Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilikehurdles | Hacker News Reader

The law doesn't force them into arbitration, Uber's contract does. The law says Uber can force arbitration.

But there is nothing special about Uber, or the arbitration clause, or the contract in this regard. So why is the headline written as it is and why are you insisting on this way of framing the argument. You are choosing to characterize the normal enforcement of contract law as something extraordinary and by the choice of words framing this as something that is unfair. At least that is how I interpret your wording and how I also interpreted the headline.

The fact that this particular contract involves Uber and drivers and an arbitration clause is irrelevant to the larger idea that contracts are indeed enforceable. That shouldn't really be news.

It involves uber because it involved a court case with uber. Ask the mods to update the headline to remove the other party from the court decision if it upsets you that Uber is named. "Contracts are enforceable" is a meaningless headline, and you know there's more to the story there. It's a case involving a forced arbitration clause. Hence, the word force. You may be interpreting things incorrectly. Consider that possibility.

I think the idea is that "force" sounds like Uber is doing it without a prior arbitration agreement. "Enforce" sounds like Uber is doing it after an agreement with drivers. The latter is what is actually happening.

It's a small difference but it matters. The power difference is a separate issue between employers and employees is a separate (important) issue, though.

Some arbitration agreements make arbitration mandatory by default, according to their wording; others simply give either side the right to choose arbitration.

The de facto effect is the same except in the rare case where a court sees the wording of the first kind of contract and dismisses the case on its own initiative, since otherwise the arbitration clause would only be enforced on the motion of a party, without which the right would be waived.

But it's not formalistically wrong to use the verb "force" to describe "exercising a contractual election" as opposed to merely "not waiving a default provision of the contract."

The arbitration agreement is a "forced arbitration" agreement. It's a small difference but it matters. The law enforced the validity of the contract, the contract forces the arbitration outside of a court of law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com