Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-23-2015, 01:28 PM
 
20,458 posts, read 12,378,099 times
Reputation: 10251

Advertisements

hmm.... considering they are now fighting a war in the courts with a driver who wants to be considered an employee, this isn't a smart move.


independent contractors are independent. employees get a hand book of does and do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2015, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,437 posts, read 7,367,374 times
Reputation: 7979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep on truckin View Post
On company time yes, off the clock no. You legally have a right to drink but your employer can stop you from drinking while on the job.
Terrible analogy. On the clock doesn't make the vehicle theirs. Drinking on the job impacts performance, carrying a gun doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 01:41 PM
 
20,458 posts, read 12,378,099 times
Reputation: 10251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep on truckin View Post
On company time yes, off the clock no. You legally have a right to drink but your employer can stop you from drinking while on the job.

You are right but Uber is currently arguing in court that its drivers are NOT employees. That they are simply a clearing house to connect "independent contractors" with potential clients.

they are being sued by a driver who wants Uber to treat its drivers as employees and extend benefits as such....

dictating terms like this crosses a line that just might put them in a hundred million dollar hole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 01:42 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,607,699 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep on truckin View Post
On company time yes, off the clock no. You legally have a right to drink but your employer can stop you from drinking while on the job.
But Uber claims their drivers aren't their employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 01:46 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,184,586 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
Terrible analogy.
No it isn't.

Quote:
On the clock doesn't make the vehicle theirs. Drinking on the job impacts performance, carrying a gun doesn't.
They believe it will and it's their business model, not yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 02:10 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,611,558 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Riding in someone else's vehicle with a gun is not a right.

I believe it is. I don't give up my rights to ride in someones car.

Unless that person ask me to leave the car, or I have reached my destination.

That is his to determine and mine to agree. Transactions without government involvement.
2 private individuals, exercising their 1st and second amendments in a peaceful way. How American can it get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 02:12 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,611,558 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Exactly. Does BentBow forget about the Uber rape cases? https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...pGL/story.html Chicago Police Investigate Rape Allegation Against Uber Driver http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wo...rape.html?_r=0 Yeah allowing drivers to have guns so they can use it in a rape case is going to keep people using that service.

That is why anytime my wife ever uses UBER, she will have her .38 in her purse, no matter what anyone wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 02:12 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,184,586 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I believe it is.
Obviously you are a bit delusional.

Quote:
I don't give up my rights to ride in someones car.
There is no such right.

Quote:
Unless that person ask me to leave the car, or I have reached my destination.
Leave? They asked you to not get in.

Quote:
That is his to determine and mine to agree. Transactions without government involvement.
2 private individuals, exercising their 1st and second amendments in a peaceful way. How American can it get.
You have to be sneaky to get a driver to agree to take you. Bravo for you I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 02:32 PM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,084,373 times
Reputation: 1863
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Obviously you are a bit delusional.

There is no such right.

Leave? They asked you to not get in.

You have to be sneaky to get a driver to agree to take you. Bravo for you I guess.
I know you don't want to hear this but it is the truth.
People who legally concealed carry will carry where ever they choose, and it is legal.
Private business can ask people not to carry, but people don't have to comply. It's just their policy, not the law.
IF they somehow have xray vision and discover that you are carrying, they can ask you to leave and you must leave if you don't want a trespassing charge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2015, 02:33 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,884,494 times
Reputation: 2460
Exclamation California Laws Gone Illegle!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Problem.

You are discussing what the government can or can't do but the article is about what an individual business owner can do. They are not the same.

The government can't restrict your right to a gun. A business owner can say "not on my property".
The Point is If is was not for the NRA, in which I support, guns would be removed from every law-abiding citizen. California and have not address the real issue of Gangland Violence from Illegal Immigrants from Mexico, (IE the Cartel).

The barriers that the Californian Executive Branch (Gov. Brown) and the Californian Democratic Senate and House. These Violations of the Second amendment are being addressed.

Gov. Brown does not have the will to control these Illegals and criminals even if the cost is a Law abiding Californian Citizen.

One would be surprised how many people carry concealed everyday and hardly ever a shot is fired. But we are much safer because we have the means to defend ourselves.
If you guys want to be sheep, that is your business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top