Wednesday, August 26, 2015

LAX opens door to full Uber service Council moves to allow ride-hailing services to pick up passengers as well as drop them off.

LAX opens door to full Uber service

Council moves to allow ride-hailing services to pick up passengers as well as drop them off.

Rules for ride-hailing

Among the conditions Uber and Lyft need to meet to receive a permit to pick up LAX passengers:
Picking up and dropping off passengers on the upper departure level only.
Paying $4 to the airport for every pickup and drop-off, a fee that will probably be passed on to the passengers.
Restricting the number of drivers in the terminal area to 40 at a time.
Creating a digital “geo-fence” that will prevent drivers from picking up ride requests on nearby residential streets.
Keeping auditable records on driver activity at the airport, including the number of trips.
Source: Los Angeles Times reporting
Picture
RICK LOOMIS Los Angeles Times
UBER AND LYFT supporters listen to the council discussion. Airport officials must still negotiate final contracts with Uber and Lyft on operating and information reporting requirements.
Picture
RICK LOOMIS Los Angeles Times
DAVID SHAPIRO of United Independent Taxi addresses the council. Cab companies have raised questions about Uber drivers’ backgrounds.
The taxi industry spent heavily to defeat it. Critics called it an unregulated dark zone. Some even questioned whether its drivers were dangerous.
But in the end, those misgivings about ride-hailing could not match the public appeal of a new and potentially easier way to get to and from Los Angeles International Airport, where traffic jams are legendary and rail service is still years away.
Los Angeles on Tuesday became the largest city in the nation to open the door for companies such as Uber and Lyft to fully operate alongside taxis at the airport.
It was a major victory for the rapidly growing industry. As the West Coast’s busiest airport, LAX is seen as a key venue to demonstrate how the new, app-based “disruptive” technology could blossom as an alternative to driving and mass transit.
Consumers have flocked to the startups because they are seen as relatively cheap and highly efficient, said Harry Campbell, the editor of The Rideshare Guy, a website, podcast and You-Tube channel for ride-hailing drivers.
The typical taxi trip from LAX to downtown Los Angeles is more than $50, not including tip. A ride with Uber or Lyft is closer to $30, although prices can climb during high-demand periods.
“Uber was able to build up so much goodwill with consumers that it’s almost political suicide to go against them,” Campbell said. “When you combine the fact that they have a lot of cash at their disposal, it’s very, very difficult for politicians to take any stance against them.”
Tuesday’s council approval means airline passengers arriving at LAX could summon the lowest-cost Uber and Lyft services from the curb in a matter of weeks. That assumes airport officials can negotiate final contracts with the companies that nail down operating and information reporting requirements. Currently, any transportation service can take riders to the airport, but only limousines, shuttles and taxis can pick them up.
“People are baffled that they can take ride share to the airport but can’t take one home,” said City Councilman Mike Bonin, a vocal advocate of Uber and Lyft whose Westside district includes the airport. He said allowing the firms full access to LAX will improve the experiences of passengers who have “suffered too long with too few choices.”
At the same time, the divided 9-6 vote, and some of the council’s related actions, reflected the uneasiness of some lawmakers with the assurances offered by the ride companies and their allies.
A lingering issue is whether Uber and Lyft drivers should be subject to the same fingerprint-based FBI criminal background checks as city cabdrivers. Ride-hailing services, like limousine and shuttle drivers, are regulated by the state, which does not require fingerprint background checks.
Taxi drivers and their companies have insisted that those regulatory differences put them at an unfair disadvantage. At one point, a representative for the legacy industry circulated a binder at City Hall containing arrest records for a handful of Uber drivers that would have disqualified them from driving taxis.
Concerns over background checks intensified last week when the top prosecutors for Los Angeles and San Francisco said they had found 25 Uber drivers with serious criminal records, including murder, assault and driving under the influence.
The taxi industry spent heavily to retain their airport stronghold. Over the last two years, eight Los Angeles cab companies — longtime political players in Los Angeles — spent $595,500 to lobby elected officials at Los Angeles City Hall. Uber and Lyft spent $392,000 during the same time period.
Some taxi drivers, wearing yellow shirts that read “Fingerprints Don’t Lie” during Tuesday’s hearing, predicted dire consequences from the City Council action.
“We will go out of business,” said Steve Jeon, 61, who has driven for Bell Cab for six years. Like all Los Angeles taxi drivers, he is allowed to work at the airport once every five days. Those lucrative, long-haul fares cover the costs for his car lease and his commercial insurance, he said.
“We are already losing fares on the street, and now this — this will be very, very bad for us.”
A study from the UCLA Labor Center underscores the airport’s importance. From 2013 to 2014, taxi revenue across Los Angeles fell 9% and trips dropped 18%. But LAX remained a bright spot: Drivers picked up 15% more passengers there.
The City Council agreed to ask the California Public Utilities Commission to require fingerprint-based background checks for all for-hire drivers, including those behind the wheel of limousines, shuttles and ride-hail cars. In a separate last-minute amendment, lawmakers also instructed the city attorney to report within a month on what legal authority Los Angeles may have to require fingerprint background checks if state regulators fail to act.
“If the state doesn’t create the uniform standards we need to protect the public, then we will,” Councilman Paul Krekorian said in a prepared statement.
Uber has said its background check procedures are as good as those it is being pressured to adopt. The company declined to comment on whether it would operate at LAX if local fingerprinting checks were added as a requirement.
But San Jose International Airport points to one possible outcome: Lyft and Uber declined to operate there after officials mandated city business licenses and fingerprint-based background checks for all drivers.
The LAX permits would require Uber and Lyft to pay the airport a minimum of $25,000 per month from $4 fees for each drop-off and pickup. The fees will go to the airport’s general operating budget and probably be passed along to passengers.
Unlike taxis, Uber and Lyft drivers would drop off and pick up passengers only on the upper departure level, a requirement that the companies opposed. They would be required to wait in a holding area until receiving a request for a ride. No more than 40 drivers would be allowed in the holding area at one time.
The council, citing concerns over equal treatment for passengers, agreed to ask state regulators to share data they collect on the number of rides and requests in each ZIP Code in Los Angeles. South Los Angeles Councilman Marquis Harris Dawson asked Uber and Lyft to conduct public outreach in low-income areas and neighborhoods where English is not the primary language.
After Tuesday’s vote, William Rouse, general manager of Yellow Cab of Los Angeles, said, “Obviously, this is going to cut into business at the airport — there’s no doubt.” But he pointed to one silver lining: Revenue for taxis at San Francisco International Airport hasn’t declined as much as expected since Uber and Lyft began operating there last year. laura.nelson@latimes.comTwitter: @laura_nelson

