NDAs should simply be illegal.
Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#52If Uber gave tracking devices for drivers to hide in cars, then thieves and carjackers could easily be caught up with by authorities before they get a chance to disassemble the car and find the tracker.
Interestingly, in this case, the driver's smartphone remained in the stolen car. Presumably Uber does have information that would be of use in tracking down the perpetrators in this case.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#53I'm not a fan of NDA's like this but I keep wondering reading that whole thing: An Uber driver is carjacked, why is Uber in play here? Is Uber potentially responsible in some way?
How about: Uber's hush money operation is so effective that drivers are not aware of what risk they run from carjacking?
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He's normally entitled to $0 from uber, which means he's getting paid $1000 for the NDA. Entitled or not, that would still leave him getting barely even after the entire experience. That does not provide one with a happy person. > No, because he's working as a independent contractor and therefore is expected to be on his when it comes to costs/losses A contractor who can't run a good risk analysis on his job becaus…
>That does not provide one with a happy person. The situation sucks, but I fail to see why he should be compensated by uber. Should your employer compensate you if your car got stolen on your way to work? >A contractor who can't run a good risk analysis on his job because the company that hired him has a habit of handing out NDAs to anyone who ever ran into trouble while working for them. Are crime statistics not pub…
It seems reasonable that the carjackers are the ones who are responsible for paying out.
But as Uber created the transaction between the two parties, it also seems reasonable that Uber should be responsible for getting recompense from the carjacker. Basically that would imply:
- Driver uses insurance to be covered quickly.
- Driver and/or insurance have Uber cover full damages.
- Uber goes after carjacker to be made whole (I don’t expect the carjackers to have any assets, but Uber ought to be able to get a legal judgement anyways).
Even if that’s not the law today, I think a legal framework that allowed you to get compensated from a broker responsible for your interaction would place the incentives in the right places.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#55I'm not a fan of NDA's like this but I keep wondering reading that whole thing: An Uber driver is carjacked, why is Uber in play here? Is Uber potentially responsible in some way?
How about: Uber's hush money operation is so effective that drivers are not aware of what risk they run from carjacking?
I don't know how you would measure that.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#56AirBnb does something similar if a host/guest are raped, seriously injured, or destroy property. They paid off the victims and had them sign NDAs.
It seems to me that it would be astonishingly bad press were someone to simply ignore the NDA and take the whole thing to a very public trial. "AirBnB sues rape victim, demands silence." would do much more harm to AirBnB as a headline than any victim doing an interview.
[deleted]
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim. I'm aware that we don't consider manufacturers to be culpable for the actions taken with their hardware, and that there's a case to be made that Uber's service is "closer" to the illegal act and thus more responsible. But that case actually needs to be made. Whether it's Apple or Uber, there are expectations th…
> In the same sense that Apple is not at fault for allowing its hardware to connect the assailant and victim. Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety. Doesn't mean they could predict this (though there's several instances of people being reported for other aggressive/harassing behaviors and -not- being kicked off), but when you're slurpi…
> Except that Uber claims that the value-add its "marketplace" provides is vetting riders and drivers and providing safety.
Uber doesn't vet riders, and I'm quite sure their marketing material wouldn't claim that they do. I would imagine they do take some large share of the responsibility for vetting drivers.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#58NDAs should simply be illegal.
Feel like this is an example of them working exactly they way they should. I could take the 1000 and not say anything or not take the 1000 and say anything I want.
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That does not provide one with a happy person. The situation sucks, but I fail to see why he should be compensated by uber. Should your employer compensate you if your car got stolen on your way to work? >A contractor who can't run a good risk analysis on his job because the company that hired him has a habit of handing out NDAs to anyone who ever ran into trouble while working for them. Are crime statistics not pub…
It seems reasonable that the carjackers are the ones who are responsible for paying out. But as Uber created the transaction between the two parties, it also seems reasonable that Uber should be responsible for getting recompense from the carjacker. Basically that would imply: - Driver uses insurance to be covered quickly. - Driver and/or insurance have Uber cover full damages. - Uber goes after carjacker to be made…
[deleted]
Re: Uber requires nondisclosure agreement before compensating carjacked driver
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That does not provide one with a happy person. The situation sucks, but I fail to see why he should be compensated by uber. Should your employer compensate you if your car got stolen on your way to work? >A contractor who can't run a good risk analysis on his job because the company that hired him has a habit of handing out NDAs to anyone who ever ran into trouble while working for them. Are crime statistics not pub…
It seems reasonable that the carjackers are the ones who are responsible for paying out. But as Uber created the transaction between the two parties, it also seems reasonable that Uber should be responsible for getting recompense from the carjacker. Basically that would imply: - Driver uses insurance to be covered quickly. - Driver and/or insurance have Uber cover full damages. - Uber goes after carjacker to be made…
>But as Uber created the transaction between the two parties, it also seems reasonable that Uber should be responsible for getting recompense from the carjacker
In other words, the party facilitating the transaction should also provide escrow/insurance? I'd agree it's nice if the facilitator did that, but absent any explicit guarantees by the facilitator, I'm not sure why that would create a legal obligation for them to do that.
>Even if that’s not the law today, I think a legal framework that allowed you to get compensated from a broker responsible for your interaction would place the incentives in the right places.
I'm failing to see how this actually prevents cases like this. Is the passenger a serial carjacker or something? Is uber refusing to cooperate with police? To me this feels less "place the incentives in the right places" and more "pass the buck to uber because they're big and bad".