odd that a ban on action isn't considered inherently a threat of suspension or firingslashdot.org said:Uber has banned guns in cars, for both drivers and passengers, since 2015. But over email and Facebook Messenger, four current and four former drivers told me they carry firearms on the job. In explaining why, they each cited the same self-determinalist rhetoric Uber has slapped on subway ads to entice drivers and used in hearings to justify the business model: Drivers maintain good ratings, own their own cars, set their own hours, act as their own bosses, and follow local laws. But ultimately, they work for themselves, and Uber is, to use a Silicon Valley term of art, just a platform.
In 2017, Jose Mejia, a Miami driver, filed a federal class-action suit against Uber to reverse its firearm ban. Florida's 2008 "bring your gun to work" law empowers employees to store legal firearms in personal lockers or their own cars. With Uber, of course, the car is the workplace. Mejia claimed that Uber policy violated Florida law and, citing an incident in which an Uber driver with a concealed-carry license shot and disarmed a Chicago gunman, argued that arming Uber drivers could save lives. But Mejia couldn't prove that Uber violated his rights: He hadn't been fired or threatened with suspension. The company had announced a ban, yes, but never materially stopped him from carrying a firearm. The Florida court dismissed the suit (PDF) without prejudice in 2018. Here we have a uniquely American absurdity: Drivers can carry guns to work, to a bar, to a supermarket, but not in their own cars while using the app to transport passengers. Like Mejia, they exist in this space between name and effect, adherent to a ban with little practical enforcement.
interesting case on uber's firearm ban
- Thread starter taliv
- Start date
- Status
Seems as if it is considered to be that. What makes you think it's not?
Jenrick
Member
As the court ruled though the driver has to show injury by that ban. If he was suspended or fired for carrying, or was attacked and not able to defend himself due to the ban he'd have case. At the moment he simply has a workplace policy that he doesn't like that hasn't affected him.
In Uber's business model the drivers are independent contractors, not employees. This is a fairly technical, legal distinction that can have significant ramifications for Uber. Making the distinction stick can save Uber taxes and get Uber off the hook for a number of obligations in markets that have strong employee rights laws (which in general would not apply to independent contractors).
One criterion for determining if someone doing the work is doing it as an employee or as an independent contract is the amount of control the "boss" exercises over how the work gets done. So the more Uber tries to dictate how its drivers conduct their businesses, the more likely that the drivers will be considered legally employees; and therefore the more likely that Uber will acquire the associated liabilities. This is becoming a significant challenge for Uber in a number of markets, like California, New Jersey, and the UK.
It looks like Uber is trying to walk a fine line here.
One criterion for determining if someone doing the work is doing it as an employee or as an independent contract is the amount of control the "boss" exercises over how the work gets done. So the more Uber tries to dictate how its drivers conduct their businesses, the more likely that the drivers will be considered legally employees; and therefore the more likely that Uber will acquire the associated liabilities. This is becoming a significant challenge for Uber in a number of markets, like California, New Jersey, and the UK.
It looks like Uber is trying to walk a fine line here.
exactly frank. one would imagine that this gives drivers a lot of leverage to ignore other uber policies. like so many gun laws....
because the article i quoted said that they had a ban, but because they hadn't enforced it by threatening him with action (termination or suspension), the court didn't consider it proof of violation of rights, so they dismissed the case.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Isn't this also similar to the way Fedex treats their drivers?
This is the Legal Forum and we discuss the law. Stories about personal experiences with Uber really aren't on topic.
I have no idea. If anyone has the information (with documentation), please let us know.
Maybe not, if the driver is an Uber employee. And whether or not an Uber driver is an employee or independent contractor will be decided by the courts. In the UK, thus far, am Uber driver is an employee.
You aren't an employee in the USA. If you don't get a w2, you are self employed. If you are self employed you are independent.
I'm kinda stunned that Uber just says to do something and people just give them total power over themselves and their car, seems laughable
obviously
in the interest of RKBA, i think we'd want to advocate for laws that protect gun owners in their own property, from blue state employers who seek to deny their rights.
well, the point is that despite the fact that uber drivers (and other gig types) may be independent contractors today, several states are obviously wanting to change the rules, in the interest of preventing companies from taking advantage of them. so you may be today, and may not tomorrow
from a legal perspective, sure. but the question is can your employer bully you into abiding by their rules, by threatening you with termination or other shenanigans. more traditionally, he who has the gold, makes the rules, eh?
in the interest of RKBA, i think we'd want to advocate for laws that protect gun owners in their own property, from blue state employers who seek to deny their rights.
Wrong.
Employers [improperly] treat people who do work for them as independent contractors all the time. This often becomes a subject of litigation, and courts look at what actually goes on to decide if someone is properly treated as an independent contractor or should have been treated as an employee. I've been professionally involved in more than a few of these sorts of disputes during the 30+ years I practiced law.
So not receiving a W-2 is not finally determinative. The courts can, and do, look at the actual relationship.
You're referring to the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior" which is where an employer is responsible for the employees actions. Their is no such relation when an independent contractor is involved so Uber's fear of being sued for the driver's actions is unfounded. They just don't like guns. Also, there should be an actual written contract between an IC and uber.
Effective January 1, 2020, a new law in California, Assembly Bill 5, went into effect that specifies gig-economy workers, including drivers for Uber and Lyft, are employees and not contractors. The purpose of the law is to force providing workers with benefits such as health insurance. Uber, Lyft, and a variety of other companies and groups are trying to fight it. Exceptions in it are confusing for instance, a freelance photographer or writer can sell up to seven items a year to a publication and remain a contractor. After that, the law makes them employees. Kind of a mess for those with weekly sales (52 a year).
Here is a recent (1/4/2020) NPR article on the topic:
Uber, Lyft, Postmates Refuse To Comply With California Gig Economy Law
To be fair, Whether a UK Uber driver is a contractor or an employee, they legally can't carry a handgun around anyway. As a general rule.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
As a passenger, it seems to me that there may be more binding, legal issues depending on what jurisdiction one resides in.
I don't know of any SC laws which prohibit carrying in a taxi. Public transportation, yes, but not private businesses involving transportation like a taxi service.
Which means this would come under a business policy and, perhaps, trespassing at the least.
Speaking with respect to SC laws, the wording in SC statutes is specific to "buildings", so it may not directly apply to vehicles. Certainly the specifics in the law cannot be directly equated to vehicular travel, and no verbiage specifies any other posting requirements EXCEPT buildings.
HOWEVER, even though it doesn't, if the taxi is visibly posted and it's discovered you are carrying a firearm and are asked to leave the taxi...you could run afoul of trespassing laws on this matter. Which, I believe, would be pretty much a universal criterion one could be gigged upon in about any jurisdiction.
I don't know of any SC laws which prohibit carrying in a taxi. Public transportation, yes, but not private businesses involving transportation like a taxi service.
Which means this would come under a business policy and, perhaps, trespassing at the least.
Speaking with respect to SC laws, the wording in SC statutes is specific to "buildings", so it may not directly apply to vehicles. Certainly the specifics in the law cannot be directly equated to vehicular travel, and no verbiage specifies any other posting requirements EXCEPT buildings.
HOWEVER, even though it doesn't, if the taxi is visibly posted and it's discovered you are carrying a firearm and are asked to leave the taxi...you could run afoul of trespassing laws on this matter. Which, I believe, would be pretty much a universal criterion one could be gigged upon in about any jurisdiction.
- Status