Uber driver Authorities say a death investigation is underway in West Covina after a woman’s body was found inside a vehicle.

WEST COVINA (CBSLA.com) — Authorities say a death investigation is underway in West Covina after a woman’s body was found inside a vehicle.
West Covina police say around noon Tuesday, officers received a call by a person who noticed a body hunched over in the backseat of a gray Volkswagen sedan.
The discovery was made in a Stater Bros. parking lot in the 300 block of North Azusa Avenue.
Although investigators haven’t released the woman’s identity, DMV records show the car is registered to an Orange County woman and the coroner’s office confirms they’re working her case. The cause of death was not immediately known.
On the windshield of a vehicle, an Uber sticker turned sideways was visible, reported CBS2’s Rachel Kim. Police, however, say they cannot confirm whether the woman was a driver for the company.
“Detectives are going to do their investigation and maybe find out how long it had been here,” Sgt. Brian Daniels of the West Covina Police Department said. 
It remains unclear how long the body had been inside the vehicle.
“They are thinking she might have been there a day or two because the smell was really bad already, so it’s just really sad. It’s really shocking,” said Celine Portillo, a shopper.
The body has since been removed from the scene by the coroner’s office.
Off-camera, Kim spoke with a man who says the woman is his aunt. He confirmed that the vehicle was in fact hers and that she had just become an Uber driver.
Police said they are looking through security footage from the shopping plaza for any clues.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Rachel Galindo 4 hrs LA UBER DRIVER GOT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 082415

