Uber Bans Firearms - Petition Started

[herrwalther]

What exactly has Uber changed? Are they making a policy only that drivers should not be armed, or are they applying that to both drivers and passengers? The news stories aren't clearn on that.

Previous Uber policy was drivers and passengers were to abide by local, state, and federal laws in regards to firearm possession while using the service. This policy was part and parcel as to why I applied with them for some added income. I haven't received a response from Uber, nor do I expect one.

 

[herrwalther]

UPDATE: I received a response from the message I sent to Uber about their changed firearm policy.

In light of Uber's changed firearm policy as outlined in the linked article, I am no longer interested in being an Uber driver. My personal safety is not worth the money I would make being a driver for your service, especially in the high crime ________ area.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122094/uber-isnt-letting-its-drivers-carry-guns-anymore

Thanks for writing in and expressing your concern over this sensitive issue.

I appreciate your feedback on this change. The no-firearms policy is intended to ensure that our community – including both riders and driver-partners – feel safe and comfortable when using Uber.

We take your safety extremely seriously. As a growing company, we are constantly seeking ways to better enhance the Uber experience from both drivers' and riders' perspectives so appreciate you writing in about this.

It almost sounds like I was not the first driver to give Uber the bird over this. But they were sure to include the spoon fed line " The no-firearms policy is intended to ensure that our community – including both riders and driver-partners – feel safe and comfortable when using Uber." Classic lefist propaganda, ban firearms and only the law abiding will follow. Criminals don't care and no one ends up safe. I was looking forward to working for this company, but not at the risk of my life.

 

[borgranta]

Does this policy apply to off-duty police? If so than it would be illegal for them to enforce it against off-duty police in Texas. The NFL tried and failed to do the same.

 

[hso]

That would be good for their Facebook page or Twitter feed.

 

[flanker08]

I was under the impression that Uber was simply a platform to enable independent contractors. That it what they are basically trying to claim in the Caliornia lawsuit pertaining to "employee" benefits.

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsuits-could-change-business-models-2015-6

I assume Uber is just trying to make a political statement and trying to help the "sheeple" feel safe.

Still disappointing.

 

[hso]

Folks, please remember that Activism isn't a discussion forum like the rest of THR and that we're here to focus on the actions we need to put into play to make a change to preserve, protect, and promote the 2A. Complaints or other extraneous posts that don't contribute to that action to make a change dilute and detract from the effort needed. Complaining doesn't accomplish anything when action is needed. If your posts disappeared in the "housecleaning" in this thread it was because it wasn't a plan of action that would change the Uber policy.

We all understand that there's no way for Uber to know if anyone is carrying and no way for them to keep them from it. Talking about that or how people will just carry anyway is not going to make Uber change their policy.

We all understand that their policy is ridiculous and will accomplish nothing since Uber drivers and would-be passengers have been robbed in the past and are being robbed now and nothing in the new policy is going to change that. Talking about that's not going to change Uber's policy either.

Most of us know that Uber drivers have stopped violence with their legal carry firearms. That's not going to change the policy.

What does help talking about that can make a difference is how to make them change their policy back and what we can do to make that happen. Petitions, emails, letters, calls, posting to facebook and other social media applying pressure to Uber can make a difference.

You can post in the social media realm that the policy is irrelevant and will be ignored by armed robbers as one way to put that message out that their policy change is pointless and goes against local law. You could double down and ask if Uber is now going to ban knives for the same supposed reason they now prohibit firearms? What about screwdrivers? Pepper spray? Those make great social media posts when driving the point home that Uber's policy is idiotic and pointless because we want non 2A advocates to get the message and possibly carry it on. That can cause others to ridicule Uber on those discussions and that amplifies our point. Add that You and your family won't be using Uber because of this and you hit their pocketbook.

Emails and letters can include those same messages, but could be too long and loose the message, but saying "I will not use your service until your policy to ignore local firearms laws is reversed. It does nothing to protect the drivers or users since armed robbers won't abide by it. What next, a prohibition on knives? Pepper spray? Screwdrivers? All of those have been used in robberies and in murders. Your new policy is pointless as any real measure to protect drivers and users."

What other ways can we bring pressure on Uber?

 

[herrwalther]

We all understand that there's no way for Uber to know if anyone is carrying and no way for them to keep them from it. Talking about that or how people will just carry anyway is not going to make Uber change their policy.

Personally I think this is the wrong way to fight Uber on this. If a driver carries and needs to use that firearm in defense of life, Uber will just fire the driver and quote the policy. And nothing else will come of it. If Uber drivers outright quit because they can't carry, that will hurt Uber's bottom line.

