3538
()
posted ago by Mhantla ago by Mhantla +3538 / -0
Comments (345)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
303
Konsaki 303 points ago +303 / -0

Uber and Lyft can get fucked if they think they can dictate a 'no weapons' clause in my own vehicle.

103
ladypatriot_games 103 points ago +103 / -0

Yeah really I saw that at the end. That better not be how they try to get this guy.

155
Stopple 155 points ago +155 / -0

There's nothing to "get". Violating employee guidelines is not illegal, at most they fire him which is pretty much expected at this point

142
Foximus 142 points ago +142 / -0

Imagine losing your job for lawfully defending your life from an armed aggressor.

45
Rob_Belmonte 45 points ago +45 / -0

A buddy of mine almost had that happen.

32
deleted 32 points ago +32 / -0
16
Libertysheimdall1 16 points ago +16 / -0

I will give the man a job right here, right now. NO BS.

6
thisguy883 6 points ago +6 / -0

He's active duty. He already has a job.

This was just a job making a little fun money.

7
thisguy883 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's alright, he still has a job.

Most active duty military I know usually take up a second job on the weekends to make a little fun money.

12
11Bignveiny 12 points ago +12 / -0

Imagine my surprise when I pulled up to the McDonalds drive-thru right outside post, rolling down my window to pay, and staring at my surly-ass platoon sergeant.

Lol guy was going through his third divorce, getting QMP’ed (purged) in the Obama-era drawdown, and started sleeping in a cot at company. Started giving no fucks, moved his barbell set into the office and bought a puppy that shit everywhere.

6
aangler100 6 points ago +6 / -0

You cannot get fired when you're not an employee.

6
Former_RM2 6 points ago +6 / -0

Not only is it not illegal, but as far as I'm aware, nobody has challenged the validity of of these clauses in an employment contract. I'm not saying a tort judge will decide in the employee's favor, but they might. We just don't know.

1
FuckChinaRaw 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unlikely that anyone will sue to keep their job at Uber, Lyft, or Dominos. These clauses are just to keep the companies from getting sued if an employee does use a weapon on the job.

58
Spookyfishlizard 58 points ago +58 / -0

They better be careful with that “we prohibit” language. Uber drivers are independent contractors. Uber is pretty limited in what they can tell you you can and cannot have in your own vehicle. They like to play both sides; get the tax advantage of calling drivers independent contractors while treating them like employees. Uber is a filthy company. All gig app companies are filthy crooks.

17
DoesItWorkAlready 17 points ago +17 / -0

I like the smell of "mass arbitration" in the morning, which Uber has already suffered from.

Mass arbitration takes advantage of the asymmetry under CA and JAAMS rules where the individual pays $250 to file an arbitration and the company pays $10,000 to defend it.

Multiply that by a lot of drivers, Patreon patrons, etc, it can get quite interesting.

11
ArchVileRespawned 11 points ago +11 / -0

Patreon just got hammered with that.

6
DoesItWorkAlready 6 points ago +7 / -1

Indiegogo Settled Uber Settled Patreon is likely screwed

Legal Article: https://www.klgates.com/alertklg20-06-24-2020

8
CuomoisaMassMurderer 8 points ago +8 / -0

I read the language. Seems to me the only thing enforceable is the company that says don't have your gun with you on company property. Even then they have to find it.

5
BirchTBarlow 5 points ago +5 / -0

Company property? He's driving his own car.

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Right! That was my point. Company property would only pertain like if he has to go to the office for some reason. Other than that they won't even try to enforce this. The only way they'd ever find out somebody was packing is a situation like this where they have to defend themselves, or if someone commits a crime which I think they'd at least make sure they aren't working at the time.

Anybody defending themselves could cough up $250 to start the arbitration process over wrongful termination, and the company has to pay $10,000 to defend themselves. I think they'd kiss ass to settle before going to arbitration. Meaning their silly rule is entirely unenforceable; it's just optics.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
28
Test_user21 28 points ago +29 / -1

Uber is banned, in Austin, and Lyft's policy is they "ask" people not to have weapons.

14
MAGAMAN4EVA 14 points ago +14 / -0

Not banned anymore

8
thisguy883 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yea Uber is alive and well in Austin.

Buddy of mine Ubers there a lot to make a little extra money.

7
Kekinit 7 points ago +7 / -0

I believe he meant "weapons" are banned, not the application itself. Unless they are giving me a car with insurance, they can kindly go fuck themselves when someone is defending there life and property.

5
CuomoisaMassMurderer 5 points ago +5 / -0

What did they get banned for?

5
WarViper1337 5 points ago +6 / -1

Mostly local politics involving local taxis and city funded transportation. In the end they allowed Uber to work there.

2
Test_user21 2 points ago +2 / -0

Being Uber. Austin city council never allowed Uber to operate in the city limits cause it would hurt the mafi..., er I mean legitimate cab drivers.

4
sackofwisdom 4 points ago +4 / -0

Just say, "Please don't rape me". Problem solved.

5
Konsaki 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'll say it with 40SW.

20
deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
13
RegularAmerican 13 points ago +14 / -1

You would have been in good hands when I was a driver, pede. I remember getting pick ups from drunk girls who have passed out in my car. I was like imagine what a dirty immigrant with bad intentions would do in a situation like that. YOUR DRIVER IS MOHAMMED

6
aangler100 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's not immigrants, it's the same 20-40 yr old white woman throwing poop at police that are the most dangerous drivers. Lesbians can be rapists, believe me.

3
aangler100 3 points ago +3 / -0

You get it.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
aangler100 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most drivers I know are armed.

2
ModernKnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Many states have reciprocal CCW agreements. My Ohio CCW is good for most states, and removes restrictions on weaponry. I think there's... maybe 12 that I can't carry in? Let's see... I can't carry in Hawaii, California, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland. So 11. I am kind of shocked I can carry in Washington and not Minnesota. A nice free way to check: https://go.usconcealedcarry.com/concealed-carry-maps

15
BidenMassageTherapy 15 points ago +15 / -0

“Hey, we know that you’re using your own car, your own gas, you pay for the maintenance, and you assume all financial responsibility for accidents, but you can’t have a gun when working for us.”

Get fucked, Uber and Lyft

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +3 / -0

I read the language. It seems to me that the only enforcement they can do is the one company that says you can't have your gun with you on company property. Even then they have to find it.

7
Regardless 7 points ago +7 / -0

His car wasn’t their property while he was working for them.

7
CuomoisaMassMurderer 7 points ago +7 / -0

Right! Exactly my point. It would be funny af if the companies got sued over this; the only possible scenario I can envision is they fire someone for having their own gun in their own car. Apparently there's an arbitration clause where the employee pays $250 and the company pays $10,000 to defend.

The company would never make up that $10,000. They would kiss ass, rehire and whatever else they had to do. The company makes money off that driver.