Uber’s Attempt To Silence Its Drivers May Have Just Backfired
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18328/uber-drivers-court-case
Much has been made over how Uber, the car service that enables users to hail a car within minutes of pressing a few keys on their smartphones, is jumpstarting the gig-economy. 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.
The case was brought by Ronald Gillette and Abdul Mohamed, who began driving for Uber in California in 2013 and in Boston in 2012, respectively. Not only do riders arrange their rides via smartphone, but drivers also arrange to work for Uber via smartphone. When Gillette and Mohamed decided to work for Uber, they logged on to the app to join the Uber fleet and a message popped up on their screens asking if they agree to all the contracts listed. If they indicated they agreed, another message popped up that said PLEASE CONFIRM THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND AGREE TO ALL THE NEW CONTRACTS. The two choices were YES, I AGREE and NO. After clicking the YES, I AGREE option, both Gillette and Mohamed gained access to the app and began driving for Uber.
Gillette was subsequently terminated by Uber because something had come up on his consumer background report. Mohameds access to the app was subsequently revoked at least in part as a result of information obtained [by defendants] through [a] Consumer Reporting Agency, and he lost his ability to pick up passengers as an Uber driver. This was only the beginning of their troubles with Uber.
To understand how forced arbitration squeezes workers and deprives them of the protections otherwise guaranteed by law, we have to get into a bit of legalese. The terms to which Gillette and Mohamed agreed by clicking the YES, I AGREE option on their phones included a clause stipulating that any dispute between Uber and the driver will be resolved in an arbitration proceeding rather than in open court.