LA UBER DRIVER GOT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
"I am a former driver in the Los Angeles area who started driving part time in 12/2013 and was forced to strop driving recently in 2015. I was using Uber, when it made financial sense, to supplement my income, and shortly thereafter it became my only means of income."
"I began driving when, on Fri evening-Sunday afternoon, I would average around $40/hr before commission, expenses etc. Now, you literally have to be stupid to drive for Uber in LA anymore. I'm sorry, but it's true....after expenses and taxes, it nets out to less than minimum wage almost all of the time, even when driving during peak hours to bring the average up. Uber relies on it's drivers lack of understanding of the real costs of providing their services."
" SO....I filed for unemployment through the CA EDD, under the grounds that Uber's reduction in my pay (I was recently earning less than 30% of what I used to earn when I began) was tantamount to a demotion/reduction of hours."
" My claim was initially denied on the grounds that I was an "independent contractor" and thus not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. I filed an appeal and appeared before a judge as a part of the regular appeals process. The issue that the judge was SUPPOSED to decide was - "who was my last employer," as I was also employed in a "regular" salaried position while I started working for Uber. The question of "was I asked to leave" or was I "terminated" was the issue to be discussed, as if that other employer had not terminated me (and I continued working for Uber), I would not be due benefits."
" Anyway....after questions about this key issue were answered, I made sure to guide the judge into a conversation where he would have an understanding of Uber's business practices, and why I should be classified as an employee of Uber. Over 30 minutes, I explained how Uber controlled nearly every aspect of our "partnership" and how we run our "independent businesses." I shared in great detail how Uber frequently forces drivers into accepting "contracts" wherein we have no idea what the job is "ie, where a passenger is going" and then how Uber sends us texts messages in which we are threatened with termination should we cancel when we find out that the "contract" will cause us to lose money (IE, a drive to Glendale or The Valley). He was even filled in on little things....like when a passenger vomits in your car and you're reimbursed for only the cost of cleaning and you can't work for two days....you get fucked. On and on, etc. I also informed the judge about the recent decision of the California Public Utilities Commision in June 2015, which declared a single Uber driver to be an "employee" and awarded her damages. The judge then concluded that he was unable to decide who was indeed my last "employer," however he indicated to me that if it was indeed Uber, he would advocate that I was indeed due to receive unemployment benefits. He would refer the case back to the EDD."
" A week later I received a call from a woman at the EDD (I forget the name of her special department) who began to ask me questions. I was aware of the rubric used in the state of CA as a guideline for determining "employee vs contractor" and asked the woman if she was trying to determine whether or not I was an IC or an employee. She said yes, and then after answering her questions, I again delved into a 45 minute conversation with her regarding Uber's business practices. At the end of the conversation, she asked if she could share my contact info within the department for further use. She then also subtly indicated that she would find me to be an Employee of Uber."
" 2 weeks later, I got a letter telling me that I am entitled to a few hundred dollars/week in unemployment benefits (before taxes). After calling the EDD, I was able to get the first $2500 direct-deposited into my bank account, backdated from the date that I originally filed for unemployment. I just went online today to fill out the rest of the forms, and should expect another $2800 to be deposited within the next 2 weeks."
" I have reported the income and sent copies of my documentation as proof to Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead attorney in the Uber Class Action lawsuit. I do not know if if I am the first former driver in CA to be awarded unemployment benefits...but I think that I may be."
" The dominos are falling. I feel that Uber will lose this case and their business model will be significantly impaired. They are an awful company. You have been exploited. Remember, the former employer pays for your unemployment (as do you in your IC/Payroll taxes). Go get what's yours."
" I will not be making any further comments or answering any questions."
" Lastly, FUCK UBER."

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Hawaii Grandparents Rights in Divorce vistation

Hawaii Grandparents Rights in Divorce
Grandparent Rights to Visitation:
In actions for divorce, separation, annulment, separate maintenance, or any other proceeding where there is at issue a dispute as to the custody of a minor child, the court may award visitation to grandparents in the court's discretion unless it is shown that the visitation would not be in the child's best interest.
Title 571, Section 571-46.2 (H.R.S. 571-46.2).

When Adoption Occurs:
Adoption terminates all rights.
Child Custody Statutes:
Best interest of child considering:
  1. child's wishes, if of sufficient age and capacity to reason; and
  2. an evidence of family violence.
H.R-S. 583-1 et seq.
Parents May Choose:
No

What You Need to Know About Hawaii Divorce

What You Need to Know About Hawaii Divorce
http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/hawaii/hawaii-divorce-source-46.shtml
Learn what you need to do to start your Hawaii divorce online
Hawaii divorce lawyers, divorce mediators, and divorce services to help you through your divorce in the state of Hawaii.
Information, news and resources for people going through a divorce in Hawaii.
A selected set of key Hawaii divorce facts dealing with a range of topics including child custody, child support, spousal support, and property distribution.
Before you can divorce in Hawaii you must decide what grounds for divorce the state of Hawaii will allow you to file for divorce under.
In order to file for a divorce and get a divorce in Hawaii you must first meet the divorce residency requirements.
Comprehensive overview of Hawaii divorce laws, Hawaii statutes and guidelines, and Hawaii divorce information and advice relating to the legal, financial and emotional aspects of divorce.
An introduction to the basics on Separation in Hawaii.

Paternity Fraud - Who’s the Father? Information Provided by: Divorce Source, Inc.


