Having read about the ex-ceo's character.
and ongoing board room difficulties.
He'll probably try to change the name to Suber to spite the other investors.
Two unnamed women allegedly raped by Uber drivers sued the transit app biz today for sexual assault and unlawful business practices. The complaint, filed in a US district court in San Francisco, California, today seeks damages, stricter screening for drivers, insurance coverage for riders, and disclosure of the number of …
Would it be wise of me to sign on to twitter and start a #MeTool campaign and send a free dick pic to the first 20,000 retweets before midnight?
I once mentionned to my line boss, a woman, that i had been (by todays rules) subject to sexual harassment via e-mail.
She just f*****g laughed.
Perhaps i should have waited a week?
Here's a thought ladies ( and others) :
Start a #AvoidUber_MeToo" campaign and stop using them? If only for a week, a month, until changes are made?
If we could make a suitable example of these 'disruptive' stoats - or whatever vermin is weaselly in nature but with extra helpings of vicious.. - maybe they wouldnt appear so attractive to investors.
Laws need to be in place to protect users - and actually be enforced.
Users need to be aware of these issues - attacks, lack of insurance, failure of screening, and decide if its really worth calling a Uber.
Investors and advertisers need to be aware of the damage associating with Uber is doing to their own reputation.
This has the potential to become very difficult to enforce...... especially if the UBER driver is deemed to be self employed (but not in the UK as they have lost their case against HRMC who wants the NI Tax contributions)
Yes they do. Taxi firms are required to get Police Background checks of Drivers. Uber doesnt do this, because they Claim a) they're not a taxi firm, and b) they dont employ the Drivers (they're freelancers apparently). That's part of the reason why Uber can be cheaper than the competition, it costs Money to do things like Background checks which Uber are weaseling their way out of. London has at least started to reign this in by removing Uber's licence and part of the reasoning was that they were breaking the law by not doing These Background checks...
So anything that forces Über do to these things that are required of everyone else is a good thing, even if it ends up costing you a little bit more in your taxi (sorry Uber) fare...
No they don't!
And this is for all that down voted my post about licencing and the police
It is the licencing authority that do all the checks. All the company has to do is ensure they have a valid licence though driving a taxi without plates will get you arrested anyway,
It is the polices job to deal with criminal offences. The company must then suspend the driver until the case has been proven or unproven however I'm sure the licence is revoked in such cases anyway.
Uber are shits but that doesn't mean they are responsible for eveything.
That's is just not true, at least not in Massachusetts in the USA. First of all, the idea that Uber doesn't do a background check on drivers is false. They do and I believe that occurs throughout the US. However, Uber uses a private firm that does not have access to all records on individuals, especially those over 7 years old.
The Massachusetts legislature, in late 2016, passed a law requiring all Uber drivers pass a state-administered background check identical to those for taxi drivers. The law went into effect in January of 2017 and as a result, over 8,000 drivers (Lyft included) who failed the more intensive check were dropped.
Agreeing to a waiver allowing a background check is part of the Uber signup process, in any case. I sincerely doubt that was any different in the UK.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019