Uber drivers sue over 'coercive' Prop. 22 messages


Reminder: If Uber wants something, it is by definition evil and you want the opposite.

No on 22!

The complaint alleges that Uber's messaging implies that drivers must support Prop 22 or risk possible termination, should the ballot proposition not pass on November 3. [...]

"The language of the statute doesn't require the company to come out and say explicitly 'you're gonna be fired', it says that you can't use the threat of a loss of employment, which is exactly what Uber is doing," said Lowe. "Uber is saying 'if Prop 22 fails, 70 to 80 percent of you are going to lose your jobs'. [California] Labor Code section 1102 says you can't use the threat of a loss of employment as an attempt to coerce someone to engage in a particular political course of action."

Lowe also said that Uber's messages to drivers through its app, which he says solicit drivers' support for Prop 22, are a clear violation of state labor laws because those messages are a policy which is intended to influence how drivers will vote on Prop 22.

"[Labor Code] section 1101 says you can't have a policy that 'tends to direct' political activity of workers. And Uber is putting very coercive messages on the app that the drivers are required to access on a regular basis throughout the day and including in those messages requests to provide support for Prop 22, misleading information about the benefits of Prop 22, all of this is part of a policy intended to direct the employees to do what they are requesting them to do, which is to support Prop 22," said Lowe.

Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses:

  1. Dude says:

    Full corporate "fuck off" (as endorsed by Broke-Ass Stuart's voting guide and SF Bay Guardian's voting guide):

    NO on 22 ('Cause fuck Uber)

    YES on 15 to make corporate real estate & landowners pay their fair share
    (the "No on 15" folks have done the second-largest campaign push this season, after Uber. They say a "Yes on 15" vote will squeeze small business, when the details prove the exact opposite)

    NO on 19, which would allow rich landlords to force seniors and disabled residents out of their homes, so as to jack up the price

    And SUPER-YES on 21 for state-wide rent control. State. Wide. Rent. Control.

    • Jay says:

      21 is not state wide rent control, but it replaces current restrictions on rent control with better ones. It will be up to each county how and whether to implement. Still a win but not immediate statewide rent control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. But if you provide a fake email address, I will likely assume that you are a troll, and not publish your comment.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <s> <strike> <strong> <img src="" width="" height="" style=""> <iframe src="" class=""> <video src="" class="" controls="" loop="" muted="" autoplay="" playsinline=""> <div class=""> <blink> <tt> <u>, or *italics*.

  • Previously