California Fines Uber $59 Million for Stonewalling Questions About Sexual Assaults (marketwatch.com) 54
A California judge fined Uber $59 million on Monday, and threatened to suspend its permit to operate in the state if the ride-hailing giant doesn't pay the penalty and answer regulators' questions within 30 days. From a report: Last December, an administrative law judge ordered Uber to answer the California Public Utility Commission's questions related to a long-awaited safety report, which listed, among other things, thousands of sexual assaults during rides from 2017-'19. The CPUC, which regulates ride-hailing in California, wanted more information about how the report was compiled, and specific details about the assaults so they could be investigated by the state. Uber refused to comply, claiming it would infringe on victims' privacy, even after a judge earlier this year said the company could turn over information under seal to protect confidentiality. The judge Monday agreed that Uber can use signifiers other than names to protect victims' anonymity.
Doesn't matter, they won (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prop 22 passed. They won. We lost. And I do mean "We". The nature of employment in California has changed. And it'll spread to other states to. I wonder how long until we're all paid by piece work with no benefits?
At least you'll have the "freedom" to choose between piece work with no benefits and no work with no safety net. 'Murrca!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, with all the attacks on business, Uber will just leave California.
Just like Tesla, Oracle, HPE, etc [aei.org]..
Look at the data [Re:Doesn't matter, they won] (Score:2)
And our standard of living has been declining. Wages have been stagnant - mostly because of the shrinking unions.
Except unlike the past administration, real wages actually grew thru 2019 at like 1.2% which is historically high.
Meh. Looking at the graph, the Trump administration just continued the path of the Obama administration. https://cdn.factcheck.org/Uplo... [factcheck.org]
But sure Trump bad and all that.
Neither bad nor good, from that one specific criterion (real wage growth up to 2019): it continuing the same trend...
The fact is Trump's policies were objectively good for the American worker.
Up until 2020. Then the bottom fell out.
If you include 2020, however, turns out Trump's policies trashed the economy.
(and if you say "but that was the pandemic; not his fault!", I will counter that if you give him credit for things that go well, you have
Re: (Score:3)
Except unlike the past administration, real wages actually grew thru 2019 at like 1.2% which is historically high... Trump was by any sane measure better for them than the last guy.
Even setting aside the complicated question of whether real wages are the best metric for standard of living, that isn't strictly true.Source, which cites data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics: [bbc.co.uk]
Real wages (adjusted for inflation) grew throughout Trump's first three years in office - continuing a steady upward trend which began during the first of President Obama's two terms.
This growth reached 2.1% per annum in February 2019, prior to the pandemic.
This is lower than the real wage increases of up to 2.4% that President Obama oversaw in 2015
The tax cut can be credited with a ~1.2% increase in after-tax incomes for middle earners, but that's not the same as saying that Trump presided over historically high wage growth.
Re: (Score:3)
And our standard of living has been declining. Wages have been stagnant - mostly because of the shrinking unions.
Except unlike the past administration, real wages actually grew thru 2019 at like 1.2% which is historically high.
And the inflation rate for 2019 in the US was 1.8%. So even in an "historically high" wage year, actual purchasing power still went down.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation's way higher than 1.8% (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think that these rules were the reason some companies decided to relocate, or was it taking advantage of the sudden realization that everyone can work just as well from home and you might as well relocate your (now much smaller) office somewhere cheaper?
California was mostly attractive because that's where the talent was and that's where the deals were done face-to-face, but the world has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are significant tax advantages to locating in Texas vs California.
The available talent pool, and the prestige of being "a silicon valley tech-company" aren't as important to large companies. These things are a big deal to startups, as well as small and medium businesses looking to attract investors and employees. But once a company is large enough and well enough known they don't need to rely on being in silicon valley to get people to want to work for them, and they aren't chasing investors anymore
Re: (Score:2)
No, with all the attacks on business, Uber will just leave California.
Just like Tesla, Oracle, HPE, etc..
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Seriously. California is an awesome place to live, but it is overpopulated and expensive. We could use a few less megacorps, and a few million less people.
Re: (Score:2)
since about twenty years ago for most of us
Re: (Score:2)
Uber spent over a billion more than they took in last quarter. Another $59 million doesn't help them. If there are no jobs, you won't be paid to work at all.
