By Brandon Curtis
A rideshare employee is looking for a new job after being fired by Lyft. The company decided to sever ties after the driver, Cynthia Norman, picked up two men in their 20’s who tried to carjack her. Lyft didn’t fire her because of the attempted carjacking, but rather because she used her legally-owned firearm to defend herself against the two attackers.
“I had to fight with these two men. I had one choking me from the back,” Norman told a reporter during an interview.
From fox19.com:
Norman said the other passenger, breaking Lyft’s COVID-19 protocol, insisted on sitting in the front seat.
She said he started punching her in the face as the man in the backseat choked her.
She was driving a rental car and refused to back down.
“They didn’t know I was going to fight back,” she said.
At that point, she grabbed her handgun that was in the center console and began shooting. While police aren’t sure if the men were hit, it did send them running and successfully ended the attack. After successfully defending herself, Norman drove to the police station to let them know what happened.
Predictably, Lyft stands by their decision to ban Norman from driving for the rideshare service.
Our “No Weapons” policy applies when you are doing business as a representative of Lyft, which includes times that you are driving for Lyft, as well as times that you are visiting a Lyft Hub.
This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property.
Lyft.com
Lyft and Uber have no-firearms policies for their drivers as well as passengers. Even less lethal personal defense options are prohibited by the two companies. Both have fired many of them over the years after they have successfully defended themselves from violent passengers. These rideshare companies would rather take their chances with unarmed employees, because if one goes down, they can hire a hundred more.
This article originally appeared at Concealed Nation and is reprinted here with permission.
Everybody knows that Uber/Lyft ban guns.
Everybody knows that defending yourself with a gun gets you deplatformed by Uber/Lyft.
Everybody knows that it’s better to be kicked off Uber/Lyft than to be a helpless victim of violent crime.
That said, when the guy says ‘I’m riding up front with you’, the correct answer is ‘have a nice walk’.
‘Everybody knows that Uber/Lyft ban guns.’
Including the criminals.
Except for this woman. Black swan event for them, lol…
Glad she’s okay. She’ll learn to live without Lyft. The important thing is that she’s alive.
I’m betting there’s more packing ride share drivers than one would think. Concealed is concealed and all that.
Mommy used to say “Never talk to stranger and never get into a stranger’s car”
Now we are supposed to call a stranger and get into their car????
F Lyft and the others for denying the right to self defense
Wait, what? What right was “denied?” The company offered a business opportunity, whose terms were defined in a contract, and this driver accepted those terms. Every contract entails each party giving up something in exchange for something. It’s called consideration and it’s one of the legal elements of a contract.
What is given up can be money or property, but it can also be one’s right to do something, such as to speak publicly on a topic, to sue, or in this case to carry a firearm.
So this lady accepted the contract terms, accepted what Lyft offered as consideration, but then failed to follow through on her end of the contract. F Lyft? No, F this contract cheating driver.
NO, F Lyft and the others for denying the right to self defense
I am in agreement, if you work for these companies you know their rules. I would not doubt that Uber and Lyft management has anti gun sentiment, but I am sure it is also somewhat a liability issue. Years ago I worked part time as a security guard and was not supposed to carry a weapon…of course I did since it was in sketchy area, but my thinking was if I needed the weapon I was not going to care if I got fired for using it. I knew there policy, and I have my policy.
Contract or no contract she defended herself you liberal, and don’t move to Florida.
Just another reason to call a cab and let these two tyrant companies go broke.
Easier said than done in many locales today.
The slave-wage ride-shares have put many cab companies out of business.
I don’t understand the logic.
A taxi is merely a ride-share system under a different name.
For the vast majority of taxi patrons, the driver is a stranger, and the car is being used as a ride-share.
All that differs is the permanence of the driver, and the contract used. In both cases, the rider hails a ride, the ride appears, the rider gets taken to a destination, the rider pays and the deal is done; the driver then goes on to another contract.
Call an Uber/Lyft, call a taxi: the main difference is that one has a much tighter relationship with the local government than the other does, and that doesn’t really affect the end result (as far as the rider is concerned) much.
