Sarge's videos

Loading...

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Uber update

As of January 17, 2016 Uber's support person Victoria has been helpful. However just like drivers who have interviewed with us, it is apparent that Uber just don't give a shit except themselves.

In a unrelated issue several drivers are planing to organize a strike and start a union. Driver's are up set that Uber doesn't listen to who they call a partner. We can see why as we don't work for Uber and we are treated the same way.

Facts we have found out and Uber refuses to acknowledge.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel gets kick backs from his brother who is a supporter of Uber.

Uber drivers filed a federal class action lawsuit against Uber for not allowing tipping and unfair wages.

Uber lost Seattle, Washington to Drivers forming a union.

Uber allows 3rd party riders not even the person who gets in your car that hailed you then they destroy your vehicle and Uber looks the other way

Uber's 3rd party rider gives 1 to 3 stars on purpose

Uber allows passengers to use the platform with infants and doesn't allow them to bring a car seat and allows the passenger to give you a bad comment because they failed to comply with state laws.

Uber violates the 2nd Amendment

Uber in general has a poor rating with its drivers

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Uber update :

We sent the following to Uber's media affairs.

Wondering why Uber is giving a driver the run around regarding a crash on January 1, 2016. Uber has a legal policy in play and doesn't uphold it. We also spoke to other drivers who have informed us they can't talk about settlements because of some confidential agreement.
Are you aware this violates the 1st Amendment as well as the whistle blowers act as well as violates a federal mandate to transparency.

What is Uber gaining by shutting up their drivers. Are you not in enough hot water. If we asked the City of Chicago's mayor where his brother is a financial backer of Uber with all the scrutiny going on I am sure he would love for us to investigate weather or not he to is getting kick backs.

Your no guns policy in these cars that Uber doesn't own violates the 2nd Amendment and the NRA is looking in to the company as it can't do that. If you don't believe me see Holt V. Wal-Mart Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that employees have the right to protect them selves as much as the customer.

So we are asking why is Uber not being responsible to pay for damages caused by the passenger?

Why is Uber making drivers sign confidentially agreements before checks are issued?

Why is Uber violating constitutional rights?

Is Uber giving kick backs to Rahm Emanuel and his brother?

Is Uber aware that Seattle formed a union and other drivers may follow too?

Does Uber know that 60% of its passengers have attacked their drivers and caused damage and Uber has not settled or has and now those drivers can't talk to us?

Did you know that when one of your drivers vehicles was damaged that another driver was attacked and needed medical attention?

Did Uber know that 20% of their passengers hail an Uber for a boyfriend or relative?

Did Uber know that 5% of your passengers hail an Uber with a small child and get in without a child safety seat which the driver and passenger both violate state seat belt laws?

Before contacting you we hailed an Uber and went on a ride with him today 1-13-16. 2 of his fares was for a female and a male got in to the car. We also noticed that your maps application puts drop offs and pick ups in the alley. We also witnessed the driver inform athe passengers who were not the person say they were and since your drivers aren't police they can not legally ask for ID.

We also went on a lyft with a driver and I must say the driver sees the person's face along with contact information once hailed. We didn't see that with Uber.

Your driver refused the passenger and even called police. It took Chicago police 45 minutes to respond and the guy left on his own as we watched him get in to another Uber who took him.

So why is Uber not enforcing the policy with it's passengers?

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Waiting for Uber

We sent out a serious of questions to Uber Support, Uber Support Chicago, and Ben from Uber. We are waiting for those questions to be answered.

We launched the investigation because of a reader by the name Philip De Luca.  He raised questions as to why Uber won't pay the $1,000.00 deductible that their passenger caused to his vehicle. They only offered him $750.00 leaving him to cover the rest. This may go to court if Uber refuses to answer or pay the deductible.

We also found out and are reaching out to Rahm Emanuel as he or a family member is a Uber backer which means Uber might be giving the City of Chicago kick backs and could be why riders are losing 20% of their fares.

Check back as this is on going.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Uber is in 3 lawsuits at the start of 2016

Uber is in one lawsuit after another.
Below marked UBER DRIVERS is a class action that you may be able to include your name and get a settlement from.

Uber is also in a lawsuit in Philadelphia. The lawsuit argues Uber has misclassified the Uber Black drivers as independent contractors rather than actual employees in order to avoid paying them wages, unemployment taxes, social security, workers' compensation premiums, disability taxes and other mandatory benefits

January 1,2016 a driver dropped his passenger off. When the driver heard crunch and saw his left rear door pinned back. Uber was notified a incident report was filled out the insurance is willing to cover the damage but Uber refuses to pay for the deductible.

