Hacker News Reader

Comment by s73v3r_ | Hacker News Reader

But, if they're not employees, then how can Uber do this?

Presumably because, regardless of whether they are employees or independent contractors, they signed a contract agreeing to use arbitration.

Answer in the form of a question: How can your credit card issuer force you to do this, as a non-employee?

A contract doesn't have to be an employment contract.

A contract is a contract is a contract. You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts.

>You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts.

You actually cannot sign away your basic rights as contract cannot supersede state or federal law. You may argue that one's right to litgation _should_ be considered a basic right, but currently it's not.

The difference between signing away your basic rights and signing away your ability to enforce those rights is basically non-existent.

We may weep for the 7th amendment, which guaranteed the right to a trial by jury in disputes, as long having been bypassed and a currently dead amendment.

Alexender Hamilton: "The civil jury is a valuable safeguard to liberty."

Thomas Jefferson: "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution."

They tried, but greed is too strong. You've lost the right to a trial by jury. What little bit is left is dead under mandatory binding arbitration.

Ok, but the supreme court disagrees: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/08/the-enforceabilit...

Another 5-4 decision. The Roberts court is transforming the US into something unrecognizable.

Yeah... the more I think on this the more I have to admit that I'm on your side of things.

Right to litigation is a basic right. It's the 7th amendment.

It's obviously not that simple. I don't like it either, but the supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation.

The Supreme Court right now is openly hostile to individual rights. It's unsurprising that they would disagree with me.

Civil law jurisdictions work around this by making all enacted rights inalienable. This results in problems like compulsory royalty schemes, though.

So much for unalienable.

Cynicism aside, this is a result of freedom of contract right? I'm still not sure how it's enforceable to agree to use a different legal system: if both parties are in the US they can agree to be bound by French law instead? Or a coin toss to resolve disputes?

Arbitration is enforceable because the law says it is. If there was a law saying that French courts or coin tosses were enforceable dispute resolution mechanisms then you could use those instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

Its actually according to Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

Also http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/05/the-right-to-waive-your...

As I understand it, it's questionable whether Congress ever actually intended it to apply to state-law claims. The Supreme Court just unexpectedly interpreted the law that way 60 years after it was written. Since then, binding arbitration has proliferated and US states have effectively been unable to create any kind of consumer or employee protection that can be enforced in civil court.

Can you provide evidence for that position? The law itself clearly mentions interstate transactions and includes directions to "any court of the United States". I also can't find a Supreme Court case matching your description.

"CHAP. 218.-An Act To make valid and enforceable written provisions or agreements for arbitration of disputes arising out of contracts, maritime transactions, or commerce among the States or Territories or with foreign nations."

There are very many rights that you can actually not legally sign away. Well, you can make a contract that signs them away, but it won't be valid in court. For example, you can't sign yourself away to slavery as a result of not paying your debts

Would it matter?

The court will not decide the unconscionability of that contract. An arbiter will. The conscionability of a contract that has mandatory binding arbitration must be decided by the arbiter. The courts are only involved in enforcing the arbiter's judgement, which is not subject to any review. The arbiters judgement is not subject to the courts. The arbiter could decide you were meant to be a slave by the contract or another arbitrary decision[1] that has nothing to do with the contract and assign you a 10 million dollar penalty. Under US arbitration, I argue you have no real rights. With no limit to financial penalty and no review by courts of law other than to compel others to steal your property at the whim of an arbiter, there are no real rights left.

[1] Arbiters are not limited to the subject of the contract nor are they limited to the subject of the dispute.

> You may, without a meeting of the minds, sign away your basic rights according to the courts.

This is wrong on so many levels. This is one of the reasons why euthanasia is not legal; you cannot legally write a contract to get yourself killed: the person who kills you will be a murderer regardless if the murder was consensual. Similarly, you cannot consent to slavery.

> This is one of the reasons why euthanasia is not legal

Except where it is legal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia

Sure yes, doesn't change my point. If what GP implied was correct, it'd be legal everywhere.

> doesn't change my point. If what GP implied was correct, it'd be legal everywhere.

Yes, it does change your point, because if what you implied was correct, euthanasia would not be legal anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com