# Due process — how San Francisco drivers are being taken for a ride



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

It happens over and over, he says. Uber emails him about a ticket he received from SFO for a violation, such as not displaying the Uber logo. The $100 fine, a big chunk of his daily earnings, is subtracted from his wages with no way to appeal.

That's the situation reported by Mustafa Ayubi of San Ramon - and plenty of other Uber drivers.

San Francisco International Airport requires Uber and Lyft to pay any traffic tickets incurred by their drivers, relieving the airport of the hassle of tracking down payments and guaranteeing it will get the money. Lyft covers the cost of tickets. Uber pays the tickets and deducts them from drivers' earnings. Many drivers say that deprives them of due process. Often they don't even know about the ticket until they're notified several months later.

"You can't do anything; you can't fight back," said Ayuba, who drives 10 to 12 hours a day to support his wife and three children. He's been slapped with $100 airport fines three times for lacking "trade dress" (a legal term for the distinctive physical appearance of a commercial brand) even though he said he has Uber's vinyl decals on his Toyota Camry's front and back windshields, plus his Uber SFO permit in the front.

He tried to appeal. He went to Uber's Greenlight Hub in Daly City, a kind of Apple Genius Bar for drivers. "They said the only way to protest is to say you were not using the Uber app," he said. "That would mean I have to lie. I won't do that."

The money adds up. SFO billed Uber and Lyft $1.74 million in administrative fines last year for 16,617 violations by drivers, largely for lacking trade dress, not displaying an SFO placard, or parking outside designated ride-hailing lots. Of those, 10,026 were for Uber drivers, 6,576 for Lyft and 15 for Wingz, a service that exclusively provides airport rides.

SFO said the system makes sense, because Uber and Lyft have operating permits from the airport and are therefore responsible for ensuring that drivers play by the rules. It said the companies must initiate any appeals.

"Issuing fines to (Uber and Lyft) increases compliance and gives them an incentive to correct behavior," SFO spokesman Doug Yakel said in an email.

SFO used to issue lots of tickets for drivers who waited in the public cell phone lot, instead of the designated ride-hail lot, for example. Uber and Lyft responded by blocking drivers from receiving ride requests in that lot, which squelched the behavior. That was "a good resolution that would not have been possible if the companies were not in touch with the source of infractions," Yakel said.

SFO's ground transportation compliance officers and San Francisco police can spot Uber and Lyft cars, even without decals, thanks to an app SFO developed and shares with other airports that lets officers check license plates to see if the cars are registered with Uber or Lyft.

But many drivers say the practice smacks of a setup, with them as the patsies.

"It's a collusive arrangement," said Zakhary Mallett, a former Bay Area Uber driver and former BART District 7 representative, who received SFO tickets for lacking trade dress and parking in the wrong location. He received a notice in July about something that happened in April. "It's a way for (SFO) to easily get revenue."

"With parking violations, you're supposed to have an administrative hearing and be able to escalate to the courts if you want," Mallett said. "They are voiding the opportunity to protest. It's a constitutional question; I'm being violated of my due rights." He's considering finding an attorney to sue over the issue. Most Uber drivers have agreed to mandatory arbitration, which means any disputes must be settled individually, but a suit against SFO and the city could be done as a class action.

Veena Dubal, an associate law professor at UC Hastings, who studies gig worker issues, agreed that the practice appears to violate due process.

"The drivers often do not even know when they are ticketed until the amount is subtracted from their wages," she said in an email. "They have no opportunity to contest it. Some drivers I have talked to say that they believe they were wrongfully ticketed. The airport obviously benefits from this arrangement. They get an influx of revenue from the tickets."

Uber said it hopes to get the system changed.

"Uber shares the drivers' concerns regarding the fairness of this process, and we plan to share our view directly with the airport," spokesman Davis White said. "Drivers deserve a transparent and fair way to resolve citations."

Lyft covers the full cost of the SFO tickets and then "helps drivers comply with regulations at SFO through written communications and support at driver hubs and on the ground," spokesman Campbell Matthews said in a statement. "While our approach changes with each airport, our priority has been to ensure all drivers at SFO have the information necessary to best be in compliance with regulations and continue earning at the airport."

