It just doesn’t seem to me like Uber is a bad guy here. The headline is clickbait. And some very bad men committed an armed robbery victimizing a driver. Uber did nothing wrong and in fact it covered the insurance deductible when it had no legal or frankly ethical obligation to do so.
Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
11–20 of 63 posts
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#12AirBnb does something similar if a host/guest are raped, seriously injured, or destroy property. They paid off the victims and had them sign NDAs.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#13Shouldn’t an event like this be covered by insurance? I assume the driver did not have commercial insurance and wants Uber to be responsible, which goes back to the independent contractor vs employee debate?
That's in the second sentence:
>David Morrow finally received an offer of assistance from the company: $1,000, the amount of his insurance deductible.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#14It just doesn’t seem to me like Uber is a bad guy here. The headline is clickbait. And some very bad men committed an armed robbery victimizing a driver. Uber did nothing wrong and in fact it covered the insurance deductible when it had no legal or frankly ethical obligation to do so.
I'm not sure how you can say this when Uber connected the victim with the assailants.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#15NDAs are common in out of court settlements. Nothing unusual here. There’s lots to be critical on regarding Uber but this is just the press taking something that’s totally normal and trying to make it sound bad.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#16Uber tried to compensate this independent contractor when they had no legal reason to do so. The contractors assume all legal risk when they work as an independent contractor, which is why many contractors in other industries often form an LLC so their assets are shielded from liability. On top of this, NDAs are common in arbitration. They were under no legal requirement to sign. Plus, compensating drivers a ton for…
Uber “tried to compensate” its employee - except they are scum by using a loophole to claim they are not an employee but rather a contractor.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#17Shouldn’t an event like this be covered by insurance? I assume the driver did not have commercial insurance and wants Uber to be responsible, which goes back to the independent contractor vs employee debate?
It is; uber is simply offering to cover the driver’s deductible.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#18NDAs are common in out of court settlements. Nothing unusual here. There’s lots to be critical on regarding Uber but this is just the press taking something that’s totally normal and trying to make it sound bad.
I don't know if NDAs are good or bad, but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's not bad.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#19It just doesn’t seem to me like Uber is a bad guy here. The headline is clickbait. And some very bad men committed an armed robbery victimizing a driver. Uber did nothing wrong and in fact it covered the insurance deductible when it had no legal or frankly ethical obligation to do so.
I'm not sure how you can say this when Uber connected the victim with the assailants.
Uber knew they were carjackers?
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#20Agreements made under duress or where there is a significant imbalance of power aren't enforceable. I'd say a car jacking meets both standards.
Can you expand? Under what conditions and by what precedent are they not enforceable (and for what purposes?). Does this apply to law enforcement interrogations? Or doctor / patient medical emergencies?
Duress is covered by the other reply, I think. Imbalance of powers is part of something called "Unconscionability" in the USA. There is an example in the link below too.
Basically, courts can throw contracts out when they feel they're not fair and that a side with power has taken advantage.
I guess that means if you have a heart attack, someone can bill you for cpr, but they can't bill you $100bn for cpr, even if they stand there doing nothing until you "agree".