Kalamazoo shootings should put brakes on Uber’s legislative agenda in Lansing

Michiganders everywhere are reeling from the news of the horrific Kalamazoo shootings. The scope and brazenness of this tragedy strikes all of us to the core.

As law enforcement officers work to piece together the details of what occurred, they and the victims’ families are asking important questions about what role the alleged killer’s status as an Uber driver played in the shootings.

Was there something in Jason Dalton’s background that would have been a red flag, had Uber subjected drivers to more rigorous background checks? Did Uber properly respond to the alarm sounded by one of its customer before the murders that this man was driving crazily through Kalamazoo? After receiving this message, did Uber properly monitor Dalton’s activities as he drove around Kalamazoo shooting innocent people? Why was Dalton allowed to pick up other passengers in the middle of a killing spree?

These are important questions that deserve comprehensive answers. Those answers may show that this was yet another unforeseen, random act of heinous crime. But they could also reveal that Uber could have done something more to prevent the tragedy or minimize its scope.

Underscoring the importance of these questions is the fact that Uber has been building a legal wall around itself – a wall that works to prevent Uber from having potential corporate accountability. Since its inception, Uber has insisted that its drivers are “independent contractors” and therefore not company employees.

Uber has asked politicians around the country to adopt laws that give Uber special treatment by codifying its lack of corporate responsibility. Ironically, this debate is presently pending in Lansing. A package of bills (known as HB 4637, 4638, 4639, 4640, and 4641) are pending in the Michigan Legislature. These bills would make it law in Michigan that Uber drivers are independent contractors and that Uber is not in control of its drivers. The bills passed the House of Representatives last year and are now stalled in the Michigan Senate.

What’s radical about these bills is that they treat a $50-billion California tech company differently than other Michigan employers. For example, by making drivers independent contractors, Uber avoids having to pay workers’ compensation benefits. That means that when Uber drivers are injured on the job, the cost of their medical care is pushed onto auto no-fault or health insurers.

And by insulating Uber from corporate liability, these bills eliminate the incentives for Uber to make its technology as safe as possible. If history has taught us anything about consumer protection, it’s that the threat of liability forces companies to make their products safer.

The success of these bills is critical to Uber’s business model. If Uber drivers are independent contractors, then Uber – the corporation – cannot be held liable for their actions. Also, having independent-contractor drivers means that Uber does not have to pay most traditional employer expenses. Not surprisingly, Uber has spent vast sums of money defending this principle in courts around the country.

For example, when an Uber driver ran over a six-year-old girl in San Francisco, Uber said it was not responsible for the girl’s death because the driver was “in between trips.” Recently, a federal judge sided with a group of Uber drivers who argued that by treating them as independent contractors, Uber was denying them benefits that are traditionally afforded to employees. The federal judge held that Uber drivers were not properly classified as independent contractors and thus could pursue a class action against Uber. But Uber has vowed to fight this ruling on appeal.

When it comes to public policy, perhaps the only sliver of good news from this tragedy is the bills pending in the Michigan legislature have not yet been made law. The least that the Senate and governor can do now is to put these bills aside and allow the investigation into the Kalamazoo murders to continue. The families of the victims deserve answers to their questions. Again, those answers may prove that no one could have predicted or prevented this unspeakable tragedy. But until those answers are given, the families deserve to know that no one corporation is being given special treatment by our legislature.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan.

Like what you’re reading in Bridge? Please consider a donation to support our work!

We are a nonprofit Michigan news site focused on issues that impact all citizens. In an era of click bait and biased news, we focus on taking the time to learn both sides of a story before we post it. Bridge stories are always free, but our work costs money. If our journalism helps you understand and love Michigan more, please consider supporting our work. It takes just a moment to donate here.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

MighiganMom
Fri, 03/04/2016 - 11:09pm
A better tittle for this article would be, "Ambulance Chasers Want to Cash in on the Kalamazoo Tragedy".
Jacob
Sun, 03/06/2016 - 8:31am
I find The Center for Michigan often to be the voice of reason and well balanced. While Uber's business practices may well require scrutiny to tie the terrible tragedy in Kalamazoo to Uber's is a very weak argument.
Barry Visel
Sun, 03/06/2016 - 10:20am
It appears he was an independent contractor who also was an independent killer, why we don't yet know. Believe it or not, some people like being "independent" from government laws and regulations. As for the driving issues, a call to 911 seems the appropriate response...I don't think anyone would think to call corporate headquarters of the business involved. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those suffering from this senseless event. We can try to complicate everyone's lives with more laws and regulations, but that won't stop these events from happening. Unfortunately, I don't have any answers either.
Rick
Sun, 03/06/2016 - 10:21am
'MichiganMom' - I guess what you didn't understand, or care to, is that Uber is just another 'contractors' dodge like Walmart where they get us - you and me - to pay for their own costs like health insurance, liability, etc. I guess until you suddenly find yourself classified as a 'contractor' and are responsible for your own health insurance, auto insurance, etc. and then have an illness or accident that injures you or someone else and you/they end up on Medicaid when the cost exceeds the minimal amount the insurance covers. Walmart has us taxpayers paying for their part time workers health benefits, food stamps, etc. so Walmart can push local (whose workers are often full timers with health insurance) small businesses out of business. It's called 'privatizing profits, socializing costs'. But just keep drinking the Kool-aid and believing in lies...
Matt
Mon, 03/07/2016 - 11:13am
Rick, Would you be happier if rather than driving for Uber these folks sat home and played video games and watch TV? Seems strange (although very typical) that those on the left with all the whining about income inequality, have such problems with people going out on their own initiative finding work to bring in some extra money? Do you really think that we'd be better off without UBER and Walmart?
Barry Visel
Tue, 03/08/2016 - 2:05pm
Rick, the situations that Walmart, Uber and others take advantage of are based on Laws our government created. Businesses take advantage of various incentives, deductions and credits because government created them...so you can't blame the businesses.
Observer
Sun, 03/06/2016 - 4:03pm
These gentlemen seem reluctant to hold individuals responsible for their actions. Obviously, their preference is to shift responsibility to somebody with deep pockets. None of the Uber drivers were compelled to become independent contractors.
djm
Wed, 03/09/2016 - 9:30am
Uber is in the TRANSPORTATION industry. Do you want Airline Pilots and Train Engineers to be "independent contractors"? If Uber wants its drivers to be "contractors" , then they should be treated as long haul truckers and face the same regulations.