5 ms·

X-posting my comment from the other post because I think it's worth discussing: > Uber denied the benefits claim through its insurance carrier. That seems lik

X-posting my comment from the other post because I think it's worth discussing: > Uber denied the benefits claim through its insurance carrier. That seems like an extremely terrible move, even if Uber might be technically correct. Deciding to do that makes them look awful, and I think that's what matters most, given everything else contributing to their public image right now. It could have been a great opportunity to look magnanimous.

65543543 10y ago
They could've met halfway...but no, they had to do this. Despicable.
danso 10y ago
I wonder if accepting such a claim also meant accepting that Thomas had faced an "extraordinary employment condition". That is, did the benefits claim come with an accusation that Uber was at fault? If so, then it's not just a consideration of "common decency", but legal liability. Note: IANAL and didn't even know what California law was in regards to insurance claims and suicide. Genuinely curious as to the technicalities of the law, and in this case specifically.
- elvinyung 10y ago
  Good point! IANAL also, but I read a bit about this and got the following[1]: > Ultimately, the WCAB emphasized that it was the “work condition that must be uncommon, unusual, or totally unexpected” in order to qualify as an extraordinary employment condition So, I wonder if by rejecting the claim, Uber is claiming that whatever work conditions Thomas was facing is normal. I wonder if the converse is also true, that accepting the claim also means Uber claims that his work conditions were actually unusual. [1] http://pknwlaw.com/Newsletters/2015/Q1/2-LC3208.html http://pknwlaw.com/Newsletters/2015/Q1/2-LC3208.html
  - sjg007 10y ago
    I imagine this would. E evaluated by a judge and or a reasonable standard clause. We don't tolerate domestic abuse in the home so maybe those concepts extend to the workplace.
objclxt 10y ago
Does anyone know if Uber self-insures its various plans (like most billion dollar companies), or uses regular insurance? That is, would Uber itself be liable for paying out?
WaxProlix 10y ago
> Uber denied the benefits claim through its insurance carrier. > Deciding to do that makes them look awful, and I think that's what matters most Yeah a dude was driven to kill himself and left his family behind and some bad optics are what matter most, please tell me I'm misreading this somehow?
- elvinyung 10y ago
  Ok, maybe not "most". But I hope you get my point -- even at the most pragmatic, even considering that technically Uber might be right because Thomas only worked less than six months, it seems like a terrible PR move to deny the benefits claim.
- Applejinx 10y ago
  You could say matters most 'to Uber', without it being as shocking a statement since they are famously a big corporation with a loose connection to ethics and human morals. If anything, they've got an inverse connection and need to continually signal that they are fierce and mean, and won't make any concessions to anybody or anything.

65543543 10y ago

They could've met halfway...but no, they had to do this. Despicable.

danso 10y ago

I wonder if accepting such a claim also meant accepting that Thomas had faced an "extraordinary employment condition". That is, did the benefits claim come with an accusation that Uber was at fault? If so, then it's not just a consideration of "common decency", but legal liability. Note: IANAL and didn't even know what California law was in regards to insurance claims and suicide. Genuinely curious as to the technicalities of the law, and in this case specifically.

elvinyung 10y ago
Good point! IANAL also, but I read a bit about this and got the following[1]: > Ultimately, the WCAB emphasized that it was the “work condition that must be uncommon, unusual, or totally unexpected” in order to qualify as an extraordinary employment condition So, I wonder if by rejecting the claim, Uber is claiming that whatever work conditions Thomas was facing is normal. I wonder if the converse is also true, that accepting the claim also means Uber claims that his work conditions were actually unusual. [1] http://pknwlaw.com/Newsletters/2015/Q1/2-LC3208.html http://pknwlaw.com/Newsletters/2015/Q1/2-LC3208.html
- sjg007 10y ago
  I imagine this would. E evaluated by a judge and or a reasonable standard clause. We don't tolerate domestic abuse in the home so maybe those concepts extend to the workplace.

objclxt 10y ago

Does anyone know if Uber self-insures its various plans (like most billion dollar companies), or uses regular insurance? That is, would Uber itself be liable for paying out?

WaxProlix 10y ago

> Uber denied the benefits claim through its insurance carrier. > Deciding to do that makes them look awful, and I think that's what matters most Yeah a dude was driven to kill himself and left his family behind and some bad optics are what matter most, please tell me I'm misreading this somehow?

elvinyung 10y ago
Ok, maybe not "most". But I hope you get my point -- even at the most pragmatic, even considering that technically Uber might be right because Thomas only worked less than six months, it seems like a terrible PR move to deny the benefits claim.
Applejinx 10y ago
You could say matters most 'to Uber', without it being as shocking a statement since they are famously a big corporation with a loose connection to ethics and human morals. If anything, they've got an inverse connection and need to continually signal that they are fierce and mean, and won't make any concessions to anybody or anything.