Uber has agreed to pay 28.5 million dollars to settle claims that a $1 “safe rides fee” charged to riders was misleading.

The cases of Philliben v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Mena v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which have since been consolidated into one case on behalf of Uber passengers seeking restitution. The passengers have sued the company because the background checks on drivers aren’t as rigorous as the company advertised. This is a part of an ongoing narrative that Uber leads its customers to believe that their service is more safe than it actually is.

“The civil enforcement action is still ongoing,” said Alex Bastian a spokesperson for one of the prosecutors in the case. “There are laws to protect consumers, and any time a company deviates from those laws, they need to be punished and they need to be deterred.”

There are roughly 25 million passengers involved in the settlement, which yields nearly $1.14 to each before attorney fees.  Bastian said that his office will “take a hard look” at whether $28.5 million in restitution is sufficient. In addition to the settlement, Uber is now stating that it will change the terms used to describe safety related features and will be using terms like “booking fees” in the future.

Uber first added the $1 safe ride fee in April 2014 to help pay for its safety program, which includes driver training, background checks and vehicle inspections. But passengers were unsatisfied, citing several incidents with Uber drivers which called into question the industry leading background checks that the company claimed to offer. In Uber’s release, the company recognizes that “accidents and incidents do happen,” which is “why it’s important to ensure that the language we use to describe safety at Uber is clear and precise.”

This is just the latest in a series of legal battles facing the popular company. Last month, Uber was fined $7.6 million by the California Public Utilities Commission for failing to provide information “in a full and timely fashion” around the number and percentage of customers who requested cars, and how often it could provide rides for them. Meanwhile, Uber is still battling the class action lawsuit around reimbursing drivers for gas and other expenses. That lawsuit is set to go to trial this summer in June.

 

Article via: TechCrunch,11 February 2016, Bloomberg, 11 February 2016

Photo Uber launch Party by 5chw4r7z

Yahoo is being sued by a former employee that claims that he was discriminated against for being male.

Gregory Anderson, who was employed in Yahoo’s media division was fired in November 2014.  He filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, alleging the company’s performance management system was arbitrary and unfair. Anderson “alleges that Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of the QPR Program to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.”

The QPR Program at Yahoo is the controversial quarterly performance review program that ranks employees and then fires the lowest ranking ones. In the Media division, where Anderson was an editor, the complaint says that when male and female employees got equally low scores (anything under 3), the women were favored and the men were fired. What’s worse, in the case that both male and female employees got the same score, the men were fired and the female employee took over the male employees job.

This isn’t the first discrimination lawsuit to be tied to a stack ranking system. In the early 2000s, a cascade of cases against Ford, Goodyear, and Capital One, alleged that such systems led to age discrimination against older employees

The lawsuit also alleges that in addition to discriminating against men, Yahoo fires people without just cause and did not give 60 days’ notice to staff affected in mass layoffs. In California, layoffs are defined as terminating more than 50 people at one time, therefore not providing notice violates California law. In addition to the complaint about the way that people were fired, Anderson’s complaint also alleges that there was unfair gender based biased for hiring.  Former Chief Marketing Officer Kathy Savitt, almost exclusively hired women into management positions in Yahoo’s media division.

Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and also California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. It doesn’t matter which gender the person happens to be.

“The Anderson lawsuit raises the question of how to correct lingering gender discrimination against women and suggests that the answer is not yet more illegal discrimination,” wrote Anderson’s attorney Jon Parsons in a statement about the lawsuit.

Article via Huffington Post, 4 February 2016

Photo: Yahoo! by Eric Hayes [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

On Monday, Alphabet, the company that owns Google, overtook Apple by becoming the most valuable company in the world.

The most valuable companies in America are nearly all tech companies. Google and Apple are leading the pack with market values of $543 billion and $535 billion respectively. Behind those two companies sits Microsoft at $433 billion. Facebook, at $328 billion, took fourth on Monday, surpassing Exxon Mobile at $318 billion. The revenues of the top leaders (Google and Apple) are higher than any other company in corporate history.

Just last quarter Alphabet reported revenues of more than $21.3 billion, blowing past estimates by roughly half a billion dollars. Traders are expecting Alphabet to keep the title of most valuable company for some time to come. Revenue for the company saw $74.5 billion in sales for all of 2015, up from $66 billion in 2014. The good news keeps coming as Monday their stock rose another 5 percent.

Colin Gillis, senior technology analyst for BGC Partners, believes that Alphabet will become the world’s first trillion dollar company. Why? Sheer numbers, for one, Gillis said in an interview. “Think about the number of services they have with a billion users: Google Search, YouTube, Maps. Some of those are used multiple times every single day,” he said.

Some also think that the deciding factor between Google and Apple is all about China. Apple reported the slowest-ever sales growth for the iPhone and revealed that its business in China is facing trouble. In contrast, Alphabet makes very little money off hardware and does almost no business in China. Now that China’s economy is slowing down, Apple and their stock seem to be following suit.

It could be that Alphabet knows exactly how to show investors its future promise. Google has been famous for its moonshots, like the self driving car. The reorganization of Google, including the creation of the parent company Alphabet, has allowed transparency into its many services and what they offer. All that adds up to a lot of success and the number one spot for the tech company.

Article via The Washington Post,1 Febraurary, 2016

Photo: iPhone Alphabet by schnaars [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Mike Hearn’s recent declaration that Bitcoin is a failed experiment has been met with staunch opposition from many of the currency’s key developers. Hearn has been accused of hyperbolizing the situation because he personally disagreed with decisions made by other developers; many have also said that he is guilty of self-promotion for his new company R3CEV.

