• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

And This is Why Accounts are Put on Hold

MHR

Well-Known Member
Moderator
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-fines-20181108-story.html?outputType=amp

By SAM DEAN
NOV 08, 2018 | 5:55 PM

Uber fined $750,000 for letting drivers work after customers complained of drunk driving.

The California Public Utilities Commission fined Uber $750,000 for failing to follow a “zero tolerance” policy on investigating and suspending drivers in response to customer complaints that they were driving while intoxicated.

The fine is the result of a settlement between the commission and Rasier-CA, a company owned and created by Uber to operate its services in California. The settlement approved Thursday was reached after an administrative law judge recommended fining the company $7,500 per violation, amounting to $1,132,500.

The violations were discovered in a Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division investigation that looked at how customer complaints of intoxicated drivers were handled from August 2014 to August 2015.

Uber reported receiving more than 2,000 complaints in that period and deactivated 574 of those drivers in response. But when investigators looked more closely at 154 of those complaints, they found that Uber failed to investigate 133 of them and failed to promptly suspend drivers in all but five of the cases reviewed.



The zero-tolerance policy that Uber agreed to follow is a special exemption for the company, according to the proposal adopted by the state agency. All other companies overseen by the commission are required to enroll in a drug and alcohol testing program for its drivers.

The policy mandates that the company have a clearly visible and dedicated phone number or in-app call function for complaints of driver intoxication. It also requires that the company suspend drivers for further investigation promptly after a zero-tolerance complaint is filed.

The investigators found that even when Uber claimed to have suspended a driver, other records indicated that the driver went on to provide three additional rides in the two hours after the complaint was filed. The investigation further found that there was no dedicated button or phone line for zero-tolerance complaints in particular, which introduced an element of human error into the process of deciding which customer complaints required prompt response.

In addition to the fine, Uber agreed to implement an education program on zero-tolerance regulations and file a motion to expand existing regulations and develop stronger standards for the ride-hailing industry.
 

PioneerXi

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="MHR, post: 4464515, member: 116086]

The investigators found that even when Uber claimed to have suspended a driver, other records indicated that the driver went on to provide three additional rides in the two hours after the complaint was filed.

[/QUOTE]

This would suggest that the complaint was not made until hours after the ride ended

...and sufficient time for a passenger to manufacture a frivolous complaint after seeing the cost of their ride with surge.
 
Last edited:

Lee239

Well-Known Member
Most of the time accounts are put on hold because pax as aholes and lie about a driver. That's why.

Just because a state chooses to fine a company does not mean it's justified. On this I am on Uber's side, as much as I hate them.

Uber put accounts on hold becuase drivers are worthless to them and replaceable and disposable.
 

Disgusted Driver

Well-Known Member
This is one of those wonderful legal situations where there are little consequence for bad behavior.

1) Uber gets slammed if they don't suspend immediately
2) There is no effective way to really investigate this with IC's, we would need to be tested immediately upon allegation
3) Pax does not get punished for false allegation, in fact it's never determined whether allegation was true or not.
4) Driver has no real remedy. You can sue the pax but can't prove it's not true and even if you could, the damages are typically very small in terms of lost wages so no attorney will take the case.

In short, it's called the luck of the draw.
 

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-fines-20181108-story.html?outputType=amp

By SAM DEAN
NOV 08, 2018 | 5:55 PM

Uber fined $750,000 for letting drivers work after customers complained of drunk driving.

The California Public Utilities Commission fined Uber $750,000 for failing to follow a “zero tolerance” policy on investigating and suspending drivers in response to customer complaints that they were driving while intoxicated.

The fine is the result of a settlement between the commission and Rasier-CA, a company owned and created by Uber to operate its services in California. The settlement approved Thursday was reached after an administrative law judge recommended fining the company $7,500 per violation, amounting to $1,132,500.

The violations were discovered in a Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division investigation that looked at how customer complaints of intoxicated drivers were handled from August 2014 to August 2015.

Uber reported receiving more than 2,000 complaints in that period and deactivated 574 of those drivers in response. But when investigators looked more closely at 154 of those complaints, they found that Uber failed to investigate 133 of them and failed to promptly suspend drivers in all but five of the cases reviewed.