Paternity Fraud - Who’s the Father? Information Provided by: Divorce Source, Inc.
http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/fathersrights/paternity-fraud-who-s-the-father--562.shtml


Both father’s men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups have focused on paternity fraud - a term which came into use in the 1990s, where in a mother names a man to be the father of her child, usually for the purpose of collecting child support. Many jurisdictions in the United States apply Lord Mansfield’ s Rule, a British common-law holding that a child born into a marriage is of that marriage. In some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother of a child has been held to be the lawful father, regardless of the biological relationship to the child, and within the context of marriage, men have very limited opportunities to challenge doubtful paternity. In the face of this, some men’s groups now press for mandatory DNA testing at birth.
Paternity fraud, men’s rights activists contend, damages the man falsely accused of paternity, the child deprived of a relationship with his real father, and the biological father who is cut off from a relationship with his child. Others caution that DNA testing may not be in the best interests of the child because a finding that the child is not a man’s biologic child may result in the father’s rejection of the child. In some places, DNA testing requires the consent of the mother or a court order.
The men’s movement branches to more than concerns related to marriage and divorce. It is more of an umbrella term. It refers to freedoms and entitlements of boys and men and the role and position of men in society, particularly what some men feel is the diminishing status of men in Western civilization. Various men’s rights writers and groups press for equality in areas such the award of alimony (less than 4 percent of men receive it); education (57 percent of college students are woman and the number is increasing); false rape accusations (such as the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case); health (men die on average about eight years earlier than women); suicide (men kill themselves three to four times more frequently than women); murder (men are three times more likely be murdered); conscription (largely men only); and media portrayal.
One of the more provocative positions advanced by men’s rights groups concerns reproductive rights. Some men’s rights activists argue that a woman can force unwanted fatherhood on a man, such as when she misleads him about contraception, but that a man cannot force unsought motherhood on a woman. Courts have ruled that women, married or single, cannot be prevented from having an abortion by the child’s father, nor can he force her to have one. In 2006, the National Center for Men undertook a support appeal of Matt Dubay, who had been order to pay child support to his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells. Dubay claimed he had made it clear to Ms. Wells that he had no interest in fatherhood and that she had misled him about her fertility. In the appeal, lawyers argued that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, when an unmarried woman informs a man that she is pregnant by him, he should have the opportunity to give up all paternity rights and responsibilities. Supporters this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women. The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

Irritrol TC-15EX-B Total Control Series Controller - 15 Station Outdoor - EvergreenSprinklers.com

Irritrol TC-15EX-B Total Control Series Controller - 15 Station Outdoor - EvergreenSprinklers.com: "ous productNext product →

(0 reviews)

SKU TC-15EX-B
Retail price: $480.00
Our price: $275.12  
( This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING!!! )
"



'via Blog this'

Uber says it's a technology company but drivers say otherwise - Stopuber

Uber says it's a technology company but drivers say otherwise - Stopuber: "USABLE, but the customer service is the WORST! I got locked out of my account when I was trying to update my credit card number and there’s no way to get back in until someone from customer service responds to my email. There is no number to call and they are taking FOREVER to get back to me. You would think they would have someone constantly and quickly monitoring emails considering there is no customer service number to call! I really, really wanted to use Uber today to get to the airport, but guess that won’t be possible!

Steve Hall // November 5, 2014 at 10:27 am // Reply
I’m a driver for Uber that got into an accident back in August while on an Uber. Well you guessed it, no number to call and no response to my email for days. Are you kidding me! Oh and when they did respond they said “Oh we don’t cover that, you have to deal with your personal insurance company” TYPICAL UBER. There days are numbered and Travis will be thinking of the next scam he can create."



'via Blog this'

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Uber is probably losing a lot of money. Is that surprising?

Uber is probably losing a lot of money. Is that surprising?: "In the first and second quarters of 2014, the documents show Uber generating about $102 million, nearly as much as the entire year prior. Gawker's documents also show that while the company's revenue has been growing quarter over quarter, its losses are also increasing. Its losses in 2012, according to Biddle, totaled $20.4 million. In the first half of 2013 the company lost more than $15 million. 

A lot of the operational costs come from marketing, research and development, and administrative services. The company has raised more than $6 billion from investors to compete in international markets like India and China and to push new products like its carpooling service, Uber Pool.

Another internal Uber document obtained by Business Insider from early 2014 suggested that an annual run rate for Uber's top five markets (NYC, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles) would generate about $1 billion a year for the company in 2014. And in some of those cities, Uber is profitable. "



'via Blog this'

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Instacart offers some contractors part-time employment - CNET

Instacart offers some contractors part-time employment - CNET: "Instacart has already raised nearly $275 million to grow its business, which was founded in 2012 to pick out and deliver groceries from stores including Whole Foods, Petco and Costco.