If there is one type of worker that should be carrying a weapon for self-defense, it’s a ride share driver.
But there is a bigger reason not to drive for ride share companies. Folks who drive for rideshare companies usually accumulate wear and tear on their vehicles that is more expensive in the long run than the money made from fares. They are basically borrowing money against the equity of their cars at a very high rate of interest.
Just saw the bit about it being a rental. Didn’t know folks were able to do that these days.
It’s still a shitty job though, especially if you don’t make enough money to justify a rental. My daughter did it for a summer. She met lots of amusing drunks, and fortunately did not have any scary experiences, but she will never do it again. She didn’t carry a gun, but she did carry pepper spray.
You should consider buying her a handgun.
Better to by fired by 12 HR staffers, than carried by 6
– Old adage reformatted to suit current times.
The problem is the liability laws, not the defense. If she shot someone on the street in the process of defending herself from attackers, then Lyft gets sued for far more than they would ever make from a single driver.
We may see less firings for defense if companies could be indemnified from lawsuits stemming from self-defense incidents. Of course, Uber and Lyft are just more ultra woke companies that would have fired someone anyway; in which case, there should be a law equally protecting people against being fired for self-defense. Equal protection and all.
It should be a 2 way street then. She should be able to sue for not being allowed to protect herself. Self defense shouldn’t have to be given up to get a job. I’m sure she was driving to make ends meet. It’s not something one does for enjoyment.
The problem is, Lyft and Uber both insist that we’re independent contractors, not employees. Therefore, they shouldn’t be capable of telling us whether we can have firearms in our vehicles or not, because its supposedly our independent business and we’re not actually their employee, right?
My car. My rules.
“My car. My rules.”
Company provided; company rules.
Rented car; car rental rules.
Worked as an IC for a little while; three contracts. Each had provisions the declared should anything I do, or fail to do, bring unwelcomed media attention, or result in a lawsuit, I was fully responsible for damages to the company hiring me (even if the suit was frivolous, false or dismissed).
“Rented car; car rental rules.”
Being a rental adds additional hassles –
She will have to pay for bullet damage out of her pocket, most likely. Any blood, that’s an expensive biohazard HazMat fee. And be banned from renting from them. And since rental companies probably talk to each other over insurance issues, she may find it hard in the future to rent from anyone else…
“She will have to pay for bullet damage out of her pocket, most likely. Any blood, that’s an expensive biohazard HazMat fee. And be banned from renting from them. And since rental companies probably talk to each other over insurance issues, she may find it hard in the future to rent from anyone else…”
Agree. If navigating life was easy, anybody could do it.
Even a caveman.
As lame as it is that they require their drivers to be essentially defenseless, the no weapon rule is in the contract. If she agreed to the contract, and then violated the contract, they have the right to terminate the contract.
It’s in section 9, item B here:
https://www.lyft.com/terms
You do what you have to do. I get Lyft’s position (I don’t agree with it.) and I very much understand the victims. I applaud her for fighting back and I will not use Lyft or Uber because of their policies. Choice, not cancelled.
I “get” Lyfts position as the following…
The lives of our contractors are worth less than a lawsuit.
Sadly, that is a standard ethic in the business world.
Businesses are not in the ‘business’ of being altruistic, caring entities that exist solely to benefit the public demographic that they intend to serve and mankind at large; They’re in business to make a profit for those shareholders or stakeholders that put up the money to establish it and keep it going.
Everything else is fluff and fantasy. Unless forced by law to do certain beneficial things, no business in its right mind would do those beneficial things UNLESS it could provide a profit.
If a business could operate without employees, it would have no employees. If it could obtain slave labor, it would have slave labor. If it didn’t have to pay for worker insurance, or a ‘minimum wage,’ or basic safety considerations, it wouldn’t. If it could dump its waste into streams and back yards, it would. If GM thought it could get away with having the top management of Ford ‘eliminated,’ thus crippling the competition, it would. That’s why Big Business now donates to Democrats.
And that’s the way it is.
