Did Uber just announce ‘victimize me’ policy

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://www.examiner.com/article/did-uber-just-announce-victimize-me-policy-for-drivers-passengers

Did Uber just announce ‘victimize me’ policy for drivers, passengers?


Two months after one of its drivers in Chicago became a hero by stopping a gunman in his tracks during a random shooting incident, ride-sharing Uber has announced a ban on guns for drivers and passengers, as reported yesterday by several news agencies including Seattle’s KIRO, the local CBS affiliate.

Uber’s largest competitor, Lyft, already has such a policy, noted the Wall Street Journal in its coverage of the announcement. By announcing this prohibition, Uber may well have just told street criminals to rob drivers and victimize passengers, even though payments are made through the mobile app. Criminals may just figure that drivers and passengers are carrying cash for other purposes.

It's certain that Uber just injected itself into the renewed gun control debate, on the heels of this week's tragedy in South Carolina, whether intentional or not. Any story having to do with firearms is going to get heightened attention right now.

The announcement came just days after an alleged racist killer opened fire in a Charleston, S.C. church, murdering nine people. Uber reportedly made this decision, however, ten days ago. That was before the mass shooting. Questions will undoubtedly be raised about whether this is the company’s sheepish response to what happened in Chicago in April when one of its drivers who was licensed to carry, shot a man in Logan Square after that man opened fire on a crowd of people in front of the driver's parked car.

No charges were filed against the unidentified driver, who was hailed as a hero by many in the firearms community. Chicago authorities said the driver acted in defense of himself and other people. At the time, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation noted that this scenario could not have occurred without its legal action that forced Illinois to adopt a concealed carry statute.
concealed carrier saves a bunch of people and the response is to ban guns:rolleyes:
 

burgundyyears

macrumors 6502
Sep 3, 2010
378
189
Lots of corporations have policies like this. This is the kind of corporate policy that I call a "profits over people" policy. I've never used or driven for any ride-sharing service, but I'd ignore such a policy. The reality is that Uber's and Lyft's drivers and passengers are basically disposable as far as the corporation is concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheAppleFairy

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
Lots of corporations have policies like this. This is the kind of corporate policy that I call a "profits over people" policy. I've never used or driven for any ride-sharing service, but I'd ignore such a policy. The reality is that Uber's and Lyft's drivers and passengers are basically disposable as far as the corporation is concerned.
Everything in America is profits over people. People are disposable. The almighty dollar is the only thing that matters.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
The movie "Collateral" comes to mind. Tom Cruise as a hit man taking a cab to all of his intended targets. Here, he has tied up the cabbie, played by Jaime Foxx, who has a chance to yell for help.

 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
Most of my threads use the article title

What is laughable is how do they think they will enforce such policy?
Simple. Driver sees someone with a gun getting into his car, he declines that passenger. Manager sees driver with a gun, they either get rid of it, or don't drive. This is not hard.

FYI..as long as the driver is fully trained and tested, I think drivers should have the option. However, I have no issue with the policy. And the firearm should be noted to anyone entering the vehicle.
 

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,306
1,497
Simple. Driver sees someone with a gun getting into his car, he declines that passenger. Manager sees driver with a gun, they either get rid of it, or don't drive. This is not hard.

FYI..as long as the driver is fully trained and tested, I think drivers should have the option. However, I have no issue with the policy. And the firearm should be noted to anyone entering the vehicle.
I've used Uber maybe a dozen times, and my understanding is the drivers have no training or tests whatsoever, and there are no managers dispatching the drivers. It's just individuals who sign up through the app, and then the app refers them to a passenger in the area needing a ride.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
Simple. Driver sees someone with a gun getting into his car, he declines that passenger. Manager sees driver with a gun, they either get rid of it, or don't drive. This is not hard.

