5 ms·

> They were negligent in their stated job role This is not how labor laws work. The role description needs to be fair. A employer cannot just shift all the bla

> They were negligent in their stated job role This is not how labor laws work. The role description needs to be fair. A employer cannot just shift all the blame to the employee. The employer needs to take the needed actions and provide the needed equipment and procedures so the employee can do her task. But, let's see what the result of the trial is. I am not an expert and the trial will clarify this point.

_AzMoo 6y ago
I'm not saying the company should be able to shift the blame to the employee, I'm saying they're both at fault. Labour Law in Australia does in fact recognise this and individuals can be held criminally liable for negligence on the job. I understand that this happened in the United States, but my intention is not to predict the outcome of the case, but to make a statement about who should be held liable in a just system.
woadwarrior01 6y ago
Indeed, the employers are very much liable for negligence by their employees and its scope is much wider than labour laws. This is called Vicarious liability[1] in common law. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
- pc86 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has no liability here, only that the driver does have liability.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    Well to be fair, the the prosecutors office is arguing that. "Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk decided in March 2019 that Uber itself had not committed a crime in Herzberg's death."
    - pc86 6y ago
      I stand corrected, thank you
lhorie 6y ago
The thing is that there are plenty of precedents for jobs that require staying alert behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle without supervision (e.g. taxi, bus, truck drivers). Whether the vehicle is equipped with safety/convenience technology is beside the point.
- user5994461 6y ago
  The taxi/bus isn't given a tablet with instructions to watch the tablet (monitoring the self driving), only to be accused later of not watching the road.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    Are you saying this was the case here? Are you you familiar with the protocols used at the time or are you speculating? I see e.g. cruise and waymo SDVs around SF with only one person on board. What of those? My very layperson protocol would be "watch the road while the car is in motion, only use tablet when car is safely parked". My understanding is that SDVs store all the data it collects, so I see no reason to require operating a tablet while the vehicle is in motion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    - user5994461 6y ago
      Previous articles mentioned that the driver has some tablet device(s) to watch, to monitor what's happening with the AI. The last PR piece seems to omit that. Next piece maybe we will find out the driver was watching hulu on their phone on their lap... while reclassifying objects on the AI tablet also on their lap.
      - lhorie 6y ago
        Ok, but what I'm curious is whether the monitoring/classifying/whatever was done in real time with the vehicle in motion, or after the fact. Presumably one would be able to do a far better job at whatever they were doing when they are able to play back/slow down/pause different data channels from a trip at will? Because if the status quo is to poke at tablets in moving vehicles, how is anyone ok w/ cruise/waymo/whatever cars driving around SF?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is not how labor laws work Labor laws are irrelevant. They were grossly negligent in operating a vehicle, which is the domain of criminal, not labor, law. Principal-agent aspects of criminal law may also provide liability for the employer, though apparently they haven't been charged. Which, to the extent they could be, is unfortunate because it is only employer liability, civil and/or criminal, that is likely to substantively effect the likelihood of recurrence, because while the individual is absolutely culpable, it's not the kind of behavior where individual criminal liability is likely to be an effective deterrent without better employer supervision, which won't happen unless she employer has a reason to pay for that cost.

_AzMoo 6y ago

I'm not saying the company should be able to shift the blame to the employee, I'm saying they're both at fault. Labour Law in Australia does in fact recognise this and individuals can be held criminally liable for negligence on the job. I understand that this happened in the United States, but my intention is not to predict the outcome of the case, but to make a statement about who should be held liable in a just system.

woadwarrior01 6y ago

Indeed, the employers are very much liable for negligence by their employees and its scope is much wider than labour laws. This is called Vicarious liability[1] in common law. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

pc86 6y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that Uber has no liability here, only that the driver does have liability.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  Well to be fair, the the prosecutors office is arguing that. "Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk decided in March 2019 that Uber itself had not committed a crime in Herzberg's death."
  - pc86 6y ago
    I stand corrected, thank you

lhorie 6y ago

The thing is that there are plenty of precedents for jobs that require staying alert behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle without supervision (e.g. taxi, bus, truck drivers). Whether the vehicle is equipped with safety/convenience technology is beside the point.

user5994461 6y ago
The taxi/bus isn't given a tablet with instructions to watch the tablet (monitoring the self driving), only to be accused later of not watching the road.
- lhorie 6y ago
  Are you saying this was the case here? Are you you familiar with the protocols used at the time or are you speculating? I see e.g. cruise and waymo SDVs around SF with only one person on board. What of those? My very layperson protocol would be "watch the road while the car is in motion, only use tablet when car is safely parked". My understanding is that SDVs store all the data it collects, so I see no reason to require operating a tablet while the vehicle is in motion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    Previous articles mentioned that the driver has some tablet device(s) to watch, to monitor what's happening with the AI. The last PR piece seems to omit that. Next piece maybe we will find out the driver was watching hulu on their phone on their lap... while reclassifying objects on the AI tablet also on their lap.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Ok, but what I'm curious is whether the monitoring/classifying/whatever was done in real time with the vehicle in motion, or after the fact. Presumably one would be able to do a far better job at whatever they were doing when they are able to play back/slow down/pause different data channels from a trip at will? Because if the status quo is to poke at tablets in moving vehicles, how is anyone ok w/ cruise/waymo/whatever cars driving around SF?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> This is not how labor laws work Labor laws are irrelevant. They were grossly negligent in operating a vehicle, which is the domain of criminal, not labor, law. Principal-agent aspects of criminal law may also provide liability for the employer, though apparently they haven't been charged. Which, to the extent they could be, is unfortunate because it is only employer liability, civil and/or criminal, that is likely to substantively effect the likelihood of recurrence, because while the individual is absolutely culpable, it's not the kind of behavior where individual criminal liability is likely to be an effective deterrent without better employer supervision, which won't happen unless she employer has a reason to pay for that cost.