I do understand the liability issues for share ride companies. However,
Do they actually think that a lawsuit from the survivors of a dead driver would be less expensive than one from the family of a dead perp?
Thinking all the incidents where the drivers defended themselves, and were then fired, is irrefutable proof the rideshare companies knew death was a predictable outcome, and took measures to ensure it.
Problem is in our court system they’ll throw out the case if a Lyft driver follows their rules and gets killed. but if a Lyft driver kills someone (even justifiably so) they’ll make Lyft pay millions.
It’s really a shame these drivers can form a union. That’s what unions were for. To make workplaces safer and fair. Not allowed to legally protect ourselves, well then we strike. Yea I know these drivers are now not employees, but independent contractors. The companies get all the breaks, and the driver gets to die over a cost of a ride, or get fired for saving her life. Something is not right in this equation. Hopefully people wake up soon and start changing. It’s not right and left, as much as it’s working folks against the corporations. But corporations are people too. Yea I’ll believe that hen they put just 1 in jail. Fines only get passed onto us anyway. Collapse can’t come fast enuf.
“Yea I know these drivers are now not employees, but independent contractors.”
Isn’t that being litigated, or subjected to legislation?
You don’t really think a union would support drivers having firearms for self defense. They might demand and lobby for more gun control, panic buttons but guns for drivers? Not gonna happen.
Sam I Am: Yes it’s being litigated in several jurisdictions.
Courts are well aware that companies make employees “contractors” to avoid labor laws. The thing about being an independent contractor is that it’s determined by a variety of factors such as whether you can negotiate salary, schedule, whether you bring your own tools, etc. If you look too much like an employee, the courts will rule that you’re not a contractor, but an employee, regardless of how a company classifies you.
“If you look too much like an employee, the courts will rule that you’re not a contractor, but an employee, regardless of how a company classifies you.”
Indeed. The IRS has severe guidelines on the determination. On one job, we contractors had to caucus at times. We were not allowed space at the company for such meetings, so we would meet in the men’s room (all binary males at the time), which we labeled “the consultant’s office” (a term I still use around the house).
“Not allowed to legally protect ourselves, well then we strike.”
I’ve been around several unions over the years, and unions are about as anti-gun as it gets. You’re living in a dope haze if you think a driver’s union will *ever* demand that their drivers be allowed to be armed if they wanted.
Outside of a police union, maybe only an armored car driver or other rent-a-cop would ever get to carry…
“Do they actually think that a lawsuit from the survivors of a dead driver would be less expensive than one from the family of a dead perp?”
I don’t know whether it applies to Lyft drivers, by the employer might be immune from lawsuits by the driver or heirs under Workers Comp.
This would be true IF Lyft drivers were employees, but I believe they’re independent contractors. Work comp is one of the biggest rip offs for workers ever invented. When I had my construction business I was paying in around 10% of wages for $100k/300k coverage. If an employee fell off a roof and broke his back and was left in a wheelchair the rest of his life, his work comp wouldn’t have even covered his medical bill and I was pretty much untouchable. Even with a less severe injury, say a broken leg, they’d be laid up for weeks making 2/3 of their regular salary. My guess is if they knew the limits, most of my employees would have taken the extra cash over the insurance if they were legally allowed to do so.
“I don’t know whether it applies to Lyft drivers, by the employer might be immune from lawsuits by the driver or heirs under Workers Comp.”
Interesting consideration. Not sure WC would payout in a case of reckless endangerment/depraved indifference (or felony murder?).
Wouldn’t that require Lyft to carry Worker’s Comp insurance?
“Wouldn’t that require Lyft to carry Worker’s Comp insurance?”
Snake pit. Some states require all business owners to contribute to WC, and to apply to WC for work-related injuries. Because not all small business owners (independent contractors?) actually formally establish themselves as businesses, many do not contribute to WC.
All very interesting to watch.
Good for her…but I think the Lyft contract has stipulations regarding guns.
“She was driving a rental car” – you can do that?
Wonder if the rental company knew the driver engaged in a commercial enterprise.
