Uber Law Violations

In Singapore, the taxi industry was highly regulated and organized. Drivers are required to hold a valid Taxi Driver's Vocational License which could be obtained after completing their training course at the Singapore Taxi Academy and passing a theory test. Comparatively, Taiwan drivers only need to pass a basic driving test to become a cabbie. This difference in credentials shows the control and regulatory differences between the two cultures in the taxi industry. As a result of the rules and regulations in Singapore and the lack of rules and regulations in Taiwan, the regions gain two completely different types of taxi drivers. The Singapore taxi industry acquires employees that are professional and dedicated to their job because they see it as a career. The drivers there plan on staying in the profession for an extended period of time. In Taiwan the lack of rules and regulation in obtaining professional licenses

Los Angeles and San Francisco district attorneys filed an amended civil complaint against Uber this week, for not properly conducting the required criminal background checks on individuals who apply to become an Uber driver. The initial complaint was filed in December 2014, but after the district attorneys discovered 25 Uber drivers with criminal records has been hired in their cities, so they took action and filed the amended complaint.

The reason behind company taking this action is nothing but they want their passengers to experience safe and comfortable ride and they don’t want them to face any risky situations when they are on drive. This shows that the main thing is about having safe drive and you need to be careful about all these stuff. There are some news spreading that the new rules adopted by the Uber was because of an incident which took place in Charleston, South Carolina where there was an open fire done by 21year old white man in the black Church, this one small single tragedy ended the lives of nine people, but words from Uber is that the act passed by them was not based directly on that shooting, Since the new rules came into existence on June 10th almost a week before that incident took place.

This case was based on facts and opinions from Peter Ramirez as being an employee for Yosemite Water Company as a route sales representative/relief sales representative. This case was filed because Mr. Ramirez felt that he wasn’t getting paid properly for all the jobs and duties he performed at the company. Also, the case was to resolve whether a bottled water driver was entitled to overtime pay or whether he was outside salesperson and being exempt from the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Mr. Ramirez left the company and then he brought action against Yosemite for unpaid overtime wages. Yosemite defense was that Mr. Ramirez was an outside salesperson and exempt from wage and overtime laws. The best way to avoid costly lawsuits is with careful review of employee classifications (Hsiao-Ying and Kleiner, 2005).

San Francisco has another wrongful termination suit in the news. A worker from Madera named Jason Pimentel claims that he was the victim of wrongful termination. Pimentel filed his complaint on June 13th against Velex, Inc., Nexius Solutions, Inc. Included in the complaint are a number of alleged violations. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Civil Right Violation is a problem that goes unseen in california. Nobody pays attention to it. Police officers beat or kill innocent citizens every year and don’t get punished. It’s a violation to our civil rights. They can’t just beat or kill an innocent person. 487 percent of latinos were killed, 341 percent of whites were killed, 229 percent of blacks were killed, and 76 percent of other races were killed by california police officers form 2006 through 2015.

Facts: Stephen R. Newton (Newton) was an employee of Henderson City as a police officer. Newton had been assigned to the DEA in October 1987 until he resigned in 1991. Newton claims he was not compensated for all the overtime hours he worked as a Task Force Officer. The city of Henderson entered an agreement with the DEA to remain Newton’s employer consequently rendering them responsible for “establishing the salary benefits including overtime of the Henderson Police Department officer assigned to the Task Force, and making all payments due.” Prior to 1990, Newton had not received authority from the City to work any overtime.

In the case of Patel v. Quality Inn South, it was first proclaimed by a district court that undocumented aliens were not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (“PATEL v. QUALITY, ” n.d.). The Eleventh Circuit Court contacted the U.S. Department of Labor in order to determine whether or not undocumented aliens could protest and file for violations under the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The U.S. Department of Labor responded and took “the position that undocumented aliens were covered by the provisions of the FLSA and thus were entitled to its protections” (“PATEL v. QUALITY,” n.d.). The Circuit Court then reversed the decision of the district court and held that

In case 2 of 15, the plaintiff, Edward Roberts, alleged discrimination based on color. This allegation falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (Mello, J. A. 2015). The courts will have to decide whether the defendant, the trucking company, discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his color. As presiding judge in the case, I would rule on Mr. Roberts’ behalf. The facts of the cases state Mr. Roberts came “in person on March 31, 2005” to apply, which clearly states his color was observed as he put in the application. Mr. Roberts experience was sufficient because he listed 22 months of prior experience as a road driver.

It is the obligation of the courts of this nation to enforce the laws of this nation, and illegal aliens have broken the law by their very presence in this nation, as well as the fact that the employer has breached both federal and state law in the hiring of those illegal aliens. Any activities that the illegal aliens engaged in such as labor union organizing were illegal for them to engage in, in the first place. Therefore this is a case of which all of the activities that the illegal aliens engaged in have no legal protection and merit due to their illegal status, and the fact that the employer illegally hired these individuals further exacerbates the case against the possibility of the court legally honoring any voluntary settlement agreement

Critics further claimed that the violations were nothing more than “legal excuses” used to justify the questionable investigation of minority drivers at hand. For example: a deputy studied it for a moment and identified the lack of mud flaps as an equipment violation. The vehicle was subsequently stopped and searched, and the occupants were interrogated about where they were going and why. There are people in the cop community, without seeing who the driver is, know what the driver is in terms of the vehicle being driven. In Los Angeles, there are vehicles in particular where deputies identify as “known to be favored by gangsters” and most likely will pursue the vehicle (Gumbhir,

Earlier this month, a putative class action was filed by a baggage handler who for formerly employed by Skywest Airlines. This particular baggage handler was employed at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport). He alleges that Skywest, his employer, failed to provide him with the required living wage according to the ordinance (new as of 1997 with several

Under the new law, California employers are prohibited from paying employees a lesser wage due to their race and

They may try to fit more people in your car than you have seat belts for. This can get everyone in the car a fine/ticket. Do not let them do this. Tell them they need to request an UberXL or tell them you can only take 4 riders and make the extras request another

One of the biggest issues that Uber faces at the moment is the stack of lawsuits. Uber needs to adopt a zero-tolerance stance for violation of the anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation policies no matter the level or performance of the violator. Uber also needs to adopt a more thorough background check process. Uber has had a problem with its ethics recently. Companies such as Airbnb and Lyft have clear values which they try to model in their business activities daily. One way that Uber can address these concerns is by creating a good set of core values. To do this Uber will need to rewrite their core company values to “reflect more inclusive and positive behaviors”. Uber should work with an established and respected company