Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses Software United States

Uber Officially Bans Drivers From Carrying Firearms, But Company's Business Model Prevents Enforcement (theatlantic.com) 206

A reader shares a report from The Atlantic, written by Sidney Fussell: Uber has banned guns in cars, for both drivers and passengers, since 2015. But over email and Facebook Messenger, four current and four former drivers told me they carry firearms on the job. In explaining why, they each cited the same self-determinalist rhetoric Uber has slapped on subway ads to entice drivers and used in hearings to justify the business model: Drivers maintain good ratings, own their own cars, set their own hours, act as their own bosses, and follow local laws. But ultimately, they work for themselves, and Uber is, to use a Silicon Valley term of art, just a platform.

In 2017, Jose Mejia, a Miami driver, filed a federal class-action suit against Uber to reverse its firearm ban. Florida's 2008 "bring your gun to work" law empowers employees to store legal firearms in personal lockers or their own cars. With Uber, of course, the car is the workplace. Mejia claimed that Uber policy violated Florida law and, citing an incident in which an Uber driver with a concealed-carry license shot and disarmed a Chicago gunman, argued that arming Uber drivers could save lives. But Mejia couldn't prove that Uber violated his rights: He hadn't been fired or threatened with suspension. The company had announced a ban, yes, but never materially stopped him from carrying a firearm. The Florida court dismissed the suit (PDF) without prejudice in 2018. Here we have a uniquely American absurdity: Drivers can carry guns to work, to a bar, to a supermarket, but not in their own cars while using the app to transport passengers. Like Mejia, they exist in this space between name and effect, adherent to a ban with little practical enforcement.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Officially Bans Drivers From Carrying Firearms, But Company's Business Model Prevents Enforcement

Comments Filter:
  • In the interests of public health & safety, how could it be illegal to ban guns from the workplace?

    I bet it makes sacking a disgruntled employee a rather terse & volatile situation. Do they get the cops to come in when they do it?

    • Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. It was explicitly intended to keep military weapons in civilian hands, not to allow employers to force people to leave them at home.

      • Our office policy requires concealed carry. Open carry just creates office drama. Out of sight, out of mind.

      • It was explicitly intended to keep military weapons in civilian hands, not to allow employers to force people to leave them at home.

        Well that's a new one. Not even the most creative of "originalists" argue that the Second Amendment has anything to do with employment.

        Apart from soldiers and farmers (i.e. where it was needed for work), did any of the framers of the Bill of Rights ever take a gun to work?

        • Apart from soldiers and farmers (i.e. where it was needed for work), did any of the framers of the Bill of Rights ever take a gun to work?

          No, they just defined the militia to be all able bodied males and in various states required militia members (ie all able bodied males) to have a firearm. By the way, the former is still true. US Code states that all military aged able bodied male citizen are members of the federal militia. It then goes on to say that the federal militia has two parts. The organized, which is the National Guard, and the unorganized, which is everyone not in the National Guard.
          https://uscode.house.gov/view.... [house.gov]

        • It was explicitly intended to keep military weapons in civilian hands, not to allow employers to force people to leave them at home.

          Well that's a new one. Not even the most creative of "originalists" argue that the Second Amendment has anything to do with employment.

          Apart from soldiers and farmers (i.e. where it was needed for work), did any of the framers of the Bill of Rights ever take a gun to work?

          Yes.

      • Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. It was explicitly intended to keep military weapons in civilian hands, not to allow employers to force people to leave them at home.

        Actually, it limits government’s ability act, and does not give government the right to dictate how one limits firearm access to their property. Your second amendments rights end at my property line, and I get to dictate who and what can be carried. Any law forcing someone to allow carrying on private property is unconstitutional.

        as a side note, many gun shops where I live do not allow you to carry while shopping. I guess armed customers makes the armed clerks feel unsafe.

      • . It was explicitly intended to keep military weapons in civilian hands

        THIS!!!

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      When a disgruntled employee is sacked and they resort to using a gun to seek revenge, no company policies or laws are going to stop them. The only place where I've ever seen effective control of this situation is working for an outfit that had armed security manning the gates. With orders to shoot to kill unauthorized persons seeking to gain entry.

      Do they get the cops to come in when they do it?

      And escort the ex-employee to the gate? Yes, sometimes. But unless cops are assigned to the site for a long term, the disgruntled employee just comes back later.

    • In the interests of public health & safety, how could it be illegal to ban guns from the workplace?

      I'm fine with a ban on weapons in the workplace, so long as there is strict enforcement.

      You can have a no weapons policy at your workplace for the sake of safety, just like we do on commercial airplanes. If this is going to mean anything then the enforcement of the policy needs to be done just like it is done at an airport. That means people that enter will have to go through a metal detector and a pat down. Otherwise this is just a suggestion, which people would be free to ignore.

