Thread

1. calibas · 1790002537 · focus · HN ↗

   > Stone rejected Uber's argument that it is "merely a technology company" connecting riders with drivers, finding that Uber provides transportation services to the public through its app, sets prices and controls key aspects of the rider experience.

   > The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that Proposition 22 -- a California ballot measure approved by voters in 2020 that allows companies to classify app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees -- prevented the company from being held liable for Tran's conduct.

   The dream of every major tech company, making ridiculous profits while taking zero legal responsibility for what you create...

   1. xhkkffbf · 1790004516 · focus · HN ↗

      The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? That's what the arbitrators concluded.

      But the reality is that this is a victory for the driverless cars (Waymo, Tesla, etc.). If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.

      1. joshstrange · 1790006475 · focus · HN ↗

         > The bad guy here is the driver.

         We can agree that the driver made bad choices but I feel like you are skimming over the 2 women's responsibility in this situation. Intoxicated to the point of vomiting, arguing over the cleaning fee, and wandering away from the car while parked, yes illegally, on the freeway.

         Not sure what your experiences have been with drunk people but I can tell you that dealing with 1 drunk person can be hard to control, let alone 2.

         I'd be interested to hear where other people draw the line on the driver's culpability. If he left them at a gas station and one of them was still hit and killed by a car would he still be at fault? In my mind Uber/Lyft provide transportation, they aren't babysitters, there has to be a limit to their responsibility. Perhaps the driver was more at fault here but this outcome (how the driver reacted) is not in the slightest bit surprising to me given everything I know about Uber and how it treats drivers and passengers.

         1. jester997 · 1790007530 · focus · HN ↗

            If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers.

            So in my mind the driver was at fault criminal negligence, but when the driver can be any untrained pleb with a phone, the company assumes the risk and should be held liable.

            1. AnthonyMouse · 1790011008 · focus · HN ↗

               > If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers.

               What if that's what you want?

               Why should we be pressuring corporate middlemen to be regulators and law enforcement? They're not only bad at it and in no position to do it well, their attempts do more harm than good.

               How is a corporation supposed to "vet" drivers? The only plausible tools they have are things like background checks. So now you have someone who is only trying to put food on the table getting excluded from some of the only work it's easy to get quickly because they have an unrelated drug conviction from when they were 19 years old. Meanwhile the same thing happens in the case in question because that driver can pass the background check.

               Whereas if you put the liability on the driver, i.e. the person who is actually there and making the decision, then losing their fancy new car and maybe going to jail provides the right incentive to not dump people in a dangerous place, to the person who is actually choosing to do it.

               1. jester997 · 1790025847 · focus · HN ↗

                  “…excluded from some of the only work it's easy to get quickly…”

                  The platform enables anyone to interact with clients having minimal training except a drivers license. They are operating as agents of the corporation just classified as adjunct “gig workers.” Read: a loop hole to abdicate responsibility and blame the workers while the company makes money on them with minimal overhead.

                  Imagine an app where anyone could be an underpaid nurse, and said nurse poisons a patient with fentanyl. Who’s to blame then? The company for lack of oversight or the nurse? Or both?

                  1. AnthonyMouse · 1790064237 · focus · HN ↗

                     > The platform enables anyone to interact with clients having minimal training except a drivers license.

                     Wait until you hear about the companies operating a telephone network that lets anyone call or text each other.

                     > They are operating as agents of the corporation

                     So if the local library has a jobs board and you post a listing there, are you now an agent of the library and they should be responsible for everything you do?

                     What about the Post Office or FedEx? Should you be able to sue them if someone ships you defective goods?

                     > Imagine an app where anyone could be an underpaid nurse, and said nurse poisons a patient with fentanyl. Who’s to blame then?

                     Obviously the nurse. Why should it be someone other than the person who did it?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.