Category: safety

Practices that impacted safety and safety protections

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Driver violence towards passengers

Various Uber drivers have attacked passengers. Representative examples: In March 2014, a Chicago passenger sued Uber after her driver locked the car and groped her. In June 2014, a Los Angeles driver kidnapped a woman who had passed out in his car.

In an internal crisis communication message that was accidentally made public, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick blamed the media for suggesting that Uber was liable for driver misconduct.

Posted on

Failed to take action on drunk driving complaints

The California Public Utility Commission found that Uber violated CPUC “zero-tolerance” rules in its handling of 151 complaints, failing to suspend and/or investigate the drivers. In only 22 of 154 complaints did Uber suspend the driver within one hour of a passenger complaint. Furthermore, some of the supposedly-suspended driers were nonetheless able to log in to Uber, respond to ride requests, and provide additional rides.

CPUC further found that, contrary to CPUC rules, Uber failed to implement a “zero tolerance” policy that immediately suspended a driver for a DUI allegation. Instead, Uber’s process had multiple steps and multiple opportunities for error by Uber staff. In contrast, CPUC rules required Uber to suspend the driver before verifying the validity of the complaint.

CPUC also found limited evidence that Uber followed up with passengers to investigate allegations, including Uber failing to follow up in several hours or even a full day after a passenger’s complaint.

In light of these practices, CPUC recommended a penalty of $1.1 million.

Posted on

Obtained medical records of a customer

After an unnamed customer reported being raped by an Uber driver in India in December 2014, Uber executive Eric Alexander obtained her medical records and showed them to CEO Travis Kalanick and SVP Emil Michael.  As of June 2017, Alexander had left Uber.

In a June 2017 lawsuit, the customer filed a lawsuit against Uber as well as Alexander, Kalanick, and Michael for intrusion into private affairs, public disclosure of private facts, and defamation. In addition to noting the impropriety of Uber managers obtaining and examining her medical records without her consent, she flagged the inconsistency between Uber’s public claims (“We will do everything … to help bring this perpetrator to justice and to support the victim”) and its actual action.

Posted on

Untrue or misleading representations about safety measures

In litigation, the City of San Francisco and City of Los Angeles alleged that Uber falsely claimed to offer the “safest ride on the road” with the “strictest safety standards possible,” which, the cities argued, was “likely to mislead consumers into believing Uber does everything it can to ensure their safety” when in fact better methods were available.

The cities further alleged that Uber’s claim to be “doing everything we can to make Uber the safest experience on the road” was inconsistent with the company’s lobbying against certain safety requirements then being discussed in the California legislature.

The People Of The State Of California v. Uber Technologies Inc A Delaware Corporation Et Al – litigation docket

Proudly powered by WordPress