3 ms·
So, the argument (as the article relays it) is that a driver is only working for/with Uber when a fare is in their vehicle--therefore, the death of the child ha
by angersock 13y ago
So, the argument (as the article relays it) is that a driver is only working for/with Uber when a fare is in their vehicle--therefore, the death of the child having happened when no fare was yet in the vehicle is not the fault of an Uber contractor/employee and by extension Uber.
This seems like a rather delicate interpretation of how people perceive group belonging and responsibility.
It also seems incredibly scummy.
- hueving 13y agoWhere do you draw the line though. How long does the driver have to have waited since the last fare before he/she is no longer 'on-shift'?
- angersock 13y agoSo, that's interesting, right? It's similar to the issue with BYOD at work--if an employee sends inappropriate pictures to a competitor using their own phone while also at an office, to what extent is the company reasonable in being upset, and to what extent is it the company vs the employee being responsible? The device being a car or minivan instead of a phone only serves to present a more extreme example. One of the most unfortunate trends of the 21st century so far is the increasing integration of work and off-hours life, and the similarly increasing inability to acknowledge the effects of this by companies.
- femto 13y agoThe lawsuit suggests the test should be whether the driver is logged into Uber's application. This would seem like quite a good test, in that it is measurable to an exact time, and presumably indicates that the driver is available for fares, meaning they are "on-shift".