Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymous5133 | Hacker News Reader

Also on the other end. Wag seems to be having issues with walkers committing fraud against the company. I think wag needs to take a more aggressive approach at putting a stop to it. If walkers are committing fraud through the app then they should pursue legal action against those walkers and hold them criminally for fraud.

From what I understand...what walkers are doing is signing up for their friends/family and letting the friend do the walking. Why would someone do this? Well if your friend has a long criminal record and can't find a job (because of their criminal history) then the family member feels compelled to help the family member by singing up for a wag account, get approved with a clear record and then let the family member with a bad record do the actual work. This is why in the story the person doing the walking was basically different from the person in the profile and failed to disclose their real name.

View on HN

This is basically a side effect of the "gig economy." One can even just sell their account (and good will) when they decide to quit dog walking. Pretty scary when you really think about it.

Also heard of uber drivers hiring illegal immigrants to drive under their uber account, not sure of the credibility of these reports.

Why would anyone care if an undocumented immigrant drove your uber? As long as they're licensed and insured, they're just as qualified as any other driver.

1) Some people would care because they think undocumented immigrants are subhuman. 2) Other people would care because Uber is sketchy enough with out random sub-sub-sub contractors being added into the mix, regardless of their immigration status. 3) Still other people would be bothered by the obviously minimal pay a sub-sub-sub....sub-contracted undocumented immigrant would be paid.

Under someone else's account? How exactly would they be insured in that situation?

It's also IRS fraud, there is no background check, the list of issues with this is just huge.

There are plenty of reasons to care - undocumented people are a legal liability for both the passenger and Uber.

Does insurance cover when illegal immigrant drive the car?

Not if the driver is not the claimed Uber-booked driver.

At least in Texas, illegal immigrants cannot get insurance (for themselves) or a driver's license.

Twelve states and D.C. allow illegal immigrants to acquire drivers licensees [0]. Washington State was the first one in the early 90s, but the list also includes the boarder states of California and New Mexico. I would imagine if a state will issue a drivers license then someone has to be selling insurance, otherwise the license is moot as their would be no legal way to drive.

[0] https://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=...

Texas is not on that list though.

There's no way any insurance company providing the kind of commercial insurance you need to drive for Uber would be okay with a driver using someone else's Uber account, immigrant or otherwise.

The finger-pointing likely to result from an incident would make this driver as good as uninsured.

Interesting story but someone I work with was actually severely rear-ended by an Uber driver heading to the airport, and she said the driver's insurance wouldn't cover the driver because the driver was acting as an Uber driver at the time of the accident. Don't know the insurance co., but I definitely remember being shocked by the fact that they wouldn't cover the driver for that reason

Commercial insurance is whole different ball game than personal insurance. Personal insurance typically doesnt cover commercial use. Driving for Uber is a commercial activity.

I guess uber has an insurance policy that covers their drivers during rides now, so hopefully that kicked in to take care of your friend.

Everyone should read their insurance policies to know their exclusions.

Note that most insurance providers won't cover drivers who have used their car to drive for Uber, regardless of whether they're driving for Uber at the time of the incident. Uber may cover you if you're on a trip, but it's up to you to make sure you have the right insurance plan (which usually means paying a nominal surcharge to your insurance provider in the US) to have insurance the rest of the time.

> covers their drivers during rides now

In the US. It's not clear if they have this anywhere else.

Well yeah, of course - my car insurance specifically doesn't cover commercial activity in my car(as well as going off road, racing or track use), so if I started driving for uber I'd be 100% uninsured until I got commercial insurance.

I think that was one of the greatest lies of Uber at the start "just drive your car for money in your free time!" - that's all great, but no private car insurance would cover you while doing that.

And then Uber offered insurance, as an appeasement, which for the longest time (still is?) third party liability only.

Total your vehicle? Personal insurance won't touch it, and the Uber coverage you thought you had is useless.

I'm shocked that you are shocked. Driving commercially is an entirely different risk profile.

The only way for commercial drivers to be covered by the same policy is to price the risk of an unknown number of commercial drivers into everyones policy.

