Category: drivers

Practices that distinctively affected drivers.

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

Uber partner dealers charged vehicle lease and surcharges far in excess of vehicle value

Quartz reports surprisingly high fees from the “partner dealers” who lease cars to Uber drivers.  For example, one driver was quoted $495 per week (including insurance but not repairs or maintenance), totaling $78,705 over three years, plus a $3,000 “service fee” — for a car that cost $45,292 to buy outright, new.

Another driver was asked to pay $68 per week for a service that Quartz describes as “proper licensing with the city’s taxi commission” — yet the actual fee was $68 for two years, making this a $3500+ fee per year.  (Surprised by this high fee, a taxi and limousine commission spokesperson commented “wow.”)

Uber allowed partner dealers to withdraw fees directly from drivers’ payments from Uber, or from drivers’ bank accounts if their Uber earnings were insufficient.

Posted on

Refused to provide driver names to San Francisco city government

When the city of San Francisco demanded that Uber provide it with drivers’ names and contact information so the city could demand that drivers obtain business licenses and pay applicable fees, Uber claimed that disclosures would violate drivers’ right to privacy. In a June 2017 ruling, Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer disagreed, ruling that the city Treasurer and Tax Collector had legal authority to demand the information.  He said compliance would not be unduly burdensome, and that any drivers who wished to challenge license requirements could do so on their own.

Lyft provided the data to San Fransisco without litigation.

Posted on

Vehicle financing terms inferior to company marketing promises

The Federal Trade Commission flagged Uber providing drivers with financing terms inferior to what its marketing materials promised. The FTC said drivers received worse rates on average than consumers with similar credit scores would otherwise obtain. Uber further promised that its leases provided unlimited mileage, though there were actually mileage limits. Details in the FTC’s complaint.

Uber paid $20 million to settle these claims (along with claims about exaggerated annual and hourly earnings). The funds were used to provide refunds to affected drivers

Posted on

Recruited drivers with exaggerated earnings claims

The Federal Trade Commission flagged Uber exaggerating the yearly and hourly income drivers could make in certain cities. For example, Uber claimed on its site that uberX drivers’ annual median income was more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco — but the FTC found that the actual medians were $61,000 and $53,000 respectively, and that less than 10 percent of all drivers in those cities earned the amounts Uber touted.

The FTC also alleged that Uber made false hourly earnings claims in job listings on Craigslist and elsewhere. In eighteen different cities where Uber advertised hourly earnings on Craigslist, fewer than 30% of drivers earned the promised amount. In some cities, as few as 10% of drivers earned the promised amount. Details in the FTC’s complaint.

Uber paid $20 million to settle these claims (along with claims about vehicle financing terms). The funds were used to provide refunds to affected drivers.

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

Tracked driver activity on Lyft servers

News site The Information in April 2017 reported that Uber built a program it called “Hell” to track how many Lyft drivers were available, where they were located, and whether they drove for Uber also.  Uber then targeted these drivers with special promotions to encourage them to use Uber only.

By all indications, Uber collected data for “Hell” by connecting to Lyft’s servers in a manner prohibited by Lyft’s Terms of Service.

The Information reported that Uber then-CEO Travis Kalanick personally praised the Hell team, saying that they demonstrated Uber’s culture in their willingness to “hustle” in order to win.

In September 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported the FBI investigating Uber’s “Hell” practices.

Bloomberg reports that Hell was overseen by Joe Sullivan, Chief Security Officer of Uber, through a team formerly known as Competitive Intelligence.

See also the “Surfcam” program whereby Uber tracked data from Grab.

Posted on

Multiple drivers rejected blind passengers with service dogs

Multiple blind passengers reported Uber drivers refusing to transport them and their service dogs.

A key lawsuit challenging Uber’s treatment of blind passengers was National Federation of the Blind of California, et a., v. Uber Technologies, Inc.: Second Amended Complaint. Decision denying Uber’s motion to dismiss (including finding that Uber may be liable under the public accommodation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act). Settlement agreement. Other case documents.

Proudly powered by WordPress