The zero-tolerance policy that Uber agreed to follow is a special exemption for the company, according to the proposal adopted by the state agency. All other companies overseen by the commission are required to enroll in a drug and alcohol testing program for its drivers.

The policy mandates that the company have a clearly visible and dedicated phone number or in-app call function for complaints of driver intoxication. It also requires that the company suspend drivers for further investigation promptly after a zero-tolerance complaint is filed.

The investigators found that even when Uber claimed to have suspended a driver, other records indicated that the driver went on to provide three additional rides in the two hours after the complaint was filed. The investigation further found that there was no dedicated button or phone line for zero-tolerance complaints in particular, which introduced an element of human error into the process of deciding which customer complaints required prompt response.

In addition to the fine, Uber agreed to implement an education program on zero-tolerance regulations and file a motion to expand existing regulations and develop stronger standards for the ride-hailing industry.
So now:

- we have received a concerning report that there was a speck of dust on your floor mat. We take Rider safety very seriously and consequently have suspended your account for further investigation.
 

HotUberMess

Well-Known Member
There’s a way to test; submit to a blood draw given by a law enforcement agency, to be paid by Uber.

If the test comes up negative, Uber must pay the driver lost wages and are free to sue the lying passenger.

Of course we know Uber can’t afford to do all this because they lied and said taxis are overcharging when they actually are charging the rate needed to run a legitimate business. Since Uber spread this lie, they have cornered themselves into charging less that what is needed to run a legitimate business.

THE USA’s BEST AND BRIGHTEST, Y’ALL
 

Demon

Well-Known Member
There’s a way to test; submit to a blood draw given by a law enforcement agency, to be paid by Uber.

If the test comes up negative, Uber must pay the driver lost wages and are free to sue the lying passenger.

Of course we know Uber can’t afford to do all this because they lied and said taxis are overcharging when they actually are charging the rate needed to run a legitimate business. Since Uber spread this lie, they have cornered themselves into charging less that what is needed to run a legitimate business.

THE USA’s BEST AND BRIGHTEST, Y’ALL
A negative test wouldn't prove anything and there's no way a driver would ever win in court.
 

jonhjax

Well-Known Member
Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.
 

Demon

Well-Known Member
Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.
None of those things will ever happen. Uber would be out of business if they tried any of that.
 

Vak67

New Member
Most of the time accounts are put on hold because pax as aholes and lie about a driver. That's why.

Just because a state chooses to fine a company does not mean it's justified. On this I am on Uber's side, as much as I hate them.

Uber put accounts on hold becuase drivers are worthless to them and replaceable and disposable.
Exactly we are worthless to them and pax are complete asses I hate them. They’re the main problem
 

Who is John Galt?

Well-Known Member
Author
Just another scare campaign by the Media, the Judiciary, Über and probably Arseholes Anonymous to try to temper(ance) our drinking whilst driving!

Outrageous !!

.
 

hanging in there

Well-Known Member
Uber could solve this by finding the location of the driver and calling the police about the suspicion of drunk driver along with license plate number. Police stop the driver and administer a field sobriety test. The police might not agree to do this, however. Uber should also state to pax/accusers that a negative test may be cause to revoke the pax's riding privileges or perhaps even legal action.
This is the way they handled things when I drove a taxi:

They had fleet supervisors on the road at all times. If a driver had an accident (regardless of fault) or was accused of DUI or other serious allegations, the driver was instructed to remain in his or her car and wait for a fleet supervisor.

The nearest fleet supervisor (I was one at one point) would arrive at the scene and take an accident report if needed, and then take the driver to the nearest 24 hour drug/alcohol testing lab.

If the driver refused to cooperate fully with this policy it would result in instant, permanent deactivation as a driver and deactivation of the taxi permit.

Of course the same would result with a positive test outcome.

The point of this policy, besides passenger safety, was to have a viable defense/deterrent against lawsuits.

However, as a driver I loved this policy, and the requirement to have random drug/alcohol testing, because I hate to be falsely accused and was happy to have timely concrete evidence of my innocence.

With Uber and Lyft they just suspend you after an allegation and then “investigate it”.... yeh.
 

Similar threads


Top