What will also work, but something I am not willing to do, is abide by the policy. If a driver is robbed, hurt, or killed as the result of a rider; the civil lawsuit against Uber would be much more powerful than bailing drivers. Certainly not the most ideal solution as you are essentially playing chicken with criminals over policy. But from an activism stand point, there isn't a faster way to change a company policy than the threat of a large lawsuit.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But from an activism stand point, there isn't a faster way to change a company policy than the threat of a large lawsuit.

Okay, who is going to make this threat of a large lawsuit that will have credibility? Are Uber customers bringing this lawsuit? How will they be organized to do this? When the threat of a lawsuit doesn't work, who is going to pay the legal fees to actually bring about a lawsuit?

Companies are threatened with lawsuits all the time. That doesn't scare them that much. It is part of operating a business.

Who have "we" threatened before with a lawsuit to change gun policy where it has worked?

 

[hso]

What will also work, but something I am not willing to do, is abide by the policy. If a driver is robbed, hurt, or killed as the result of a rider; the civil lawsuit against Uber would be much more powerful than bailing drivers.

That's not a plan since a plan requires an effort by many people to make something work and there's no one stupid enough, much less a group, that would intentionally go out so someone could martyr himself so their next of kin could sue Uber to get them to reverse the policy. That's absurd.

You won't get Uber drivers to walk out and make a difference unless you put a lot of effort into getting enough to make a difference. One or two or two dozen that quit are replaced by those that don't carry or don't care. Ineffective to depend upon uncoordinated action. Only coordinated walkouts matter and that coordination requires planning and effort to have an impact.

Getting LEOs and permit holders to lambast them on social media can work and getting those folks to complain to their elected officials so the elected officials can publicly lambast them over this policy can help.

 

[herrwalther]

That's not a plan since a plan requires an effort by many people to make something work and there's no one stupid enough, much less a group, that would intentionally go out so someone could martyr himself so their next of kin could sue Uber to get them to reverse the policy. That's absurd.

Okay, who is going to make this threat of a large lawsuit that will have credibility? Are Uber customers bringing this lawsuit? How will they be organized to do this? When the threat of a lawsuit doesn't work, who is going to pay the legal fees to actually bring about a lawsuit?

I didn't say it was a great plan we should use. Was just commenting that Activism wise, a large wrongful death lawsuit could change the policy. But no one wants to be put or put themselves in that position. That was my point. Organizing drivers and riders to drop the service over their policy will work if enough people get behind it.

 

[coloradokevin]

The sad reality that Uber probably recognizes that a lot of their clientele consists of college students and hipsters (at least around here). And, categorically speaking, those are not two groups that are really worried about gun right. Exceptions to this rule exist, of course, as I went to college and I like guns.

The other side of this coin is that Uber also probably picks of a lot of traffic at major conventions, and from airport travelers. This is where I think we can make a difference. After all, between SHOT show and the thousands of other outdoor/hunting/shooting related conferences and exhibitions that take place each year, I think there's a market segment that Uber could easily lose with this policy.

The key to hurting Uber enough to push for a policy change consists of a few parts:

1) Make sure we educate "our side" on this new policy, and encourage a boycott of their services.

2) Make an effort to let Uber know when we aren't using them, and why.


Personally, I'd be greatly disappointed if I was to learn that any of the convention-goers at the next SHOT show used Uber. But, I'd guess that many of these folks aren't even aware of the policy. Hence, we have a need to educate our camp on this policy.

Secondarily, if Uber doesn't know that they're losing the business directly, they may not even consider us part of their target audience. So, we need to continue to write to Uber, and go from there.

Here's another idea, and it makes your intentions very public. First, book an Uber car when you plan to take your next taxi ride. When the driver shows up ask him about the policy directly:

"I'm a legal CCW holder and I have my weapon with me, is that a problem?"

If the driver indicates it is against policy, cancel your ride, and let the company know about it!

 

[herrwalther]

The sad reality that Uber probably recognizes that a lot of their clientele consists of college students and hipsters (at least around here). And, categorically speaking, those are not two groups that are really worried about gun right. Exceptions to this rule exist, of course, as I went to college and I like guns.

Uber hasn't setup shop in my area yet. So my local activism against their firearm policy change won't do much good. I was in a pool of drivers cleared to start after Uber settled with the city's taxi unions. Uber's primary focus in the nearby city is the VA hospital and I don't think many of them would be willing to ride with Uber under this policy.

 

[hso]

They have to know about the policy to make that decision so what are we going to do to make them aware of it and what alternatives do they have so the decision to ditch Uber is easier for them?

Nearly no one that doesn't know is going to tell the driver "No thanks, my carry gun isn't welcome then my wallet goes with it" when they find out at the last minute they need another ride to their appointment. We need to find a way to make sure they know before they make the request for a ride.

 

[Blackbeard]

If it were me I would simply ignore the policy. The drivers are not employees, according to Uber. All they can do is cancel your account.

 

[Bang!]