Time to find a real job. Hope an employer that is gun friendly steps up and offers.
“Wonder if the rental company knew the driver engaged in a commercial enterprise.” Lyft works with a leasing company to provide vehicles.
UBER, Lyft’s, and others has a rental car program for drivers called Express Drive contracted through Hertz, HyreCar, Fair, Getaround, Maven Gig, Rideshare Rental, and others etc….I had a 120 mile limo ride to the airport and the driver explained all the scenarios to me, he was doing this as part time “because he wanted to”, his main job was a partner in a law practice and he loved the change-up and diversity meeting people. Go Figure! Oh and he really was a lawyer, he gave me his business card, and being skeptical two weeks later when I got home I called the office # on the card and he checked out legit…..
I’m a lawyer — albeit retired — and I work in a Big Box store on weekends selling guns (currently, we have none). As a superannuated retired alter cocker, I enjoy being around young people and having a place to go. So I get what your driver was doing.
“currently we have none”
Lol. Nice.
Boston area, no surprise no guns available…
Just like delivery for Amazon, most vehicles are rented. If the driver/contractor is successful, they often buy a used rental vehicle to continue.
Doesnt she understand that in today’s environment you’re supposed to let the scumbags do whatever they want and only then maybe the cops can catch em so the Obama judges can escort em to the back door!
That’s one way to achieve the coveted ‘victim status’.
Sounds like a good case for the NRA, GOA, FPC, etc to file a law suit and get the states to expand “Stand your ground” laws to the streets.
Recently updated the law in ohio so that stand your ground applies anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
“Recently updated the law in ohio so that stand your ground applies anywhere you are legally allowed to be.”
That’s good to know.
But companies can create and enforce their own GFZs.
I think it’s still worth illegal battle.
Had she not been carrying, she might be dead.
It’s an argument that’s easily made when someone’s hands are around your neck.
“I think it’s still worth illegal battle.”
The woman needs to hire “Louie the Lip” from the law firm Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe. They do anything on contingency. There needs to be strong legal push back. Establishing “damages” might be sporty, but worth the effort.
“file a law suit and get the states to expand “Stand your ground” laws to the streets.”
That’s kind of the *POINT* of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. ‘Castle Doctrine’ covers you in your home, and here in Florida, ‘SYG’ covers you *anywhere* else you are legally allowed to be.
It doesn’t cover you if you are dumpster-diving, for example. That’s likely a trespass violation…
Good for her! There’s a veritable “pandemic” in Chiraq & suburbs of carjacking. A poor woman got shot yesterday in Aurora in a Wendy’s drive-thru. Near death. He!! my local 5-0 charged through my yard 18months ago hunting a carjacker. Death penalty,corporal punishment and/or a chain gang should be brought back. F### Lyft!
Yes, and that no bail reform bill is going to make everything worse in the whole state. Their has all ready been an up tick in our southern suburb.
“Yes, and that no bail reform bill is going to make everything worse in the whole state. Their has all ready been an up tick in our southern suburb.”
How do you know there is/was an uptick in crime? Media reports?
You gotta ponder that a bit. The media proclaimed that the compassionate elimination of bail would not result in increased crime. Now that same media is reporting an uptick? Smells an awful lot like fake news somewhere.
Leftist scum in America love hard data. You can usually force crime data out of police departments.
We will have to keep a close eye on the reporting to be reasonably sure it’s accurate. Other countries deliberately cover up their crime data, like ‘Merry-old-Britain’.
‘No Bail’ will make crime rates spike, and that’s a weapon to use when election time rolls around…
Left wing commies.
Left wing commies by idiots
Her one and only mistake was working for a company that cares more about their bottom line than the safety and lives of their contractors. As she is considered a independent contractor in Ohio. I don’t believe Lyft can be held liable for the acts of independent contractors, but they can set the perimeters of their conduct while under contract.
Have to wonder what percentage of drivers ignore their “policy?”
😎
i know a couple of those drivers locally, not with the same company.
“Concealed means concealed” is their personal policy.
