Author Topic: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy  (Read 1411 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:06:57 PM »
Quote
On June 19, Uber announced it has banned both drivers and law-abiding passengers with concealed permits from having guns with them for self-defense while in Uber vehicles.

It doesn't work quite as well as intended.

Quote
A man arrested early Sunday on suspicion of shooting dead six people in the northern US state of Michigan was an Uber driver who may have been picking up fares just before the killing spree began.

It boggles the mind that this could happen. I mean a website/phone app said "No guns." That's iron-clad safety!


Sources:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/21/uber-bans-guns-after-driver-uses-one-to-stop-attempted-mass-shooting/

http://news.yahoo.com/us-shooter-michigan-kills-least-six-local-media-053840082.html;_ylt=AwrC0CMUIspWhmIAGAjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--


P.S. And of course, the ban was a response to an Uber driver stopping a possible mass shooting with his own (legally carried) firearm. Before the ban, Uber driver a hero. After the ban, Uber driver a monster. Go figure.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,768
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2016, 08:44:41 PM »
The fear of liability from corporations knows no bounds. 

Is it the corporations, the lawyers they hire, or the judicial system?  I think a lot of the blame goes on the first two, but not all of it.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,407
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2016, 08:58:38 PM »
The fear of liability from corporations knows no bounds. 

Is it the corporations, the lawyers they hire, or the judicial system?  I think a lot of the blame goes on the first two, but not all of it.

There's a legal principle called respodeat superior (not sure about spelling), which at its most basic that the employer is responsible for the acts of the employee.  It was originally limited to the acts within the scope of the employee's duties, but has been pushed some.  So, corporations act out of fear to control the employee's acts to minimize their liability.   Their lawyers advise them to do more and more, do things like this restriction,  to reduce the risk further.   This has nothing to do with the system, becuase it isn't driven by actual losses.  It is completely driven by risk management types and those who employ them.  This is also why those who use a gun for defense in violation of company policy get fired,  to minimize risk.
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,004
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2016, 11:03:52 PM »
Respondeat superior and vicarious liability for agency is a big part of my life as a healthcare risk manager.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2016, 08:41:32 AM »
There's a legal principle called respodeat superior (not sure about spelling), which at its most basic that the employer is responsible for the acts of the employee.  It was originally limited to the acts within the scope of the employee's duties, but has been pushed some.  So, corporations act out of fear to control the employee's acts to minimize their liability.   Their lawyers advise them to do more and more, do things like this restriction,  to reduce the risk further.   This has nothing to do with the system, becuase it isn't driven by actual losses.  It is completely driven by risk management types and those who employ them.  This is also why those who use a gun for defense in violation of company policy get fired,  to minimize risk.

Except Ueber claims the drivers are contractors.

Probably a bad idea on Ueber's part, but I admit employment law is specialized. But doesn't that sort of thing increase the likelihood of the courts treating ueber drivers as employees, not contractors?
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,407
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2016, 07:54:18 PM »
Except Ueber claims the drivers are contractors.

Probably a bad idea on Ueber's part, but I admit employment law is specialized. But doesn't that sort of thing increase the likelihood of the courts treating ueber drivers as employees, not contractors?

I'm primarily a criminal law guy.  But I believe independent contractors can have that status while still having terms set by the "boss".  It's a risk, but probably not a big one.
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Small problem with Uber's anti-gun policy
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2016, 05:05:06 PM »
Being fired from Uber < Being dead
I promise not to duck.