Copy, paste, and sent. That was easy,considering all the leg work was done in post #4. Thanks HSO.

 

[Bang!]

Reply from Uber for comparison of other replies

Quote--

Thank you for the prompt reply. Two points you missed.

1. I will not use Uber while this policy is in place.
2. My conceal carry maintains the safest environment for me and my loved ones.

My money/time will be used else where. Hopefully, your policy will change in the future and we can do business once again.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:21 PM, Sara from Uber (Uber Support) <[email protected]> wrote:


##- Please type your reply above this line -##
Your request (45621440) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to this email.

Sara from Uber (Uber)
Jul 15, 18:21

Hi Name Deleted—

We appreciate your feedback on this important topic and understand your point of view. Our policy was created to ensure that we maintain the safest environment for all users on the Uber platform - riders and partners alike.

Please note that should you choose to ignore this policy and it is confirmed by a complaint, you risk being removed from the Uber platform.

Sara from Uber
help.uber.com

Name Deleted
Jul 15, 14:22

Uber's decision that they no longer want to follow local law and serve carry permit holders who are the lowest crime rate group in the U.S. moves me to decide that I will no longer do business with Uber as long as this policy to ignore local laws and impose a political agenda upon users is in place.

This email is a service from Uber.
Message-IdQ2WXX55_55a7071d7d090_afb23fd1292cd32010817f_sprut

End Quote

 

[Uglyducky]

What exactly is the policy? Is it geared towards drivers, passengers or both?

 

[Uglyducky]

As many have mentioned, I thought the drivers were contractors, not employees. What is Uber's recourse?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Somebody explain a few things to me here, please. From what I've read, Uber is more of a coordinating service which essentially networks a bunch of people who wish to provide a taxi service to a bunch of people who need taxi service than an actual taxi service that has distinct employees hired to drive.

In fact, the drivers who use Uber pay a percentage to Uber for this networking service. Which, in my book, makes the drivers CUSTOMERS and not employees, since they're paying to USE the services of Uber.


Which means that Uber isn't a "company" in the traditional sense. They don't "hire" people, therefore they can't "fire" them...they can only deny them their networking service. I'm sure they set up their business this way knowing full well the employment loopholes this provides with respect to the distinction between "employees" and "independent contractors"...in fact, the drivers don't really fall under either of these.


I'd like to support the 2A cause here...but quite frankly, I don't think my opinion would carry much weight with them because I'm neither a driver nor a passenger using their service. "Hey, I don't use your service, and after hearing about your anti-gun policy I'll continue not to use your service" probably wouldn't have much impact.

 

[herrwalther]

What exactly is the policy? Is it geared towards drivers, passengers or both?

The policy applies to both drivers and passengers.

As many have mentioned, I thought the drivers were contractors, not employees. What is Uber's recourse?

Uber's recourse for violating the firearm policy is a "deactivated account" which is akin to firing for a driver and an inconvenience to a rider.

Somebody explain a few things to me here, please. From what I've read, Uber is more of a coordinating service which essentially networks a bunch of people who wish to provide a taxi service to a bunch of people who need taxi service than an actual taxi service that has distinct employees hired to drive.

Drivers for Uber are independent contractors in the legal sense. Uber went with this as a loophole around unfair competition lawsuits from taxi unions. If Uber just "organizes" driver with rider, they aren't an unfair competition legally to taxi unions. In actuality, drivers could very easily be considered employees. Uber does a criminal and accident background check on all drivers. They setup a direct deposit for their drivers like a "real" employer. They have their own insurance policies for drivers to cover passenger and driver for accidents while "on the clock." And they even offer company cell phones to drivers who don't want or have their own.

 

[oneounceload]

Does anyone REALLY care about a car service and their policy? REALLY?

 

[herrwalther]

Does anyone REALLY care about a car service and their policy? REALLY?

Uber is a source of income for drivers. Uber is available in many urban centers where you would not want to be without a firearm. A couple who referred me to Uber lives in Atlanta where the husband is the primary driver. Before he started with Uber a few years ago he checked with them and their firearm policy. When they changed to this new no gun policy he was IMMEDIATELY fired without a chance to stop carrying in his own vehicle. Uber was going to be a primary source of income in my household as well. My only saving grace was I hadn't started driving yet. So yes people care about the policy.

 

[hso]

Does anyone REALLY care about a car service and their policy? REALLY?

Yes

Besides the fact that any Anti policy by a company is of interest to us, Uber is an oft cited "success" story by both the left and the right politicians. While controversial, they have a disproportionate social impact due to this.

 

[TwinReverb]

Why don't we just boycott?

 

[herrwalther]

Why don't we just boycott?

That is part of it. The other part is in the activism of telling Uber why you are boycotting them. There isn't much sense in boycotting a company if they don't know why they are being boycotted.