Then again, my sample size is probably biased. The folks I socialize with either carry, or have zero problem with guns…
I drove Uber/Lyft for a year or so. Yes, I was aware of the “no firearms” policy, and yes, I ignored it. I know some of my passengers ignored it as well.
If I had to pick up a student at a school, I’d put my pistol in the glovebox, to comply with Federal law.
This is why I would not support Uber or Lyft. There was an incident here in Central Florida where an Uber or Lyft driver use deadly force against someone trying to harm him. The county sheriff said it was justifiable and still got can.
TTAG had an article on that event about a year back, more or less.
That’s the one where the attacker followed a Lift or Uber driver who was giving a drunk woman a ride home from the bar she was at. The redneck tailgated the driver, then passed him, stopping in the roadway, blocking the Uber driver. The moron got out of his truck, a walked back to the blocked Uber, saying “I’m gonna kill you”, while making a move like drawing a gun.
Only problem was, the Uber driver was a recent graduate of the local police academy, who was driving until the next Polk County Sheriff Department had an opening.
The road-rage attacker said “I’m gonna kill you”, while making that drawing motion. The Uber driver fired once, center of mass, killing the attacker. The Uber driver’s dash cam caught it all on video. The dumb-ass attacker was holding a smartphone, not a gun.
As expected, Sheriff Grady “Because they ran out of bullets” Judd, called a press conference and played the dash cam video. The most dangerous place on Earth is reputed to be the real estate between Sheriff Judd and that press conference video camera… 😉
If you are going to drive for hire and you can legally be armed when doing so I just do not see any sense in going unarmed. Your job is not worth your life. Your employer’s rules were written by lawyers and accountants who sure as hell do not care about your life.
So Lyft prefers dead employees over sanity.
Not really. Lyft and other employers who ban guns in jobs where employees obviously should have them simply put less value on human life than they do on profit. Lyft can always get more drivers, should some be killed. But once Lyft has to pay out a lawsuit, that money is gone forever.
This is true even for food delivery drivers. In some areas, food delivery, grocery delivery has explored. Anyone who has a car can apply(some places have standards, some don’t). This is another way of taxing mom, by putting miles on her car, so her child can have some money in his/her jeans. These are not “real” jobs. You wear out a car doing it, so you should plan for that(most don’t), when the car dies, you do not have a way to get to a real job. These jobs are great for short term or under the table, but you should keep looking for a job that covers expenses.
We had a pizza business, it burned out cars of the employees and our delivery car. Later, my son was very upset when we wouldn’t allow him to use the family car for pizza delivery. I showed him what the mileage write off IRS allows and told him he could pay us that, he cried that he couldn’t make any money that way. I am sorry, we are not going to subsidize someone else’s business.
Bingo. Whenever you see something like this, it’s money. It’s the insurance company. They don’t care if a driver gets killed because it’s not ‘their’ fault, it’s the fault of the robber. But if a driver kills someone- justified or not- that person can sue the company and insurance has to deal with it because the driver is acting as a representative (contractor, employee, whatever).
So, I guess if they had killed her, she would have not been fired. Wow, now it makes sense. IDIOTS!
She can always get another sh!tty job. She can’t get another life. Kudos to her for making the right choice about carrying, and kudos for fighting and winning.
Dead victims are a dime a dozen.
It will never happen with the Dems running the fedgov (and Repubs don’t seem to care either), but this sort of thing could be nipped in the bud with a simple change to federal law:
“Notwithstanding any other law, statute, or other legal authority, any entity that prohibits the lawful possession of firearms on property it controls or as a condition of employment shall be ineligible for government assistance of any form, to include but not limited to: tax credits/discounts, grants, loans, incentives, or any other financial or intangible benefit whatsoever.”
Private companies have rights, but sucking the government tit is not one of them. This would force them to make a choice: push a gun control agenda or get government benefits.
A guy can dream…
Sue company for your injuries , No I can’t drive either the horror, the horror. PTSD is a bitch , my heads fucked up now Im rich.
This incident is a stark reminder of how mentally/morally sick our society has become.