      I bet it makes sacking a disgruntled employee a rather terse & volatile situation. Do they get the cops to come in when they do it?

      Show me a case of a dis

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      No because if your boss is also armed the likelihood of you pulling a gun on him approaches zero.
    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday January 31, 2020 @11:10PM (#59677704)

      I bet it makes sacking a disgruntled employee a rather terse & volatile situation.

      The risk is grossly exaggerated by the media, which loves to sensationalize any mass homicide event, and in particular shootings.

      • There are about 450 workplace homicides each year [bls.gov]
      • Next graph down, about 17% of those homicides are worker on worker. Or about 76 per year.
      • 85% of workplace homicides are shootings, so guns account for only 65 of them.

      A lot of those homicides have nothing to do with being fired. People get mad at each other and kill each other all the time. But let's pretend all of them are in response to being fired.

      So you're actually about 77x more likely to be killed in the course of your normal work, than due to a worker being fired (assuming all worker on worker homicides are due to being fired).

      As another example of how the media mischaracterizes risk, an average of about 4 students are killed per year in random school shootings [nytimes.com] (202 deaths in 49 years). But about 40 students die each year due to complications from pregnancy [cdc.gov] (p. 3). In other words, teen pregnancy kills about 10x as many students as school shootings. When's the last time you saw a news report about the dangers of teen pregnancy, and how it's a scourge that must be ended?

      • As another example of how the media mischaracterizes risk, an average of about 4 students are killed per year in random school shootings [nytimes.com] (202 deaths in 49 years).

        I agree with the gist of your post, but I would be interested to see what the breakdown is per year over those 49 years. 49 years is a long time and I don't know whether the overall trend is down or up.

  • Law of the land > corporate policy.
    • the decades of being shit on by mega corps wasn't a clue?

      Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is folks thinking that they can overthrow a gov't with guns. You'll run out of food and bullets. That'll leave you doing terrorism like those chaps in Afghanistan, mostly with the support of some foreign gov't that wants to cause trouble. The ruling class will still get all the good stuff and you'll be living off dry meat in a cave somewhere occasionally being killed by a drone or crushed by a bunker buster.

      I gu
      • Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is folks thinking that they can overthrow a gov't with guns.

        Logic fails you: if firearms weren't serving as a deterrent to gov't behavior, the gov't wouldn't be so hell-bent to disarm us.

        Your knowledge of history might well be impressive; your understanding of it is complete shit.

    • Law of the land > corporate policy.

      I am NOT a lawyer. I merely had one business law class in college, assume my professor lied and that I failed the class as well. Don't take my word or anyones else's, look this stuff up for yourself. Not on some dipshit's website (pro or anti) but on your state legislature's website or congress' website. That said ...

      The law of the land also includes the recognition of contract law. You can give up personal rights and liberties in a contract with an employer. It is legal for an employment contract to say

    • Modern corporate policy is surely to purchase the law of the land.

  • "With Uber, of course, the car is the workplace." Uber i guess claims that car is a workplace and they can put these rules on people then by that backwards logic UNLESS Uber owns the car. If you have a job for a company that you work from home and do all your work via online portal. That company could claim your house being the "workplace" they can set rules on your house like no alcohol at the workplace. Which would be completely insane since its not their property.
  • Law enforcement is minutes away.

    Every citizen should have the right to arm themselves when they are in their own vehicle. The 2nd amendment is the right to keep and /bear/ arms. That means to have them on your person.

    The second amendment applies nationwide and supersedes all state and federal laws. It's only a matter of time until constitutional right to carry nationwide is recognized as the inherent right that it is. Nobody tries to claim that the other amendments are different based upon where you live, i

    • by rossz ( 67331 )

      There have been attempts to selectively apply the 1st Amendment's religious protections. "We're a christian state." The Supreme Court has very quickly slapped that shit down. I agree, eventually there will be a nationwide CCW law and my county can then kiss my ass. Where I live, you can only get a CCW if you have made large political campaign contributions to the right people.

    • The second amendment applies nationwide and supersedes all state and federal laws. It's only a matter of time until constitutional right to carry nationwide is recognized as the inherent right that it is.

      Or SCOTUS revisits what is meant by well regulated; a jurist who wants to look at the framers intent need only look at how firearms were regulated in terms of ability to carry, store ammunition, etc. post independence.

  • ... self-defense vs a job.

    Uber is not protected by penal code in any state. Passengers and drivers can carry, but they both agree to a possible ban if they do so.

    The same predicament occurs for those who are licensed to carry and do so in a "gun-free" zone.

      There will be a penalty if the po-po find out, but another outcome is to die in a place where the bad nasties expect everyone to be defenseless.

    You takes yer chances.

  • Tell me again how Uber's employee policy stands against established law that protects employees and their right to carry firearms in their vehicles, and keep them there, to any employer.

    Hell, tell me again how Uber's employee policy applies to the contractors they claim they hire.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...