Uber’s
growth has led many new questions to arise about the nature of a business and
the degree of liability that the business has, and the definition of public
transportation. These questions have lead the company to reshape its
relationship with its drivers, with its passengers and with society in general.
Uber has faced backlash on several fronts, including taxi cab drivers and its
own drivers. This backlash is understandable. Barring the prominent scandal that
ousted the former CEO, Uber’s image has been of a company that doesn’t want to
play by the rules in its drive to make as much profit as possible.
However,
this is all changing. According to the Austin American-Statesman, Uber began a
program called “180 Days of Change” to start listening to the needs and desires
or drivers. These changes include allowing passengers to tip drivers,
increasing the cost of particular trips and updating the driver rating system. These
changes have been based off of feedback given by drivers and are an attempt to
increase the retention rate, so drivers will continue working for Uber for longer
periods of time.
In other parts of
the world, however, increasing the benefits that the company must afford to its
drivers has been established legislatively. The UK, for example recently passed
a law stating that Uber drivers are not contractors or freelancers, as the
company has maintained, but workers, who must be given basic worker rights such
as minimum wage and sick pay. This ruling, which were reported by The Institute
of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), coupled with the changes
that the company is making to help its drivers feel more appreciated, indicate
that the company is moving toward having a transportation business. The article
by ICEAW states that the European Appeals Tribunal who was hearing Uber’s testimony,
found that due to words used in Uber’s contracts, the amount of control that
Uber held over its drivers and the reality of what happened on the ground
verses what was stated in paperwork, among several other reasons, made Uber a
transportation company.
Though this ruling
may be limited to the European Union, it sets a precedence for policies in the
US regarding Uber. And regardless of whether Uber can be labeled a
transportation company, it still can be held to laws specifically designed for
common motor carriers. Cogburn Law states on their blog that “common motor
carriers are any person or operator that advertises to the public that he or
she is willing to transport passengers or property by vehicle to various
locations.” Uber has been remarkably successful at wriggling itself out of
following these laws because it pushes the boundaries established for traditional
companies. However, under the rules for common motor carriers and
transportation companies in the EU, Uber must follow the same laws that govern
any other type of consumer passenger vehicle.
These laws that
are required of taxi companies are designed to protect all parties that may be
involved in Uber’s business practices. This includes passengers—for whom there
are safety requirements for the car and the driver—or the drivers—but also investors
in the case of an accident which causes the driver to go bankrupt. These
regulations are important in keeping all who are involved safe and protected in
case catastrophe occurs and they keep businesses flourishing and it is because of
the need for these regulations that Uber should be held to abide by them.
The first of these
rules concern insurance. Companies are required to have insurance for all of
their cars so that in the event that an accident occurs, the company cannot go bankrupt
and be unable to pay their share of the liability. Required insurance thus
protects passengers, who would not receive their payment if they were to be injured
and the driver were at fault, it also protects the investors who may have to
bear the brunt of the loss should Uber go bankrupt.
The second set of
rules concerns consumer safety. All common motor carriers are required to have
basic security measures, such as security cameras, but Uber in the US is exempt
from these rules since its drivers are not considered common motor carriers. Furthermore,
drivers of taxis are required to undergo through background checks before they
can take any passengers. This includes charges of felonies, sexual misconduct,
and charges of DUI or negligent driving. Changes are taking place across the US
as well, though these changes are happening state by state and in varying degrees
of leniency toward ride sharing companies and taxi companies. 34 states have
already implemented laws that require varying degrees of background checks and fingerprinting
to control ride sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft but the companies are
gearing up to fight against these and thus these laws may change. Safety of
passengers has been an issue for Uber already, with crimes happening in places
such as Lebanon and India when drivers were not properly vetted. Uber Lyft have
claimed that background checks do not improve such safety concerns, but studies
have yet to confirm such claims.
With the EU having
set a precedence that Uber and other ride sharing companies that use similar
operating structures as being transportation companies, it is clear that Uber
and Lyft need to have an increase in regulations to match the regulations
already required of taxis and other common motor carriers. Uber and Lyft must
follow these regulations to protect the rights of not only the consumers, but
also of the drivers whom they employ. Drivers have already started raising
their voices indicating they demand to be treated with the respect that any
other company would give to its employees. It’s time that consumers demand the
same by demanding that Uber and Lyft be required to follow the laws of common
motor carriers. To not do so would be to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of
companies.
Links Used:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/uber-and-lyft-are-getting-pushback-from-municipalities-all-over-the-us.html
Links Used:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/uber-and-lyft-are-getting-pushback-from-municipalities-all-over-the-us.html
https://cogburnlaw.com/blog/overview-taxicab-liability/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/uber-india-woman-rape-lawsuit
https://www.ft.com/content/be935fdc-e4df-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da
https://www.512tech.com/technology/uber-made-policy-changes-for-drivers-did-they-actually-help/1rXsundDb6ZRlAajAh2BJM/
No comments:
Post a Comment