Regulators and lawyers have looked into the employment models of some on-demand services, particularly Uber, the ride-hailing service that's now one of the most valuable venture-backed companies in the world. The California Labor Commission earlier this year ruled against Uber, saying one of its contract drivers should have been classified as an employee and ordered the company to pay her $4,152 in expenses. Uber, which is appealing the decision, could face substantially more costs, including Social Security, health insurance, paid sick days, gas, car maintenance and much more if all its drivers are eventually deemed employees. Labor lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan also is suing Uber on behalf of drivers and their classification as contractors.

Plenty of other on-demand services have created similar models to try matching Uber's success, including ride-hailing rival Lyft, odd-jobs marketplace TaskRabbit, cleaning and handyman service Handy, and delivery-service Postmates."



'via Blog this'

Uber heads to court over how it classifies its drivers - CNET

Uber heads to court over how it classifies its drivers - CNET: "In the wake of this battle, several on-demand companies appear to be re-thinking the independent contractor classification. The grocery-delivery startup Instacart said in June that it's switching hundreds of its personal shoppers from contract workers to part-time employees. And house-cleaning startup Homejoy announced in July that it was permanently shutting down after being sued over the classification of its workers. Several similar lawsuits have also popped up against other on-demand companies, including Homejoy, Postmates, Handy, Shyp and Washio."



'via Blog this'

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

4 Uber drivers cited at LAX have serious criminal records LA times 080415

4 Uber drivers cited at LAX have serious criminal records

At least four men who were ticketed by Los Angeles International Airport Police while driving for Uber’s low-cost car service have criminal convictions that would bar them from operating a taxi in Los Angeles, records show.
The drivers have been convicted of child exploitation, identity theft, manslaughter and driving under the influence, according to court records. Each offense would make them ineligible for a city of Los Angeles taxi permit.
The criminal histories recently came to light when a representative of the taxi industry presented a city official with a binder containing citations and court records for eight Uber drivers who were cited for minor violations at the airport over the last 18 months. The Times obtained a copy and independently confirmed that the records were accurate.
Four drivers mentioned in the files had charges or convictions that would probably not preclude them from applying for a city taxi permit because the incidents occurred more than seven years ago or the violations were misdemeanors.
The disclosures come as the Los Angeles City Council weighs whether to assert jurisdiction over a new airport permit process that would allow Uber and other app-based ride companies to legally pick up passengers at LAX. And they raise new questions about how effectively the transportation giant screens its drivers.
The taxi industry has fought to keep Uber and similar ride-hailing services from operating at LAX, saying that they create unfair competition because their drivers are held to a lower standard than licensed taxi drivers.
Last week, six City Council members moved to reexamine the airport permit process, saying that elected officials should be given time to weigh in on questions related to public safety. If the motion passes Wednesday, the council could veto the policy and send it back to airport officials for revision.
“These are cases that reinforce the need to have this kind of dialogue,” said Councilman Paul Krekorian, who has asked the council to assert jurisdiction over the Board of Airport Commissioners. “They’re very good examples of why it’s important.”
Efforts to reach several of the drivers cited in the records were unsuccessful.
Last year, the top prosecutors of Los Angeles and San Francisco sued Uber, alleging that the company misled consumers over background checks. At the time, San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascon called the company’s verification process “completely worthless” because applicants aren’t fingerprinted.
On Tuesday, an Uber spokesperson referred The Times to comments made in a company blog post last month.
In that statement, Uber’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, wrote that “every system of background checks that is available today has its flaws” but that Uber’s checks “stack up well” against the taxi industry’s.
In 2014, he wrote, at least 600 people who were licensed to drive taxis in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco failed Uber’s background check, including 19 people convicted of sex offenses and 36 convicted of DUI.
Sullivan said drivers cannot work for Uber if they have been convicted of any felony, or any violent or sexual crimes, in the last seven years.
One Uber driver who was ticketed at LAX was convicted on 14 counts of felony identity theft in 2012. Under the terms of his five-year probation, he cannot have access to any personal identifying information, including credit cards and debit cards, according to court records. All Uber passengers are required to pay with a credit or debit card, but payments are handled through the app.
Another driver was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1998 and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Parole records show that he was released last year. That conviction would not necessarily bar him from driving for Uber, but it would make it difficult, if not impossible, to get a taxi permit.
The city of Los Angeles automatically rejects permit applications from drivers who have been convicted of a sexual or violent felony, reckless driving or a hit-and-run crash that left someone seriously injured or killed.
Drivers must wait seven years after being convicted of other crimes, including misdemeanor offenses involving drugs, weapons, violence and fraud, before being eligible for a permit.