Firing someone for defending themselves — or having an effective means of defending themselves — from a deadly attack is wrong on so many levels.
And even the alleged “justification” of such a policy is wrong on so many levels since it is, at best, factually incorrect and, at worst, elevating feelings above our right to life.
Wait till they institute a social media background check before you can drive or ride and perhaps a COVID-19 vaccination card check. Then they can cross reference to any CCW ‘permit’ issued and viola prohibited person and denial of service. after that they report you to the database so deprograming can start.
KimberWarrior45,
Good point. What would be a good name for such a system? I know, we could call it the social credit system. Hmm, sounds familiar — where I have I heard that before? … Oh, wait!
Could cancel lyft for their anti-feminist action but actual real genetic born women are rapidly falling from their protected status anyway so probably wouldn’t do any good.
If the company says no gunms and you bring gunm you get fired. Don’t work for company that says no gunms. Gunm Owners local 357 on strike
The rideshare companies hire the drivers as independent contractors so if they are beaten or killed by a passenger because they aren’t allowed to protect themselves the companies do not pay workers’ compensation benefits or workers’ compensation death benefits. Should the driver use a gun and shoot a passenger the companies would be sued and even though the drivers are independent of the companies their defense is that the driver was not an employee. The companies do not want to pay the litigation expenses associated with getting themselves out of a lawsuit. They recognize that the drivers are disposable from an economic perspective. That means it is cheaper for the companies to lose a driver.
“That means it is cheaper for the companies to lose a driver.”
Same way with airlines. (don’t think about that one too long)
The life of a driver is meaningless to the company’s bottom line.
Paying out on lawsuits is a very real concern because that does directly hit profit.
Maybe not. Most big companies have liability insurance and balance sheet reserves to deal with such problems. A suit or verdict would have little to no effect on the bottom line.
Back in the day, one of the companies that I represented settled a claim for millions. Insurance covered every dime, including legal fees.
Fuck Lyft and Uber and their moronic anti-gun policies.
“Fuck Lyft and Uber and their moronic anti-gun policies.”
Well, now. There ya’ go. Someone finally took the literary and intellectual high road.
This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property.
Since when is a car that belongs to the rideshare driver Lyft property? Never drove for any of them though my daughter did after she got her GWCL. Far better to be unemployed and alive than unemployed and dead.
Thinking about it, since Lyft claims the driver’s vehicle as their property, this opens up some very interesting ways a good lawyer looking to make a claim against Lyft could make a legal claim against them.
I think that part of the sentence refers to whatever a “Lyft Hub” is. The more relevant part is that she was acting as a lyft rep by driving.
Big mistake allowing a two bit company ran by a bunch of pasty mouth metrosexuals to Gun Control you.
I’ve missed you, Deborah. I still love you so hard.
Imposter, again,as usual.
Talk about ‘projection’. He likely wrote that while masturbating, the deviant twerp.
That little troll is so obsessed with Deborah, he’s kinda like a moth, beating itself against a lightbulb at night until it dies.
Be the moth, widdle troll. Go run out into rush hour traffic and get killed. Or just kill yourself, just as long as you croak.
Or stick around and be TTAG’s punch-toy.
I’m not calling ‘dibs’ that fuckwit TTAG’ers. Anyone and every one is welcome to bitch it to your heart’s content, any time you wish… 🙂
‘Run out in traffic’ writes the ‘man’ who is crippled from, well, running into traffic. My God you’re a stupid person. Enjoy smoother night alone and unhappy 😀.
Unhappy?
Insulting you makes my day!
(I have to admit, The other TTAG commenter who asked if your mom had any babies that lived got a guffaw outta me! 😉 )
I know exactly how you feel about imposters. Some liberal loving potato muncher has been posting with my screen name for years.
SOME COMMENTS VERY GOOD , GET OFF THE COMPLAINING , NOT POLITCAL BLUE OR RED THING , DRIVERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ARMS THEMSELVES , WITH LTC .