And why do people think employers providing benefits is a good thing? I'd much rather get paid in cash than benefits and make my own choices about what's important to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly THIS ^^
A good 50% of the mess that is our nations insurance/healthcare funding issue is because of this retarded employer provides benefits model. It happened in the first place (outside some nice industries like mining) because it was treated favorably by the tax code and evaded war time salary caps.
Its dumb! There is no reason why your employeer should be buying your medical care! They should just pay YOU enough to buy it. That way when you switch jobs or something it would not mean switching ins
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly THIS ^^
A good 50% of the mess that is our nations insurance/healthcare funding issue is because of this retarded employer provides benefits model. It happened in the first place (outside some nice industries like mining) because it was treated favorably by the tax code and evaded war time salary caps.
Its dumb! There is no reason why your employeer should be buying your medical care! They should just pay YOU enough to buy it. That way when you switch jobs or something it would not mean switching insurance carriers (unless you wanted to) and by extension providers. My wife should not have to get a new OB because I changed jobs; that is insane! That was and remains one of my biggest objections to the ACA. Rather than FORCING companies to provide health coverage we should have barred them from it.
You shouldn't have to use an insurance carrier at all. It's an unnecessary middleman skimming profits, causes barriers to treatment, and raises prices for everyone else (so that it looks like you are "saving money"). My biggest objection to the ACA was that it still forced you into a commercial, contractual arragnement with a middleman. The ACA should have had a public option, like every other sane, modern Western state.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACA should have had a public option, like every other sane, modern Western state.
It should have, indeed.
But that would have been "socialist", according to those slowflakes for whom "socialist" is a trigger word.
Far too much like the N@zis and the Soviets, for whom affordable, universal access to health care was a priority, as we all know! /s
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Just wow. That's the stupidest one yet.
For one, there is no "robust" marketplace, it's all how deeply can we screw you, and it's a closed market of ultrawealthy companies.
"Fixing the ACA" the way you suggest would result in most companies DROPPING ALL MEDICAL BENEFITS.
Now, if you'd pointed out that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION HAS SOME FORM OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, while our companies are forced to pay more than any other country for healthcare for each and every employee - so a national healthcar
Re: (Score:2)
Give you the money, and you pay for benefits?
How old are you, child?
Reality check: in the early oughts, I wound up "between positions", and on COBRA. COBRA ran out... and the medical insurance company, in 13 months, in two jumps, DOUBLED MY MONTHLY PREMIUMS, from $355 to $525 to $750. If you're not in a plan that's shared, they will screw you to the wall - why do you *think* so many people have gofundme's to try to keep from being bankrupt and losing their home?
Re: (Score:2)
If people paid for their own healthcare, there'd be more of a competitive market, and they could switch jobs, or even just quit, without the fear of losing their healthcare. Our system is much more expensive, for the outcomes it produces, than any other in the world, and it's getting worse.
This paper is a little old, but it shows we're off the trendline of health outcomes v cost:
https://stateofreform.com/wp-c... [stateofreform.com]
Here's a more recent chart showing how much more the US spends per person on healthcare than any
Re: (Score:2)
If people paid for their own healthcare, there'd be more of a competitive market, and they could switch jobs, or even just quit, without the fear of losing their healthcare.
Are you sure you thought this through? When somebody quits or loses their job, their job income disappears, and many people won't be able to pay for their own healthcare anymore. How do you figure out they would keep their healthcare?
Your solution still ties medical care to employment, albeit indirectly. I'm sure you're aware that many folks in America postpone or completely skip treatment for various conditions because they can't afford it - either their insurance doesn't cover it, or else they have no ins
Re: (Score:2)
Income can disappear, but people can save, especially when healthcare costs less overall and they're getting the cash their employers used to pay for the insurance.
In socialized healthcare systems, people don't always get the choice whether to forego healthcare or not - they're often put on long waiting lists, or told that the care they want isn't included; that will be an issue in any system. The lower the costs of whatever system is used, the less an issue that will be.
