- New FDA guidelines on sodium “unnaturally low” and propose “consumption levels unheard of in any country in the world,” according to the salt guys;
- Engineering the language: campaign under way to stop referring to car crashes with the word “accident” [Jacob Sullum]
- Gawker mocked claim of man who has maintained he invented email as a teenager in the 1970s so he’s suing [NJ Advance Media]
- I’ve often joined morning host Ray Dunaway on Connecticut’s WTIC and you can listen to my Monday segment here, discussing the California bill to encourage lawsuits over climate denial as well as the Wheaton, Ill. fired cop case;
- “Dallas Pet-Sitting Firm Raises the Ante, Seeks Up to a Million Dollars in Damages for Yelp Review” [Paul Alan Levy, David Kravets/ArsTechnica]
- In the mail: “Uber-Positive: Why Americans Love the Sharing Economy” [Jared Meyer, Encounter Books] Meyer is also in the new issue of Reason with an article on “progressive” opposition to the gig economy that includes the line (h/t Steve Horwitz): “Waging a war on lower transaction costs is the definition of fighting progress.”
Posts Tagged ‘taxis and ridesharing’
“New Uber Update Allows Users To File Lawsuit Against Company Directly In App”
Humor, from The Onion.
“Guess that’s how lawsuits work”
Uber driver never met lawyer or asked to sue, and opposes aim of suit, but: “Guess that’s how lawsuits work” [Daniel Fisher] Related: Cyrus Farivar/ArsTechnica, Jack Schaedel via Fisher.
Defending the gig economy
Relax and let Bill Steigerwald do the driving as he refutes a bad new book that bashes Uber and the gig economy.
Liberating the household garage
The advent of ridesharing and driverless cars will make it an even better idea to relax zoning that bars business use of household garages [Nolan Gray, Market Urbanism]
Plus, mobility and freedom: Randal O’Toole joins Trevor Burrus and Tom Clougherty at Cato “for a discussion on land usage, urban planning, public transit, transportation, and driverless cars.” [Libertarianism.org podcast]
Labor and employment roundup
- A good labor economics class lets you see through society’s secular religion [Bryan Caplan first, second, and third (“Why labor fallacies have replaced industrial organization fallacies in society’s secular religion”) posts]
- “Meet The Obama Czars Who Decide How Your Workplace Runs” [Connor Wolf/Daily Caller, and thanks for quote]
- Welcome news for employers: Seventh Circuit signals it isn’t buying EEOC’s attack on severance offers in CVS case [Jon Hyman, background]
- Can a unionized Uber or Lyft driver file a grievance over your negative comment as a customer? “It’s not at all clear how union job protection policies can jibe with a community-rating economy.” [Brian Doherty, Reason]
- Riffling through just one day’s BNA Labor Report, Michael Fox finds headlines like Firing After FMLA Request Raises Triable Issues, Recommendation Letter Saves Fired Professor’s Bias Suit, and Commission Seeks Comment on Workplace Murder Case [Employer’s Lawyer]
- Disney exec: here’s our plan to engage in racial discrimination in hiring journalists [Ira Stoll, Future of Capitalism] Have they compared notes with BuzzFeed Canada? [Mediaite]
- On minimum wage, New York Times editors find Hillary Clinton overly tethered to economic reality, urge cutting of final moorings [Charles Hughes, Cato] “The Evidence Is Piling Up That Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs” [David Neumark, WSJ]
What big fines you have, California
The California Public Utilities Commission has voted to approve a $7.6 million dollar fine levied against ride-sharing app provider Uber “for not adequately reporting legally-demanded data on its service to the disabled.” The paperwork dispute is distinct from any actual proceedings over claims of service denial. [Brian Doherty, Reason; earlier and related on what Doherty calls California’s “regulatory war on Uber” here (employee status of drivers), here (CEQA), etc.]
“Former Taco Bell Exec Sues Uber Driver He Attacked For $5 Million”
“The Taco Bell exec who got canned from his job after he was caught on video drunkenly attacking his Uber driver is suing the driver for $5 million. … The suit says that it’s against California state law to record someone without their consent.” A lawyer for Uber driver Edward Caban says plaintiff Benjamin Golden’s lawyer is incorrectly invoking the California law, which he says bans audio but not video recording. [LAist]
N.B. Note reader David C.’s advice in comments that the privacy suit appears to be a counterclaim to an existing lawsuit by the driver, always an important piece of context, and that the in-car tape recorded both audio and video of the incident.
Toronto cab scam and the risks of regulation
Canada’s National Post reports that what police consider to be probably a “network of a few people” at more than one cab company have been victimizing unwary riders by sliding their bank cards through an unauthorized point-of-sale machine and handing a replica card back to them. The card is then used to drain the victim’s bank account. TD Bank alone says it is handling 65 claims following this pattern. The online payment mechanism used in ridesharing services appears to be more secure against scams of this sort, but the operations manager for one of the taxi companies is touchy on that point: “To suggest that this has anything to do with taxis vs. Uber is ludicrous,” she tells the NP.
Which raises the question: if Uber and Lyft were the older technology, would cities following the Precautionary Principle legalize taxis for hail? Of course, to those of us who elevate principles of liberty over the regulatory precautionary principle, the answer is clear: legalize both kinds of service, and let consumers decide for themselves which risks they are willing to run. But wouldn’t it be absurd to ban the safer service and thus force people to use the riskier?
“Cabbies sue Uber in St. Louis over lost business”
“Four taxi drivers are suing Uber and seeking class-action status, alleging they’ve seen up to a 40 percent dip in business since the ride-hailing service began operating in violation of local regulations.” The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of other St. Louis cabbies. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Brian Doherty, Reason]