Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2016, 07:06:57 PM
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Respondeat superior and vicarious liability for agency is a big part of my life as a healthcare risk manager.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Being fired from Uber < Being dead