Commercial insurance covers a combination of driver and car. You can get insurance for someone to drive a car that they don't own as part of a contract (e.g. with Uber) that they did not directly sign or benefit from.

All you have to do is be upfront about it, and willing to pay.

Yes, it does cost more to cover employees as opposed to owner/operators of a business venture, but it it is not impossible (if it were taxis would not be able to exist).

What is probably true is the default insurance given out by Uber will not cover people not listed on the policy, and only the person contracted with Uber is listed on the Uber-backed policy.

Its impossible to insure "employees" when said "employees" are not licensed to operate a motor vehicle.

When I hire an Uber I expect my uber driver to be vetted by Uber?

Beyond that

People driving under other people's Uber accounts don't have a license or are otherwise ineligible to drive for Uber (criminal, underage, etc) otherwise they'd get their own Uber account. Uber literally pays people to sign up as drivers - there's no legitimate reason to drive under someone else's Uber account.

Commercial Insurance would probably exclude coverage for any incidents that happen when an unlicensed driver is using someone else's Uber account.

I care because it is a lie and manipulation.

Business done without a solid basis is often high risk. That risk unlikely to be worth it.

Finally, as a basic matter of principle, I do not do business with people who are dishonest.

Doing that is on par with debating liars.

Not really. The whole idea of the 'gig economy' relied on independent contractors being independent entities liable for their own issues, and whom reap the rewards for their own work.

Part of the reward is a reputable account as a saleable asset. It's just like selling a company or passing it on to your children. If Joe's Handmans or Joes' Dogwalkers no longer includes "Joe" that's not supposed to be a scary situation, its part and parcel of why people work for themselves.

Now if indies aren't really expected to have owners rights, then they ought to get employee protections.

If someone bought the company for a pittance just for the branding then it is something to worry about. Compare to a seller account on ebay; they're definitely nowhere near an employee but it would still be bad to disconnect reputation from the actual actor that got the reputation.

"Part of the reward is a reputable account as a saleable asset."

Your assessment is wrong. Joe's plumbing is a legally distinct entity that people understand is represented by a variety of different individuals.

An account on a gig site that represents that you are Joe Smith is different on the face of the matter because you are contractually liable for providing accurate info to potential clients and the company. They signed up for Joe not someone Joe vetted.

You breached the agreement under which you agreed to work with the company that is connecting you to work.

You misled the party hiring the company and if anything goes wrong and you let Bob Johnson masquerade as you have fun getting sued by the agreived party and reaping the bad press.

The company will ultimately delete the account when or if your FRAUD is detected meaning you will also be guilty of defrauding the buyer.

The person using the account is guilty of exceeding authorized access on cfaa you are potentially guilty of assisting them.

If you want the benefits of being a corporation you need to incorporate you cannot fraudulently sell your Joe Smith personal account on wag or Uber or what have you.

Well I see the 'gig economy' as large well funded organizations trying to get the benefits of hiring one-man LLCs and non-incorporated DBAs without any of the downsides.

If you want to hold someone to a 'name must match' standard, then I think you hire them personally so they are your employee. For someone using Uber, they theoretically do not care who the driver is so long as it is a 'valid driver' as per marketplace standards. To them, they are doing business only with Uber, not specifically with any individual driver, so any disputes are between Uber and driver or Uber and customer.

If something goes wrong, as you said it's between Uber and whomever they signed a contract with regardless of whom is driving the car at the time but that isn't a higher standard than any other B2B contract.

Personally, I would not mind laws put in place saying that if you want to higher 1 person for 1 job, and the name must match, then you have to classify them as at least a part-time employee.

It's a second-order effect of a society with deeply ambivalent beliefs about justice, rehabilitation and forgiveness. Background checks and risk-averse hiring policies have an obvious logic, but they have made it considerably more difficult for people to pay their debt to society and become productive citizens. There's a local risk to hiring an ex-offender, but there's a wider risk of creating an unemployable underclass. I'm not sure how to best strike the balance between those risks, but I think we need a serious national conversation about the system we have created and the second-order effects of that system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com