SFO isn't the only airport with this arrangement. SherpaShare, which helps on-demand drivers track their earnings, surveyed drivers about airport tickets and heard from drivers in Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; Minneapolis; New York (LaGuardia); Philadelphia; and Phoenix that they'd incurred airport tickets that were deducted from their earnings.

Oakland International Airport fines Uber and Lyft and does not directly fine the drivers, a spokeswoman said.

Surveyed drivers who took a hit on their earnings from tickets said they would have contested the citation if they could, and feel the practice is unjust.

"It seems like the driver should be able to participate in the conversation around any citation, especially one that could potentially cost them a whole day's pay," said Jen Israel, a SherpaShare spokeswoman. "I appreciate SFO wanting a swift resolution to issues that clog up airport roadways and pickup points, but they should find a way to hold the company accountable separate from the individual, so they maintain the same rights as the rest of us."

Another due process issue for drivers is that the airport tickets don't include any evidence, such as photos.

"When the police give you a ticket, they say, 'Sign here' and give you a copy," said Issam Hazboun of San Bruno. "But the airport, it doesn't give nothing, no picture or proof."

Hazboun said he gets new decals from Uber and Lyft every six months because the sun bleaches them out. Still, he's racked up five or six airport citations for lacking trade dress.

"If you were a customer, would you come to my car without a sticker?" he asked. "No! If a customer doesn't see a sticker on my car, he won't come. Those people in the airport, they are just using this to make extra money."

Likewise Scott Wallace of Los Gatos was cited for lacking a rear placard. But his Honda Odyssey has a standard factory tint on the rear window, which could have made it difficult to see the Uber logo, he said.

And there was a considerable lag time. "I received the notice last month but the ticket was written four months ago," Wallace said. "It said, you're out $100, we got a ticket we're paying for you."

Meanwhile Ayubi, the San Ramon driver, said he's looking for other work. Besides the SFO tickets, he's been getting ones in the city for other issues, like double-parking.

"It's not worth it anymore," he said. "I have to put new tires on twice a year, change the oil all the time and other expenses - plus all these tickets."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...drivers-slapped-with-SFO-tickets-13164958.php


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Saw a thread where a driver complained about this. I was wondering how this is legal, but then again, it's kalifornia.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

You have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO FACE YOUR ACCUSER !

This Act Vilolates CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & THEREFORE IS UNLAWFUL !


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Sorry, but I'm in a meeting.

-D



tohunt4me said:


> You have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
> 
> TO FACE YOUR ACCUSER !
> 
> This Act Vilolates CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & THEREFORE IS UNLAWFUL !


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Time to find a lawyer that would take the case on contingency basis and file a class action suit.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

It's totally legal, uber has the option to face their accuser, but choose not to and passes the fine onto their partner per the TOS.

Do these count for the 3 in 3 deactivation rule?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> You have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
> 
> TO FACE YOUR ACCUSER !
> 
> This Act Vilolates CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS & THEREFORE IS UNLAWFUL !


UBER & Lyft are the ones accused of the crime and the article says they can take it to court.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Demon said:


> UBER & Lyft are the ones accused of the crime and the article says they can take it to court.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

https://uber-regulatory-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/country/united_states/p2p/RASIER Technology Services Agreement December 10 2015.pdf



> The location of the arbitration proceeding shall be no more than 45 miles from the place where you last provided transportation services under this Agreement, unless each party to the arbitration agrees in writing otherwise. iv.
> 
> Starting The Arbitration. All claims in arbitration are subject to the same statutes of limitation that would apply in court. The party bringing the claim must demand arbitration in writing and deliver the written demand by hand or first class mail to the other party within the applicable statute of limitations period. The demand for arbitration shall include identification of the Parties, a statement of the legal and factual basis of the claim(s), and a specification of the remedy sought. Any demand for arbitration made to the Company or Uber shall be provided to Legal, Rasier, LLC, 1455 Market St., Ste. 400, San Francisco CA 94103. The arbitrator shall resolve all disputes regarding the timeliness or propriety of the demand for arbitration. A party may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief in connection with an arbitrable controversy, but only upon the ground that the award to which that party may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without such provisional relief


This is what everyone that gets this bs ticket needs to do to get their money back. Uber has no authority to take our money from us to donate to the airport authorities. Nothing we have signed authorizes them to take out money for this crap. If the airport authority wants money for these tickets they need to issue them to us and have an actual due process that allows us to contest and appeal each ticket.

