SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A California judge has rejected the nearly $100m settlement deal between Uber and a group of aggrieved drivers.
Judge Edward Chen said on Thursday [PDF] the dial-a-ride app maker's proposed settlement package "as a whole as currently structured is not fair, adequate, and reasonable." The drivers are suing Uber, accusing the San Francisco biz of breaking labor laws, and Uber is trying to settle the class action out of court.
Chen said that Uber's proposed deal – in which the drivers would have been paid roughly $84m to give up their claims that Uber broke rules on tips and other labor rights – was too much in favor of Uber and did not afford the drivers adequate protections.
Specifically, Chen said, the non-cash portions of the deal would not bring drivers the additional employment protections, higher pay, and arbitration rights they had been seeking when they filed suit.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday August 20 2016, @03:12PM
Ok, I'm naive, but I still don't get it. No one force these people to drive for Uber; they knew the terms they were signing up for. Why wasn't this suit thrown out of court? What's the deal here, really?
If the working conditions were really that bad, this would be an ideal situation for a strike. If nobody drives for Uber, the company will be forced to negotiate. If that wouldn't work, because lots of other drivers are just waiting in the wings, then conditions are apparently fine.
I have the suspicion this is just another lawyer's get-rich-quick scheme, combined with greed on the part of the few drivers used (and paid) to represent the class in the suit. It is probably not coincidental that the class of drivers represented in the suit are from California and Massachusetts, two states with some pretty nutty labor laws.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:09PM
> No one force these people to drive for Uber; they knew the terms they were signing up for.
You have a very different mindset: I see an illegal contract and think the contractors/employees should sue. You see see the same contract and say, whatever, people signed it.
A similar case would be loans with outrages rates and terms. Extreme position 1: that is outright fraud and these people should be in jail. Extreme position 2: If people are stupid enough to sign that, their fault.
Which end of the spectrum you fall into on these positions seems to be very much a cultural thing (labor laws, consumer protection, social security etc.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:21PM
> Which end of the spectrum you fall into on these positions seems to be very much a cultural thing
You say cultural, I say personal experience. You live through enough of that shit where you are powerless and faced with the only available choices where you are fucked no matter what by people who think you are nothing more a source of revenue to be squeezed for every drop of blood you have and no matter how much of a randian uberman you thought you were you'll start to believe in social justice pretty damn quick. Not unlike Rand herself who decided that welfare and socialized medicine was pretty damn important once she actually had no other options. [alternet.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:07PM
"May we 'ave yer liver, then?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:10PM
Yes, it comes down to:
1) have you learned much about history and can you remember any of it
2) are you on the management side of the equation or the work side
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:27PM
> 2) are you on the m̶a̶n̶a̶g̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ownership side of the equation or the work side
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @08:22PM
One of the advantages of our system is that anybody can become a manager. A good manager with proper execution of embellished college careers, fake references, backstabbing, office politics, budgetary shenanigans, scapegoating, etc, just the basics really, don't even need full blown sociopathy, can get into the ownership class. Maybe not the household names you know, but it's possible.
Nobody ever checks the first two I listed; that's just getting your foot in the door by proving that you've realized not only that honesty is the worst policy but also that you can make up a plausible lie.
Now, the people make the CxO class and own the megayachts and tropical island 17 bedroom mansions with full time staff, the elite of the ownership class, those people need authentic sociopathy.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:15PM
Maybe the previous articles can help:
Uber Settles Class Action Lawsuits With California and Massachusetts Drivers [soylentnews.org]
Engine Warning Light Appears on Uber's $100m Driver Settlement [soylentnews.org]
Under Pressure, Lawyer For Uber Drivers Slashes Her Fees [npr.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:23PM
> Maybe the previous articles can help:
Haha! Good one.
Like water off a duck's back.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 20 2016, @05:27PM
by that logic, there's not need for a minimum wage much less the need to raise it. it's called worker exploitation.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:03PM
Ah, but I'm not so sure about minimum wage either. It's well meant: make sure anyone with a job earns enough to live on. However, it's the "with a job" bit that is the problem. Someone with minimal skills - which includes most young people trying to get a start - and you aren't going to find a job at $12 or $15 an hour. You aren't worth that much, so you never get that first job, and you never gain the skills you need.
The main argument for minimum wage is to prevent exploitation of people who do, in fact, have valuable skills. Particularly in the current US labor market, with high unemployment, this may be a problem. However, if you look the arguments in favor of a high minimum wage [chron.com] they never address the fact that it - inevitably - reduces the total number of available jobs.
tl;dr: There is a strong argument that a high minimum wage is counterproductive [manhattan-institute.org].
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by dingus on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:13PM
>they never address the fact that it - inevitably - reduces the total number of available jobs.
I believe they've had the minimum wage at $15 in Seattle for several years with no measurable difference.
Anyway, the reason we have minimum wage laws is to prevent the literal wage slavery that happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In factories full of unskilled laborers.