ALL THATS GOING ON , ARMED PROTEST , TRAITORS STORMING CAPITAL ,
YOU DON’T LOVE AMERICA AND OUR CONSTITUTION LEAVE IT . GO TO NORTH KOREA , SEE WHAT RIGHTS YOU HAVE , WANT CHANGE A POLITICAL PARTY . DON’T SPEND MONEY ON GOING TO OUR CAPITAL TO RIOT . BUY ONE WAY TICKET TO NORTH KOREA , KIM JOUG UM WELCOME YA , THEN THROW YA IN PISION FOR LIFE , IF LET YA LIVE AT ALL .
Oh my God, you’re shouting at me!
Just messing with you. Here’s another sentiment:
When Charles Manson said that The Beatles spoke to him through the White Album, we called him crazy.
When two other people say that the Democrats are running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor, we call them “Congresswomen”.
“While police aren’t sure if the men were hit, it did send them running and successfully ended the attack.”
That’ll do.
If one of the assailants was in the passenger seat, how could she miss?
I know, battle stress and all that. But assuming she got off at least a few shots, one of them had to plug the old boy somewheres.
Let only the idiots associate with them. Without drivers they have no business.
Just more proof that corporations don’t give a single shit about people.
Not to mention that police find it much easier to count dead bodies and then go home – safely.
I refer to situations where the police noted armed defense made it much more difficult for them to do their job. They were referring to watching video footage from a Walamrt to determine who was the perp and who were defending themselves.
Lord knows it would be soooo much easier if the defenders had just let the perp kill who they were going to kill and then leave. Makes their job so much easier.
“lift Property”, Didn’t they pass a item in calif making these “employees” Independent contractors? They don’t work for us, thus no health benefits no hourly wage, but they also can’t legally defend themselves in their own property. hmmf.
They can legally defend themselves all day long. She wasn’t charged with a crime.
But Lyft can fire her for violating their policies.
Obviously it’s a stupid policy and a stupid implementation, but that’s big companies for you. It might be them wanting to virtue signal but, frankly, it’s probably more about $$$. They don’t want the liability- or, more likely, their insurance company does not want the liability of a driver shooting someone. So they make and enforce a rule such that it’s harder to sue them for it.
“This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property.”
Let’s see, driving for Lyft she is a contractor and therefore NOT a Lyft employee. She was driving a rental car not owned by Lyft and therefore NOT on Lyft “property”.
It’s time to run around and sue Lyft for improper termination of her contract.
Is Ohio an At Will state? Then tough s#!t. Don’t like it? Get rid of At Will employment.
Where is the part where Lyft helped local LE track down and identify the perps???
no, seriously.
So Lyft and Uber operate roving no gun zones?
Driving my Prius to bad areas to pick up strangers for a little bit of cash is a great idea!
Its so much fun pretending to be a cabbie without all the licensure, and you meet such diverse people!
Another cowtailing liberal organization
That doesn’t know what the 2nd A is all about. Pathetic. Move to the country. Its safer and there are lots of legal hardware there that you can use
That’s the risk you take when you choose to work for a company that doesn’t care about its drivers.
Any non-gig economy job I’d partially blame the employer but every lyft/uber driver is 100% voluntary.
Here’s to hoping this driver trades up after getting kicked out. Good on the driver for not being a victim and shame on Lyft for thinking it better to have a driver killed than defend themselves.
Again, Lyft and Uber want it both ways:
They want their drivers to be considered “independent contractors”.
They also want them to abide by “employee rules”.
If I were a labor law attorney, this would be a prime exhibit for why drivers are employees not contractors.
“They want their drivers to be considered “independent contractors”.
They also want them to abide by “employee rules” ”
When I hire lawn, sewer, electrical, or whatever contractor, ultimately they play by my rules as to whatever conditions I present them (or I get someone else). Share ride companies hire contractors to transport goods from one location to another. Those companies are rightfully able to determine the type of container, and, when necessary, provide an MSDS regarding the steps to be taken to ensure the safest conditions for transport. Independent contractors agree to abide by the conditions demanded by the company contracting for transport services, or turn down the proffered material to be transported. It is all just simple transport commerce.
Comments are closed.