If enough people start requesting arbitration it's likely Uber will stop paying tickets and stealing the money from drivers to pay for these unconstitutional violations of the airport authorities that are asking Uber to be their de facto bagman to steal money from drivers while denying drivers due process.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

There was a company van did not have proper signage as it waiting for magnetic signs, the ticket was made out to the company, not the driver. The company paid the ticket.

The lawmakers probably though uber would pay and not pass it off to the drivers.


----------



## Cigars (Dec 8, 2016)

Each and every driver that had this deducted from their pay should begin abitration proceedings.
It is Uber that is failing to provide the driver the ability to defend themselves against this action.
This is Uber pleading "guilty" for each and every driver and enforcing the fine and not allowing the drivers to defend themselves.
Uber has no right to plead "guiilty" on my behalf.
Since they have done so, every driver who has had money removed form their accounts, should be reimbursed with interest.
It does not matter now whether the driver was guilty or innocent, what matters is that Uber plead "guilty" without allowing the driver the ability to defend himself.

Shame on both the airport authority and Uber for allowing this to happen.


----------



## SLuz (Oct 20, 2016)

Lyft covers the driver, Uber does not. What's on your windshield?


----------



## Cigars (Dec 8, 2016)

SLuz said:


> Lyft covers the driver, Uber does not. What's on your windshield?


Guano.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

njn said:


> There was a company van did not have proper signage as it waiting for magnetic signs, the ticket was made out to the company, not the driver. The company paid the ticket.
> 
> The lawmakers probably though uber would pay and not pass it off to the drivers.


there is no law regarding this issue

uber, lyft, and the airport authorities are taking it upon themselves to circumvent existing law and the Constitution by using this arrangement


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

What's in your wallet?










SLuz said:


> Lyft covers the driver, Uber does not. What's on your windshield?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Trump Economics said:


> What's in your wallet?
> 
> View attachment 254001


A 20 Peso bill.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

This guy is complaining that he was ticketed for not displaying the trade dress. I wonder if he just slapped it on for his photo-op.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

“I have to put new tires on twice a year, 

You are buying the wrong tires sir!?!


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Dude has got the trade dress in the wrong location and missing the the airport endorsement. He should be happy he was only fined $200 and $1000.

https://www.uber.com/drive/san-francisco/resources/cpuc-information/


----------



## Dug_M (Feb 16, 2017)

3 times he was fined.... In NJ we also have a law in place since March 2017, trade dress on the front right corner and in the right rear corner... But we do have a lot of Tough Guys who say "I'll never put a toilet seat in my window" or "won't give them free advertising" some are even embarrassed they are driving and I guess don't want their neighbors to know....
For me it's the law and also when a I go through a DWI roadblock run by the NJ state police they have pulled me out of line (_seeing the trade dress_) and directed me around the road block (_local police don't do that though..._).


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Dug_M said:


> 3 times he was fined.... In NJ we also have a law in place since March 2017, trade dress on the front right corner and in the right rear corner... But we do have a lot of Tough Guys who say "I'll never put a toilet seat in my window" or "won't give them free advertising" some are even embarrassed they are driving and I guess don't want their neighbors to know....
> For me it's the law and also when a I go through a DWI roadblock run by the NJ state police they have pulled me out of line (_seeing the trade dress_) and directed me around the road block (_local police don't do that though..._).


Taxis get that treatment all the time.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Taxis get that treatment all the time.


Exactly. When I read the article I thought back on Eddie's Boston Cab assoc. and how theyd fine you for the ticket by demanding the cash before letting you leave the garage in a shitbox cab. No payment, no cab.


----------

