On Tuesday, Uber requested an appeal to a ruling made earlier this year that determined Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. The company has claimed that it is merely an app and not an employer of the nearly 160,000 drivers that are affliated with Uber in the US.

In an effort to defend itself again a class-action suit, uber filed a motion shortly after the ruling which opposes any class action driver suit. The company claims that the few drivers who believe that the Uber should reimburse them for expenses and tips do not represent the majority of drivers who are happy with the relationship that they have with the tech company.

But on September 1, US District Judge Edward Chen approved a class action status for that lawsuit. Uber is currently appealing this ruling in the hopes that the appeal court with reverse the judges order. In a 22 page request for appeal, Uber attorney Ted Boutrous wrote,”The potential ramifications of this closely-watched class-certification order are difficult to overstate.”

Uber has been battling this case since 2013 in an effort to get it thrown out. If the court upholds the Judge’s decision it would mean big changes for Uber. Not only would it have to start paying for expenses, such as vehicle upkeep, but it would also have to pay other costs such as social security, health care, paid time off and overtime.

 

Article via CNET, 15 September 2015

Photo: Taxi Driver/Santiago, Chile via Hotch Chang[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Former technician Katherine Moussouris sued Microsoft this Wednesday for gender discrimination. She alleges that Microsoft paid and promoted female employees less than male coworkers, and that women in the company were also ranked consistently below men. Moussouri proposed the class action lawsuit after working at Microsoft between 2007 and 2014.

The lawsuit states that the tech company’s practices and policies “systematically violate female technical employees’ rights and result in unchecked gender bias that pervades its corporate culture.”

This suit occurs as other tech giants, recently Twitter and Facebook, also battle gender discrimination lawsuits. Public interest in women’s role in the workplace has increased since Ellen Pao filed a high-profile lawsuit against the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers for unequal treatment on the basis of gender.

Microsoft released a statement in response to Moussouri’s allegations: “We’re committed to a diverse workforce, and to a workplace where all employees have the chance to succeed.”

 

Article via CNET, 16 September 2015

Photo: Microsoft via Thomas Hawk [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

The best protection against widespread government surveillance now comes from major tech companies, including those accused of collecting mass amounts of data to sell to other companies seeking targeted advertising.

The FBI has accused Apple of aiding criminals by offering default encryption in the new iPhones it sells. Government reproach is also directed towards Google, which is offering the same encryption for its new Android phones. However, the majority of Americans are grateful for the tech companies’ new developments; a recent Pew survey found that 65 percent of people believe that there aren’t enough limits on government surveillance.

Smartphone encryption is not the only guard against surveillance, either. Google and Yahoo announced that they’re both working on end-to-end encryption in email, and Facebook was established on a Tor hidden services site so that people with access to network traffic can’t access user data.

Encryption tools are generally difficult to operate, and thus only tech-savvy users have been able to achieve full privacy. As a result, anyone using encryption tools was unique and therefore suspicious to government officials. With new integrated encryption, privacy will be more universal, and those previously using encryption systems will be better camouflaged.

Articles: The Center for Internet and Society, September 9, 2015

Photo: DC Ralley Against Mass Surveillance via Susan Melkisethian [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Antipoaching, the act of refusing to hire employees from a rival company, may not seem like the best business strategy for large tech companies like Google or Apple who are always capitalizing on the “next big thing”. However, a civil law suit was filed against several companies including Google, Apple, Adobe, and Intel for antipoaching and is now recently being settled for $415 million after movie studios Pixar and Lucasfilm and financial software company Intuit settled previously. The companies involved in the lawsuit were accused of agreeing to not hire certain employees from each other which allowed each company to retain employees they would rather not lose. While antipoaching does sometimes serve the best interests of the company as a whole, some employees looking to earn a higher salary or explore other opportunities outside their place of work feel that the antipoaching agreement hindered their abilities to move up in their fields. Earlier versions of the lawsuit also included allegations that the antipoaching agreement allowed companies to artificially keep salaries low.

Even though all of the companies involved in the lawsuit chose to settle, many of the companies continued to state that they believed they had done nothing wrong. A statement released to CNET from Adobe by one of their spokespeople explained that, “Adobe firmly believes that our recruiting policies have in no way diminished competition for talent in the marketplace…Nevertheless, we elected to settle this matter in order to avoid the uncertainties, cost, and distraction of litigation.” A similar statement was released by Intel back in January when the settlement was originally proposed.

Article via CNET, September 3, 2015

Photo: Google Headquarters – Mt View via Servizi Multimediali [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

In a blog post on Sept. 3, Facebook’s Chief Product Officer Chris Cox explained the company’s goal to offer personalized education to public school students. Facebook partnered with the Bay Area’s Summit Public Schools throughout the 2014 school year to develop Personalized Learning Plan (“PLP”), a tool to help students organize and tailor their educations. Over 2000 students and 100 teachers utilized the program in 2014.

Summit seeks to offer PLP to public schools across the nation, and is partnering with a few schools in 2015 to test the piloted program. Facebook will use feedback from the 2015 school year to improve the interface.

PLP is a program entirely separate from the main Facebook company. Students and teachers who login are not required to have a Facebook account, and user information will not be sold to any advertisement companies. In fact, Facebook must abide by the Student Privacy Pledge, a guide to protecting students endorsed by the US Government.

Article via TechCrunchJuly 13, 2015

Photo: Facebook via Scott Beale [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

California’s labor commission has decided that one of Uber’s drivers is an employee and not an independent contractor. Uber, a ride-hailing service and popular app, may have to change its business model in the state. While the ruling was made in March, it has now become public due to Uber filing an appeal.

Classifying the drivers as contractors has allowed Uber to avoid paying for Social Security tax, paid sick days, health insurance, car maintenance and gas along with other expenses. Uber will be obligated to pay for these expenses if their drivers are defined as employees, and the effects could be felt by customers as well as set a precedent for future lawsuits.

Article via CNET, 17 June 2015

Photo: GREAT experience with @Uber via Anne Ruthmann  [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]