Uber Announces Total Gun Ban for Drivers and Passengers


Well, that'll insure no criminals with guns ever try to steal an Uber driver's car.

The CEO of Uber should call the CEO's of Apple, Microsoft, and Google to tell them all they have to do is ban hackers from using their software and hardware. That would solve a lot of problems.
 
r1derbike said:
Another business headed for bankruptcy protection.
Click to expand...

Probably not. A large portion of the population thinks that a "no-guns" policy lessens their chances of being a crime victim. Sooner or later either an Uber driver or a Uber passenger will be raped at knife point and the'll blame the knife.

But let's be honest. A no guns policy does in fact eliminate the chance of an accidental discharge of the firearm of a law abiding citizen with enough integrity not to violate the rules of a business. So maybe Uber thinks that such accidental discharges are more likely to occur than commission of a crime. Accidental discharges do happen, but I think they happen with a lot less frequency than violent crime per capita.

But more importantly, the no guns policy eliminates a class of potential customers even absent the self-defense issues. Perhaps the way to make the point is for all of us to call Uber for a ride to and from a gun shop.
 
Then I expect to see a gun buster sign on the door of every uber car. (actually I've never noticed one, and if I need a fare ride, from a beer festive or similar, I'm hailing a marked and regulated taxi, not some guy with a sticker on his windshield).

And sadly, crooks now know that uber drivers are defenseless victims.
 
It is my understanding that Uber drivers are technically independent contractors. This change in policy is, as far as I know, not legally binding. Uber can not legally prohibit a driver or rider to carry without becoming the employer of the driver.
 
bofh said:
It is my understanding that Uber drivers are technically independent contractors. This change in policy is, as far as I know, not legally binding. Uber can not legally prohibit a driver or rider to carry without becoming the employer of the driver.
Click to expand...
And even then, still not within their private vehicle.

You have to be an employee of Uber and in a company owned vehicle for this policy to apply.
 
Uber drivers use their own car, and when they are working as a Uber driver, their car is their workplace.

Most states have a castle doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place including a vehicle or workplace as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.

Using that standard an anti-gun company that allows employees to work from their homes could also ban any guns in the home.

I don't think Uber has a leg to stand on, just more anti-gun idiocy.
 
From a post on another forum-

If somebody wants to push it even further- they could find themselves in trouble with the DOT, IRS, ICC etc.

Having owned a transportation company for almost 20yrs, I learned some important requirements & restrictions when hiring independent "contractors" -VS- company "employees".

For Instance-

  • A company can enforce things like a dress code (uniforms) when it comes to company "employees" But can't make independent contractors wear company "employee" uniforms.
  • A company can pay independent contractors a "fee" for services rendered. But, cannot pay them an hourly wage & take out taxes.
  • A company can make "employees" work certain hours & do certain tasks. But, cannot force an independent "contractor" to do anything.
  • Independent contractors cannot be forced to drive "company" owned or leased vehicles. (Although certain "safety" requirement can be enforced.)


Sure, a company can set certain policy & standards for independent "contractors". But, the do have to be very careful because if they push requirement too far, the government can/WILL consider "contractors" to be company "employees". The government is actually scrutinizing companies that utilize "independent contractors" very closely because so many companies are looking for a loophole around federal "employee" regulations.

I started my "cargo" transport company and wanted to exclusively utilize independent contractors to save money & payroll fees because it didn't make much sense financially to have employees collecting hourly wages & benefits when there wasn't enough work to keep them busy 40hr a week. But, after a complaint was filed by a larger competitor, I was legally FORCED restructure my company & business model. (Fortunately we were able to survive until other insurance & new government employee requirements nailed the final nail in the coffin of our "small" company.)

IMHO:
This could be the beginning of the end for Uber. If a contractor gets fired because it's discovered he is "legally" carrying a firearm in his personal vehicle and files a lawsuit "rightfully" claiming he is an "independent" contractor and therefore is not subject the same rules as a company "employee". This could bring unwanted attention and possibly a government enforced change of the Uber business model.

A lawsuit brought by a customer who get robbed or shot while riding in one of their "taxis"; or a lawsuit by a competitor (like in my situation), could possibly to the same thing and force Uber out of the "taxi" business.
Click to expand...



-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

Total: 345 (members: 1, guests: 344)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top