MEDIA LOG
Medium: Newspaper
Vehicle: New York Times
Website (if applicable)
Reporters/writers: Mike Isaac
Date: Monday, September 14, 2015
Headline: California Agency Says Uber Driver Was an Employee
Company/business involved: Uber
Your client: Uber (agency)
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/california-agency-says-former-uber-driver-was-an-employee/?_r=0
Summary of story: Uber, a ride-hailing company, is in a constant battle of lawsuits and controversy over whether or not their drivers should remain individual partners/contractors or they should be considered employees of the company. Uber intends to fight a class-action lawsuit in California contending that their drivers are employees and should be eligible for and entitled to reimbursement and unemployment benefits.
Analyze news coverage: (positive/negative — why): Negative coverage of this controversial company’s values. Uber, acts in a very different way than most companies of its nature. Uber found a loophole to avoid certain costs like unemployment taxes and work-related driving expenses by deeming their drivers “contractors”. Most of the coverage explains lawsuits and seemingly skewed battles against Uber.
Message of story about company: Uber stands as a “technology” company and therefore argues the application of standard state transportation laws on itself. The company has many rivals including other taxi companies, law enforcers/regulators, customers, and even its drivers.
Audience most impacted: Employees of Uber who can discover their rights through the pending lawsuits
Public perceptions of company/industry: On one end of the spectrum Uber has recently become one of the greatest transportation phenomenas. It’s a cheaper, faster, more efficient way to hail a cab at busy time of day or in advance when traffic volume is high. Though the benefits are great, the public is becoming more aware of the controversy hidden in the background. The public might start feeling bad for the treatment of employees, as their benefits and rights are being withheld.
What should PR folks be thinking or do next? PR folks should be finding the facts and reason that the company is indeed above state transportation laws and has every right to continue its efforts to appeal the ruling in the pending lawsuits. Uber needs to take a public stance on the way it functions so there is no more confusion.
How can they turn this story around (if negative)? Explain the employee contracts more efficiently. Report on the feelings of content drivers rather than the main focus of coverage on the bitter ones.
Did a news release or media pitch or media driven generate the story? How do you know? News release, there are public quotes from both Uber and the Employment agencies involved in the article. The facts are put out and it’s a pending lawsuit, more to be reported as the story develops.