The key is to introduce competition
Re: (Score:2)
Income can disappear, but people can save
Again, are you sure you thought that through? 69% of Americans had less than $1000 [gobankingrates.com] in savings (and that was in December 2019, before COVID-19). And no, it wasn't because they kept their money in stocks, bonds or real estate - at least 33% of them said they have no savings because they're living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to save.
and they're getting the cash their employers used to pay for the insurance.
Are they? Who from? And even if they do, it won't be the same insurance - individual buyers don't have an employer's volume discounts, nor do they have a large company's
Re: (Score:2)
Socialized healthcare sounds good, but it will be rationed - as it is in other places. Here's a debate with experts arguing with good data about how well socialized healthcare works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Maybe socialized healthcare is good enough - it makes it so everyone can get some healthcare. Or maybe a UBI/private healthcare solution would make sure people had enough to cover their basics, if they choose to. Socialized healthcare is the rational/safe choice - it's what all other first world
Re: (Score:2)
The above was *not* a troll.
And by "grow", you mean to become a right to be fired state? (aka "right to work" and freeload.)
Move to Texas... (Score:3)
Everyone else is.
Re: (Score:2)
Their problem is they want to operate in California.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Move to Texas where they apparently don't care so much about you getting sexually assaulted by your Uber driver?
I'll stay put thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, having Musk leave is a net benefit. It won't be long before Texas begs us to take him back.
Strange decision (Score:2)
The court essentially admits the original order was overly broad, yet they still get a fine for not complying.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the judge didn't rule on that at all. The CPUC decided it would accept anonymized information, even though the judge ruled they were entitled to PII. Uber is being fined, not for complying with the CPUC, but for ignoring the judge's order.
Re: Strange decision (Score:2)
It says in the decision that the information "could" be provided anonymized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strange decision (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were to disobey a court order you would end up in jail for Contempt of court (which is what should happen to the CEO if the world was fair).
It does not matter if the court (or someone else) later decides they did not need that information.
The fact that corporations routinely get away with fines is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I am cool with the corporations are people legal fiction but we should treat them like it.
i don't know jailing employees even officers is appropriate but we certain could should do things like freeze their accounts and prohibit them from conducting business outside activities required to comply with the order while they are in contempt of court. Just like you or I would be prohibited from walking around conducting our personal business.
If you are Uber for example that means they should not be allowe
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed:
Treasure hunter stuck in jail 5 years for refusing to tell location of his loot [tampabay.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's grand that we have what amounts to debtors prison.
Either get some evidence and charge him with theft, or fucking release him.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't call it that, because then it would be unconstitutional. [justia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me exactly who in our government believes in the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing above the Constitution?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Everyone says it, until their pet cause in eliminating "the other side's" rights is in focus.
Retribution? (Score:1)
I wonder how much of this is retribution from the state for daring to defy it, particularly after prop 22.
Not that I'm defending Uber, mind you, then or now. I have no problems believing they're a horribly toxic company. I just happen to think the state government is worse.
What information? (Score:2)
What sort of information do they expect Uber to collect about sexual assaults? Do they conduct customer surveys after a trip with questions about the sex? Wouldn't this be something that the police would have?
This is where I think Uber is correct. If there was an assault, the victim goes to the police and files a report. The police question the parties involved. If the victim doesn't want the assault to become known (yes, there are a few cases) they might never contact the police.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies are required (as far as I know) to keep track of such incidents AND, more importantly, act on them.
If all the Uber Taxi Company is doing is a) ignoring the rapes or b) paying the victims but leaving the rapists on board, they have a bigger issue than losing billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
act on them
Vigilante justice? Uber has police powers now?
Sexual assault is a crime. It needs to be reported as a crime and dealt with by the proper authorities. I'd like to see which jurisdiction requires or even encourages private citizens to take dealing with criminal activities into their own hands.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone reports a rape in your business by one of your employees, you more than likely suspend that person first, pending the police investigation. You don't let that person continue to work for you. You also work with the police to provide information on the employee.
I was once asked questions by the FBI on a case involving someone under me (not rape related). The person was sent home pending the investigation and had all access rights removed.
Uber (Score:3)
We're a taxi service err uh excuse me "ride sharing" service but we don't want to follow the same rules and regulations set aside for taxi companies. In the end our bean counters figured out paying the government for favorable laws was cheaper than complying.