They are a private company and can make whatever rules they want for their organization. No one is forced to enter into a contract with them.
“They are a private company and can make whatever rules they want for their organization. No one is forced to enter into a contract with them.”
Uber recruits people with promises of certain money making opportunities. There is a contract.
Uber then decides to notify all of its drivers that they are no longer allowed to have a gun in THEIR vehicle.
These are not employees. These vehicles are not company property. In fact, Uber really has no way of knowing who has a gun. They can only terminate a driver’s contract when they discover the driver is carrying a gun.
You are wrong. It makes as much legal sense as your cell phone carrier dictating that you can not carry a gun while under contract with them. Uber has as much right to dictate this as they do to dictate what color underwear the passenger or driver must wear. It is none of their business. The only thing they have the right to dictate is that contractors follow the law.
They have no right to do so. And they should be liable for any act of violence against an Uber driver’s car or person.
This is quite different from a store who posts a sign that guns are not allowed. You, as a customer, can choose to take your business elsewhere.
This is also quite different from a company that hires drivers to drive company vehicles. In that case, it is their property.
States ought to pass legislation that invalidates such provisions in contracts or makes the companies that use them liable for civil damages, attorney fees, and court costs when a “contractor” is harmed while doing work for them.
Uber wants the benefits of their drivers being contractors when it suits them, and employees when that suits them.