Throughout its years of operation, Bitcoin has alternately been considered the future of money and a wasted project. Hearn is the current voice behind the dissolution of Bitcoin, causing those like BitTorrent Founder Bram Cohen to tweet about Hearn’s farewell essay, “That was one whiny ragequit. He’s epically wrong on almost all technical points.” Greg Slepak published a point-by-point refutation of Hearn’s blog post; Sam Patterson similarly refuted a Washington Post article written from a pro-Hearn perspective.

The main controversy about Bitcoin’s demise stems from an original debate about block size. Blocks are virtual files that transaction data is permanently stored in, assembled in a linear sequence to form a “block chain.” The most recent block contains a very difficult mathematical puzzle that requires a correct answer in order to add a new block to the chain, thereby “unlocking” new Bitcoins. Currently, there’s a size limitation to the blocks, which limits the currency’s overall capacity.

Hearn and two others want to split the block chain in two, a move colloquially called the “hard fork,” whereas the other key developers have a different plan, alternatively titled “the roadmap.” The root of the issue, however, is more than technical jargon. Bitcoin is divided because it’s unclear as to who should govern the system. Hearn said that the virtual currency was “meant to be a new, decentralized form of money.” Yet without any centralization, Bitcoin remains a feud between opinionated elite software developers. Which out any form of governance, Bitcoin loses its opportunities at progress.

Then there are those who believe that without Hearn, a feud no longer exists. Mike Komaransky, an employee of the Bitcoin firm Cumberland Mining, tweeted, “Bitcoin Hearn Paradox- With him, consensus is hard to reach, [bitcoin] suffers. [Without] him, consensus is easy to reach, bitcoin prospers. he can’t win.”

Article via TechCrunch, 23 January 2016

Photo: Bitcoin by CoinDesk  [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Two years ago, British software developer Mike Hearn quit his job at Google so that he could dedicate himself to developing the new online currency, Bitcoin. The currency’s value and prevalence has fluctuated considerably these past two years, but it suffered perhaps its largest blow yet on Jan. 14: Hearn announced Bitcoin to be a failure and admitted that he had sold his entire collection of Bitcoins. The value of the currency fell 10 percent within a day.

In the blog post he wrote about the failure of the system, Hearn wrote, “Bitcoin has gone from being a transparent and open community to one that is dominated by rampant censorship and attacks on bitcoiners by other bitcoiners.”

Yet the need for an effective virtual currency is still great. Venezuelan citizens grapple with hyperinflation that devalues the paper money they own and makes buying simple products at the supermarket nearly impossible. Migrant workers sending money to families in Mexico, India and Africa lose 5 to 12 percent of their earned salary to money-transfer companies. Even in the United States, citizens lose 1 to 2.5 percent in each transaction with a credit-card company.

Bitcoin failed largely because it was unregulated. Criminals and drug users exploited the anonymous nature of the currency; venture capitalists invested millions in Bitcoin start-ups that were forced to navigate the changing value of the currency. Above all, Bitcoin was dominated by an elite few, and therefore it lost its egalitarian potential to help people in countries suffering from hyperinflation or working far from home.

“It (Bitcoin) has failed because the community has failed. What was meant to be a new, decentralized form of money that lacked ‘systemically important institutions’ and ‘too big to fail’ has become something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a handful of people,” said Hearn on his blog post.

Article via The Washington Post, 19 January 2016; The New York Times, 14 January 2016

Photo: Bitcoin by Tiger Pixel  [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

It pays well to be a techie in the US. From 2014 to 2015 tech salaries experienced their largest annual jump ever, to nearly 8 percent. The average salary of $96,370 reflects the demand for highly skilled technical workers. “Opportunities await…for highly skilled tech professionals…”, stated Bob Melk, President of Dice.com, the site that conducted this annual survey. Dice surveyed 16,301 employed technology professionals between October and November 2015.

A person employed in the technology industry saw their salary rise 7.7 percent from 2014 to 2015.  Not only is this the biggest increase in salary every, according to the annual survey done by Dice.com, employees could also expect to bring home bigger bonuses as well.

Those most likely to receive bonuses were senior tech employees. The percentage of survey respondents that reported a bonus stayed steady at 37 percent. But, the amount of these bonuses last year enjoyed a 24 percent increase from where they were in 2009. The wage increase indicates a healthy job market, and an emphasis on valuing talented employees.

“The competition for tech talent today is undeniable,” Melk said in a statement. “Demand for skilled talent and low unemployment rates for tech professionals aren’t making the hiring landscape any easier. Employers realize offering competitive pay is a necessity.”

Many cities on the list boasted average salaries that passed the $100,000 annual mark. Although there were the usual suspects, such as San Francisco and New York, there were also unexpected cities like Minneapolis on list. While Minneapolis is not usually considered a tech hub, there has been a growing community of seasoned engineers gathering there. Other unexpected cities added to the $100,000 club include Washington, DC and Portland.

Tech jobs appear in every sector of our economy, and therefore high paying jobs are no longer relegated to traditional technology hubs like Silicon Valley. From those surveyed, the industries where experienced workers were most likely to receive bonuses included banking/financial, telecom, hardware, entertainment/media and utilities industries.

 

Article via Cnet: 26, January 2016

Photo: Money by Pictures of Money [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]