If you read their policy.

3. YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES

USER ACCOUNTS.
In order to use most aspects of the Services, you must register for and maintain an active personal user Services account ("Account"). You must be at least 18 years of age, or the age of legal majority in your jurisdiction (if different than 18), to obtain an Account. Account registration requires you to submit to Uber certain personal information, such as your name, address, mobile phone number and age, as well as at least one valid payment method (either a credit card or accepted payment partner). You agree to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date information in your Account. Your failure to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date Account information, including having an invalid or expired payment method on file, may result in your inability to access and use the Services or Uber's termination of this Agreement with you. You are responsible for all activity that occurs under your Account, and you agree to maintain the security and secrecy of your Account username and password at all times. Unless otherwise permitted by Uber in writing, you may only possess one Account.
USER REQUIREMENTS AND CONDUCT.
The Service is not available for use by persons under the age of 18. You may not authorize third parties to use your Account, and you may not allow persons under the age of 18 to receive transportation or logistics services from Third Party Providers unless they are accompanied by you. You may not assign or otherwise transfer your Account to any other person or entity. You agree to comply with all applicable laws when using the Services, and you may only use the Services for lawful purposes (e.g., no transport of unlawful or hazardous materials). You will not in your use of the Services cause nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, or property damage, whether to the Third Party Provider or any other party. In certain instances you may be asked to provide proof of identity to access or use the Services, and you agree that you may be denied access to or use of the Services if you refuse to provide proof of identity.

So if the passenger is responsible for the damage then why isn't UBER covering the $1,000.00 deductible.

UBER DRIVERS
Read here about an important lawsuit brought by Uber drivers to recover the tips they should have received and reimbursement for expenses
uber taxi & limo drivers
Uber drivers have filed a class action lawsuit claiming they have been misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance. The lawsuit also challenges Uber’s practice of telling passengers that the gratuity is included and not to tip the drivers, even though you are not getting a tip!!

THIS CASE HAS NOW BEEN SET FOR TRIAL IN JUNE 2016!

We won a major victory on March 11, 2015, when the judge overseeing the case, Judge Edward M. Chen, of the federal district court in San Francisco, denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment!  In his decision, the judge agreed with many of our arguments about why Uber drivers may be properly classified as employees.  Under the court’s order, the case will go to trial before a jury.  See the news stories below for reports on the ruling.

We won another important victory on December 9, 2015, when the court issued its final order certifying the case as a class action.  Under this decision, the case will now include all drivers who have contracted with Uber directly and in their own name (not through intermediate companies) in California since 2009. 

This decision was a major victory because, in an earlier class certification order, the court had excluded from the case all drivers who have driven for Uber since June 2014 (unless they had opted out of Uber’s arbitration clause).  The court has now ruled that Uber’s arbitration clause is unenforceable, and thus it cannot be used to keep drivers out of this case.

Uber is attempting to appeal this ruling striking the arbitration clause.  In the event that drivers will need to file individual arbitrations, we are keeping a list of drivers who are interested in bringing claims individually.  If you want to be on our list, please contact us for a form.  Nearly two thousand Uber drivers from around the country have already contacted us to join our list.

Importantly, the court excluded from the class all drivers who have driven for Uber using a corporate name, or through an intermediate company (like a limousine company).  If you fall into this category and want to pursue a claim for misclassification, please contact us. We have filed a new case on behalf of drivers who drove through limo companies or used corporate names with Uber, but you will need to contact us to be part of this case.

We filed this case on behalf of Uber drivers across the country.  In an early ruling, agreed with us that the case could proceed on behalf of drivers nationwide.  In a later ruling, however, the judge changed his mind and limited the case to drivers in California.  We think this decision was incorrect and we plan to appeal it. But meanwhile, if you have driven for Uber anywhere in the United States, and want to join our list of interested drivers, for whom we may be able to pursue individual claims if they are not able to join the class action, please contact us. 

In a recent decision, the California Labor Commissioner ruled that an Uber driver was indeed an employee, not an independent contractor, and ordered Uber to reimburse the driver for her expenses.  However, Uber has appealed the decision, which will be reviewed de novo in court, and so the driver who won the case has not yet received reimbursement and will have to await the outcome of court proceedings.  The remedy ordered by the California Labor Commissioner is the same remedy we are seeking for all Uber drivers in the class action lawsuit.  This decision was a great result and may be helpful to our lawsuit.

