PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Nicole Salk, Staff Attorney at Legal Services NYC
5:10:28
·
124 sec
Nicole Salk, a staff attorney at Brooklyn Legal Services (part of Legal Services NYC), testifies in support of Intro 276, which addresses unfair deactivations of ride-hailing drivers. She shares her experience representing Uber and Lyft drivers in unemployment benefit cases and highlights the challenges drivers face when unfairly deactivated from platforms.
- Salk describes how drivers are often deactivated without notice or effective means to challenge the decision
- She mentions specific cases, including deactivations due to passenger complaints, refusal to violate traffic rules, and even a case of possible retaliation for refusing a sexual advance
- The testimony criticizes the current arbitration process, noting that Uber ultimately controls who is eligible for arbitration on a case-by-case basis
Nicole Salk
5:10:28
Okay.
5:10:28
Thank you so much.
5:10:29
I am testifying regarding intro number 276.
5:10:35
I'm a staff attorney at Brooklyn Legal Services, which is part of Legal Services NYC as part of my work.
5:10:40
I regularly represent Uber and Lyft drivers in obtaining unemployment benefits.
5:10:46
And during the pandemic, our office in the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, many of many groups members testified today, brought litigation, which resulted in approximately 68,000 Uber and Lyft drivers receiving state unemployment insurance at the full rate of payment for employees.
5:11:02
Many of the drivers we represent have been unfairly deactivated from their companies, platforms without notice, without any effective means to challenge deactivation has also been testified due by numerous drivers.
5:11:15
Painfully so, really sad to hear these incredibly horrendous stories where drivers are losing their livelihoods.
5:11:24
They often do not know exactly why they are deactivated.
5:11:27
They have told me about drunken or unruly passengers who they believe may have made complaints about them to the company.
5:11:33
Sometimes drivers may be deactivated when a customer complains about a driver refusing to violate a traffic rule such as an illegal u-turn.
5:11:41
I have one female driver who believes she was deactivated after a customer complained to the company when she refused the sexual advance.
5:11:49
Our driver clients assume that there must be something they can do to challenge these unfair deactivations.
5:11:55
Unfortunately, they have few rights to challenge as you've heard.
5:11:59
They are devastated when I inform that there really is nothing we can do since the company has the power to deactivate them from deactivate them for almost any reason.
5:12:07
Yes.
5:12:08
There is arbitration process that that was a that was a process developed by Uber and a and a driver's union, which was and may still be funded by Uber.
5:12:17
However, Uber ultimately controls who is eligible to go to arbitration on a case by case basis.
5:12:24
This Uber controlled process resembles the grievance process provided by many other companies where the corporation ultimately make It's
UNKNOWN
5:12:32
time to expire.