Posted on 03/07/2017 2:50:30 PM PST by SpeedyInTexas
It'd be even better if they allowed the riders to select from a pool of available drivers. However, I'm certain that some very clear patterns would emerge - and we can't be keeping' the minorities down. Or something.
So an employer should be held liable for the illegal acts of his employees?
I was under the impression that riders could choose from available drivers.
>>So an employer should be held liable for the illegal acts of his employees?
Yes, that is generally how it works. If I hire an an employee, and while working for me they cause another person harm, I would generally be sued.
My experience with the company leads me to believe that it is as much a multi-cultural normalization scheme (Request a ride and meet an exotic foreigner today!) as it is a transportation service.
I've used the service here and abroad (France and the U.K.); it is rare to get a driver who is native to the area. Most are recent arrivals and would be helpless without SatNav.
“Uber is strongly opposed to requiring proper background checks.”
They do background checks. They oppose FBI fingerprint background checks because it is expensive, and many drivers do not drive enough hours to justify the expense. This makes rapid recruitment difficult, and that’s essential to their business model. (Availability must keep up with growing demand.)
Personally, I’m neutral on the subject.
But I wonder whether background checks would have stopped the criminal Uber drivers so far.
Yes. That is the way it is. I was asking the other poster if they thought that was the way it should be.
I think that was part of the app. The last few times I used it, it just grabbed the nearest car and told me who the driver was. Perhaps that varies with location; I’ve used it here at home as well as abroad.
>> They oppose FBI fingerprint background checks because it is expensive, and many drivers do not drive enough hours to justify the expense. This makes rapid recruitment difficult, and that’s essential to their business model. (Availability must keep up with growing demand.)
Which is why they need to be repeatedly sued - so it gets cheaper for them to property vet people than to keep losing lawsuits.
Sorry I disagree. Not the same kind of comparison.
The person who murders with a gun or kills with a car is not the employee (or independent contractor) of the gun manufacturer or auto manufacturer.
Apples and oranges comparison.
Technically you are correct. Not an employee, but still Uber hired the independent contractors.
Absolutely - as long as the employee is “on the job”, that is how it works.
Can you get a woman Uber driver? Hopefully that would be more safe but who knows?
It’s not growing demand that drives goobers fight over deeper checks. It’s costs and driver turn over. Goobers turn rate is 30 to 90 days for most drivers. Many figure out the scam in the first week or so and quit.
Sewanou Bisile Yoro
Since when do Amish even drive?
From your linked article:
“Businesses also have a duty to screen independent contractors carefully. In a recent Texas case, a taxi company that employed drivers as independent contractors was found civilly liable when a driver, an ex-con with a history of violent behavior, injured a passenger. The theory of liability was that the company had a duty to the public to exercise care in the hiring of drivers.”
Not a direct comparison to this Uber case, but close.
I’m waiting for someone to sue and say, “he was muslim, you should have know he was likely to rape someone”.
#4, Quaker?
“It’s not growing demand that drives goobers fight over deeper checks.”
I don’t know about other cities, but in Houston demand has steadily grown for the past 3 years Uber has been here.
There are thousands of drivers. Houston has required the FBI background checks to operate here, same as with taxis. That continued at least through the Super Bowl. I’m not sure if it is changing.
The state of Texas is taking up ride sharing services to consider regulating it at the state level.
Uber pulled out of Austin over the city’s requiring the background checks. But they stayed in Houston. I think there was a compromise with city council here to do away with drug testing and physicals. Uber also set up offices here to recruit drivers.
It would not surprise me if the churn rate is that high and that frequent. It seems like it would be pretty hard for drivers to make even minimum wage after expenses.
Uber has a rapid growth model for their venture capitalist investors. They are driving costs down in order to gain market share. But it is mostly done at the expense of drivers who carry a disproportionate amount of the risk.
One that Trump was possible trying to keep out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.