In addition to the decision by the California Labor Commissioner, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board has ruled that an Uber driver is an employees eligible to obtain unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Bureau of Labor and Industries of the State of Oregon has recently issued an Advisory Opinion that Uber drivers are employees.

Uber has been arguing that drivers are independent contractors, and not employees, because they can set their own hours, and Uber makes much of the fact that drivers like setting their own schedules.  We don’t disagree that drivers like to be able to work whenever they want!  The fact that drivers set their own schedules does not make them independent contractors.  We are not challenging Uber's system of providing flexibility for its drivers!  We believe that, as Uber operates now, drivers are employees under California law.  So if we win this case, there is no reason drivers should lose their flexibility.  The judge has agreed that nothing about this case is challenging the drivers being able to set their own hours.  Our argument is simply that, under the law, when drivers are working for Uber, they are Uber's employees and must receive the wage protections that employees receive.

If you have any questions, feel free to call or email Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead attorney representing the Uber drivers, or her assistant, Erin O’Reilly, at (617) 994-5800 or eoreilly@llrlaw.com.

Attorney Liss-Riordan and her firm have represented thousands of tipped employees, and employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors, all around the country.  See her firm’s website for more information: www.llrlaw.com.

Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit complaint.

Click here to read the court’s summary judgment order of March 11, 2015.

Click here to read the court’s class certification order of September 2, 2015.

Click here to read a transcript of the summary judgment hearing held on January 30, 2015.

Click here to read a transcript of the class certification hearing held on August 6, 2015.

In order to join our list of drivers interested in the case, and to sign up for us to represent you individually in the event that we need to pursue individual cases (such as in arbitration) to collect any wages that may be owed to you based on Uber’s misclassification of drivers, PLEASE CONTACT US to obtain a form to return to us.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
www.llrlaw.com
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801

Erin O'Reilly, Assistant
eoreilly@llrlaw.com

Elizabeth Lopez, Paralegal
elopez@llrlaw.com

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lead Counsel
sliss@llrlaw.com

Adelaide Pagano, Associate Attorney
apagano@llrlaw.com

Uber cannot legally retaliate against you for cooperating with the lawsuit.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

California law allowing seizure of guns without notice begins Jan. 1

On January 1, 2016 family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Uber anti gun or no

Earlier this a Chicago Uber driver with a valid concealed carry permit shot and wounded a wouldbe gunman who open fire on a crowd of people. After that Uber made this their policy.

UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY

We seek to ensure that everyone using the Uber digital platform—both driver-partners and riders—feels safe and comfortable using the service. During a ride arranged through the Uber platform, Uber and its affiliates therefore prohibit possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle. Any rider or driver found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to the Uber platform.

Which if you copy and past this link you will see.

https://www.uber.com/legal/firearms-prohibition-policy

We spoke to many Uber drivers some are for and some are against.

We ask you the uber patron or partner would you feel safe if you knew your driver was carrying or if your passenger was carrying.

Utah Supreme Court ruling on carrying while working

Salt lake city -Utah Supreme Court issued a strong endorsement of self-defense as public policy in a claim arising out of private action. In Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court held that an employee’s right of self-defense trumps an employer’s right to fire an employee, including an employee who can usually be terminated without specific cause (an “at-will” employee.)

The case stems from an incident in January 2011, when six workers were fired after they fought with a shoplifter who pulled a gun on them inside the Layton Wal-Mart. The company had claimed the employees violated Wal-Mart’s policy of disengaging, withdrawing and alerting authorities.

The case involved two incidents where a total of four Wal-Mart employees were fired after using force – in self-defense – against armed shoplifters.  In the first case, three employees at the Layton, Utah, store confronted a customer who hid a laptop computer in his pants. After employees escorted him to the store’s security office, the shoplifter drew a gun and grabbed one of the employees, pressing the gun to his back.  The other employees grabbed the man, seized his gun, and held him for the police.

In the second event, two employees at a West Valley City, Utah, store grabbed a shoplifter after she tried to run away.  She pulled a pocketknife and threatened to stab the employees unless they released her. Afraid of what would happen if they let go, they kept hold while a customer helped grab the knife.

Utah law reflects a policy favoring the right of self-defense, and that policy is of sufficient magnitude to qualify as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, but only under the narrow circumstances where an employee cannot withdraw and faces.
Therefore it is this courts finding that Wal-Mart's policy violated the 2nd ammendment and that their employees have the right to carry a concealed firearm while they are at work.