FYI..as long as the driver is fully trained and tested, I think drivers should have the option. However, I have no issue with the policy. And the firearm should be noted to anyone entering the vehicle.
We are in CA. No open carry here. Odds of seeing someone openly carrying are slim to none .
Uber can't dictate what goes on in OUR car as regardless of what just passed, we are independent contractors not employees. It's MY car, not theirs
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
I've used Uber maybe a dozen times, and my understanding is the drivers have no training or tests whatsoever, and there are no managers dispatching the drivers. It's just individuals who sign up through the app, and then the app refers them to a passenger in the area needing a ride.
Pretty much it. We did go through a back ground check .
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,311
North Country (way upstate NY)
I wonder if they could successfully argue in court that your car while taking passengers is like BYOD in effect the car is not completely yours while passengers are riding? If they cannot then the policy is probably enforceable but the how is the question.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
I wonder if they could successfully argue in court that your car while taking passengers is like BYOD in effect the car is not completely yours while passengers are riding? If they cannot then the policy is probably enforceable but the how is the question.
Unless they plan on frisking you I dint see how they can even dream of enforcing it
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
We are in CA. No open carry here. Odds of seeing someone openly carrying are slim to none .
Uber can't dictate what goes on in OUR car as regardless of what just passed, we are independent contractors not employees. It's MY car, not theirs
According to a recent California Labor Commission ruling, Uber drivers are in fact employees and not independent contractors. When you are driving passengers, you are working and providing a service, something which Uber will dictate the terms for.

If you want to have a firearm on board then don't work for Uber. Otherwise carry a firearm and they'll fire you.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,743
I wonder if they could successfully argue in court that your car while taking passengers is like BYOD in effect the car is not completely yours while passengers are riding? If they cannot then the policy is probably enforceable but the how is the question.
I wonder if they can enforce a BYOD - like policy with independent contractors rather than supervised employees.
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,311
North Country (way upstate NY)
I wonder if they can enforce a BYOD - like policy with independent contractors rather than supervised employees.
I really don't know? I have a feeling though it was researched before it was announced.

Doesn't take very much for a passenger to see a gun and report the vehicle plate number to Uber.
I have little drawer under the passenger seat of my Jeep that you couldn't see that could store most common handguns.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,743
I really don't know? I have a feeling though it was researched before it was announced.
It's possible, but some things also vary by state. For example non-compete clauses are mostly unenforceable in California. It doesn't mean you would be absolved of liability if you steal trade secrets, but there are very few situations where an employer could prevent you from joining a competitor.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
According to a recent California Labor Commission ruling, Uber drivers are in fact employees and not independent contractors. When you are driving passengers, you are working and providing a service, something which Uber will dictate the terms for.

If you want to have a firearm on board then don't work for Uber. Otherwise carry a firearm and they'll fire you.
Uber is appealing the ruling. They can fire you fit any reason they see fit
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,484
87
An Island in the Salish Sea
"By announcing this prohibition, Uber may well have just told street criminals to rob drivers and victimize passengers, even though payments are made through the mobile app. Criminals may just figure that drivers and passengers are carrying cash for other purposes." [Quoted from the article in the first post]

Here in the rest of the developed world (who do tend to ban guns carried by drivers and passengers - and, really, the public in general) violent crimes must be hugely and massively under reported since the published stats tell us we're very much safer than the gun-toting Americans. The statistics couldn't possibly be true since apparently we're just sitting ducks.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,991
Criminal Mexi Midget
"By announcing this prohibition, Uber may well have just told street criminals to rob drivers and victimize passengers, even though payments are made through the mobile app. Criminals may just figure that drivers and passengers are carrying cash for other purposes." [Quoted from the article in the first post]

Here in the rest of the developed world (who do tend to ban guns carried by drivers and passengers - and, really, the public in general) violent crimes must be hugely and massively under reported since the published stats tell us we're very much safer than the gun-toting Americans. The statistics couldn't possibly be true since apparently we're just sitting ducks.
Different cultures
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,484
87
An Island in the Salish Sea
The comparison is of a gang of at least 5 men/terrorists who trained to kill as many people as possible vs the 11,000 people killed by firearms in the USA in 2010 (according to the CDC). Most of those deaths are by the ones and twos and not mass killings (as Charleston was). If you adjust for population then the rate of deaths by guns in the USA would be 44,000 compared to 33 in China - to use your example. Looking at the UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crimes) numbers... China with 4 times the population has an overall homicide rate that is about the same as the overall US rate of homicides just by guns. And in the US more than half of the deaths by guns is by suicide, so if the US had a population that matched China's then there were would be ~100,000 people killed by guns (homicides and suicides) each year in the US. But of course - China has a different culture... they prohibit guns for the most part, among other things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe