Knowingly leased recalled vehicles to drivers in Singapore

Uber knowingly leased recalled vehicles to its drivers in Singapore. A Wall Street Journal report (paid subscription required) describes a driver whose vehicle caught fire, due to the problem fixed by the recall, just after a passenger got out. WSJ explains:

News of the fire rippled through Uber’s Singapore office after its insurance provider said it wouldn’t cover the damage because of the known recall, emails show. Word reached Uber’s San Francisco executives two days later, emails show.

Uber’s lawyers in Singapore began assessing the legal liability, including possibly violating driver contracts for supplying faulty cars and failing to immediately inform the Land Transport Authority about the defective cars, emails show. “There is clearly a large safety/responsible actor/brand integrity/PR issue” for Uber, an internal report read.

Additional coverage from TechCrunch.

Inferior access to passengers who use wheelchairs (New York City)

A July 2017 complaint, filed by the nonprofit legal group Disability Rights Advocates in New York, criticized Uber’s failure to include wheelchair-accessible vehicles in its standard UberX fleet, claiming that 99.9% of Uber’s vehicles were inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities, in violation of New York’s anti-discrimination laws.

The lawsuit alleged that Uber riders who need wheelchair-accessible vehicles face significantly longer wait times than other passengers, and that at some periods and in some places, no wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available at all.

The lawsuit further alleged that passengers attempting to use Uber’s accessible service face extended wait times, or are denied access to
the service altogether, which the plaintiffs said reveals that the accessible service was “window-dressing designed to avoid government regulation and legal requirements” and insufficient under law.

Overcharged commissions to New York drivers

For New York drivers, Uber took its commission based on gross fares including state taxes, rather than net fares after deduction of taxes. The New York Times estimated that this overcharged New York drivers by more than $200 million — and increased Uber’s revenue by the same amount.

A subsequent New York Times analysis compared Uber’s tax and billing practices across jurisdictions, examining receipts to assess irregularities and comparing changing contract language to understand Uber’s shifting approach.

Inconsistent positions as to driver employment status

Uber largely argues that drivers are not employees, allowing Uber to avoid paying payroll tax, providing workers’ compensation insurance, reimbursing employment-related expenses, and more.

But when Uber was sued for sending unsolicited text messages recruiting drivers, without recipients’ consent, Uber defended the messages on the grounds that they were offers of employment, which under federal law can be sent without a recipient’s consent.

Reduced tax obligations by classifying drivers as contractors, not employees

Uber classified drivers as contractors, not employees.  As a result, the company avoided withholding income tax from driver earnings, and avoided paying the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

The correctness of this classification is disputed via ongoing litigation in numerous jurisdictions. On July 12, 2017, Uber drivers in North Carolina won preliminary class-action status in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Drivers not permitted to make workers’ compensation claims

Because Uber argues that its drivers are not employees, the company does not allow them to make workers’ compensation claims for injuries that occur in the workplace, i.e. while driving.

In a May 2017 addition, Uber began to offer an optional insurance program to drivers.  Nonetheless, Uber’s policy is importantly inferior to workers’ compensation.  1) Uber’s policy comes at at an additional cost that drivers must pay, whereas workers’ compensation is automatically provided by employers to employees at no charge. 2) Uber’s optional coverage maxes out at half of a driver’s average weekly earnings, whereas many states require that workers’ compensation pay out more (two thirds of salary in California, Massachusetts, and New York). 3) Uber’s policy requires drivers to submit disputes to arbitration, whereas workers’ compensation disputes are overseen by public boards. 4) Uber’s policy covers only total disabilities that prevent a driver from working at all, whereas workers’ compensation covers partial disabilities.