• 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

Protection

Fargle

Well-Known Member
Have judges and lawmakers actually decided that Ubers' policy in this regard is legal and/or constitutional, or is it just that it hasn't been challenged yet? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical.
There has been one case which was dismissed without prejudice on grounds that the plaintiff hadn't actually been deactivated.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
Don't bet on that. It's a legitimate contract and enforceable.

Do you have a basis for saying it's not enforceable? My Significant Other is a trial lawyer.

Christine
Labor attorneys who've won cases against non-competes as unconscienable. State laws forbidding them. Your SO should know this.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Have judges and lawmakers actually decided that Ubers' policy in this regard is legal and/or constitutional, or is it just that their policy has never been challenged? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical.
It's a matter of contracts. Generally speaking, Constitutional Rights are protected from interference by the government, not independent parties or businesses unless specifically stated.

If you enter into a contract wherein you state that you agree not to carry or store your gun in a specific place and/or during a specific time, then you are bound by that agreement. No one is saying Uber can, or is, saying you can't own a gun or even bring it into your car. Just that you can't do so when using their app... And every driver agreed to that.

Now, if you do it anyway, and you have the necessary licensure, you can't be charged with any crime,because none occurred. You will have, however, breached your agreement, and be subject to a perfectly legal deactivation because of it.

It's not about the gun or gun rights (and I do support gun rights!). It's about contracts.

Back in the day, there were arguments floating around the chat rooms and message boards of AOL about how their restrictions on profanity, etc., infringed on First Amendment rights. Those arguments never held up because AOL was not a governmental entity but a private company, and because every time you signed in you agreed to abide by their TOS.

Same as here. The moderators of this forum can pull any post that violates the TOS here, and no one has a leg to stand on if they yell, "But, First Amendment Rights!!!"

Make sense?
 

reg barclay

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Same as here. The moderators of this forum can pull any post that violates the TOS here, and no one has a leg to stand on if they yell, "But, First Amendment Rights!!!"
We still get get a good few of those "you violated my first first amendment rights" responses.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
Overall it's a very scummy tactic.
In general, that may be true.

I think my former employer had a legitimate reason for it. They invest in their people and don't want me to recruit them away to the competition.

You could debate whether there may be a better way to do that, I guess.

Christine
 

NOXDriver

Active Member
Look it up. They're generally illegal in a lot if places. Okay in others. Overall it's a very scummy tactic.
Unless the non-compete is very specific, very short termed and give the employee something in return (like a benefits package) restricting the ability of a person right to find employment will be nullified.

I work in IT. If my company said I could not work in IT for 12 months after agreeing to the severance I would sign it and laugh in their face. COMPLETELY unenforceable. Now if they said that I could not work, due to trade secrets involved in my former position, at a direct competitor, for 90 days. That might stand.

Non-Competes are more of an honor system. If you are that important to even see one then you also are smart enough to have a lawdog read it.
 

Gilby

Well-Known Member
I think my former employer had a legitimate reason for it. They invest in their people and don't want me to recruit them away to the competition.
If the year is up, let's see if you can recruit some of them to drive for Uber. <g>

Here in Wisconsin, I have been told by our company attorney that non-competes are very hard to enforce. When I worked in the TV business, they were very common but seldom did any employer try to hold someone to it when they left. If I remember my business law correctly, they must have a time limit and a reasonable geographic limit.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
Unless the non-compete is very specific, very short termed and give the employee something in return (like a benefits package) restricting the ability of a person right to find employment will be nullified.

I work in IT. If my company said I could not work in IT for 12 months after agreeing to the severance I would sign it and laugh in their face. COMPLETELY unenforceable. Now if they said that I could not work, due to trade secrets involved in my former position, at a direct competitor, for 90 days. That might stand.

Non-Competes are more of an honor system. If you are that important to even see one then you also are smart enough to have a lawdog read it.
This is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote "unconscionable", but ran out of patience with my phone's keyboard.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
In general, that may be true.

I think my former employer had a legitimate reason for it. They invest in their people and don't want me to recruit them away to the competition.

You could debate whether there may be a better way to do that, I guess.

Christine
As others have stated, they're generally unenforceable unless some compensation is made to the employee. The employee owes no fealty in return for training.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
Good luck with all that, guys. I might be able to get away with it. But why lose sleep over trying?

And yes, I do happen to think a year is reasonable in my situation.

Besides, they're sending me a pension every month. Why not play along?

Christine
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
Good luck with all that, guys. I might be able to get away with it. But why lose sleep over trying?

And yes, I do happen to think a year is reasonable in my situation.

Besides, they're sending me a pension every month. Why not play along?

Christine
You could have mentioned that pension and time limit at the beginning, Those are big ways how non-competes can be ethical and legal. Most of the anger over non-competes stem from the company offering little or nothing in return.

Closely related to non-competes are non-poaching agreements between companies. They seem to be growing among restaurant franchises and the affected workers have little clout to fight. I seem to recall Apple and Google recently getting busted for doing it.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
You could have mentioned that pension and time limit at the beginning, Those are big ways how non-competes can be ethical and legal. Most of the anger over non-competes stem from the company offering little or nothing in return.

Closely related to non-competes are non-poaching agreements between companies. They seem to be growing among restaurant franchises and the affected workers have little clout to fight. I seem to recall Apple and Google recently getting busted for doing it.
I agree with you on the non-poaching agreements. Those *have* been found to be illegal.

The reason I didn't mention the pension is because I didn't think it was relevant to the contractual issue we were discussing at the time.

Christine
 

RaleighUber

Well-Known Member
In any case, it's not legal for them to make or enforce any rules against firearms or pepper spray. Ask them yourself to prove to you it's legal. They won't do it.
Did not say it was legal. I said that's what Uber would do based on their no guns policy.
I don't ask Uber anything anymore. I have no relationship with them.
 

UBERPROcolorado

Well-Known Member
I opted out of arbitration.

What makes you think that any company's rules could possibly trump any law???
Arbitration has nothing to do with firearms and if you still think Uber or Lyft can not trump a state law....just give it a try and get caught or reported. DEACTIVATION!!
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
What makes you think that Uber or Lyft CAN defy state or federal laws?
I'm a strong supporter on the 2nd Amendment. One of the reasons for that is because I don't expect passing a law will stop criminals from carrying handguns.

Christine
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Working4peanuts Miami 2
goodfella718 New York City 8
K Los Angeles & Orange County 0

Similar threads


Top