-assault-claims-passengers-employees/610616002/)

------
qbaqbaqba
Totally unthinkable in Europe.

------
Lionsion
These arbitration clauses should be illegal to begin with. You shouldn't have
to depend on the largess of a company to have access to the real legal system
to resolve disputes with them.

It's screwed up that corporations now have access to something _like_
sovereign immunity [1]: the ability to not be sued in court by their customers
or employees unless they consent to the suit.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States)

~~~
dalbasal
This is true, _mandatory_ arbitration makes mockery of the legal system.

But... the whole arbitration thing is itself a reaction (in many cases^) to
general suckness of the legal system which _is_ primitive, clunky, slow and
often more trouble then the trouble it's trying to solve. It's wide open to
abuse, and a lot of what we call law is in practice a mature "game" based on
abuse of the legal system.

So, yep.. these should be ilegal. But we also need a legal system capable of
functional resolution of these disputes fast, without abuses, mutual
destruction stalemates and burdensome "costs" including eventualities such as
"as an employer, you will always be in labour court no matter what."

That said, sexual harassment in the workplace is an "our vision of society"
type of problem. There's a case for giving it it's own courts or _public_
dispute resolution frameworks.

Law really needs to evolve. We are not settling disputes between norman kings
and saxon lords any more.

^sometimes it's just naked self interest. Ie, We will win more often in
private arbitration, so let's write it into the contract and hope they don't
notice or are not in a position to object .

~~~
rayiner
> But... the whole arbitration thing is itself a reaction (in many cases^) to
> general suckness of the legal system which is primitive, clunky, slow and
> often more trouble then the trouble it's trying to solve. It's wide open to
> abuse, and a lot of what we call law is in practice a mature "game" based on
> abuse of the legal system.

Maybe. It's interesting to note that businesses still prefer court to
arbitration in their disputes _with each other_.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06arbitrate.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06arbitrate.html).
And business-to-business arbitrations tend to have many of the procedures (and
expense) of litigation--lawyers, briefing, hearings, etc. The biggest
advantage is that arbitration can be lot faster, because the civil court
system is so overloaded with cases.

~~~
dctoedt
> _And business-to-business arbitrations tend to have many of the procedures
> (and expense) of litigation--lawyers, briefing, hearings, etc._

One respected scholar, Prof. Tom Stipanowich, suggests that this is because
_lawyers_ have incentives to import familiar and expensive procedures from
litigation (because they hate to lose and therefore want all the discovery and
motion practice that they can get), and _arbitrators_ have incentives not to
push back too hard against these lawyers (because lawyers can object to the
appointment of an arbitrator, and so arbitrators don't want to develop a
reputation among lawyers as "difficult"). [0]

[0]
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1297526](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1297526)

~~~
rayiner
I suspect that's part of it too; in house counsel are surprisingly (or maybe
not unsurprisingly) not big on change.

~~~
dctoedt
Agreed; it's a variation on "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." (I realize
I'm dating myself.)

------
lhorie
Off-topic question: what's HN's stance on paywalls? I've noticed a growing
number of paywalled articles from various media outlets, and I'm not entirely
sure people are even reading them before commenting here.

~~~
chrisseaton
HN's stance is here

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

~~~
lhorie
Thanks!

------
s73v3r_
It is entirely unconscionable that this was a thing to begin with. There is no
justification whatsoever for compelling arbitration on these people, other
than pure evil.

