3 ms·

The headline should specify that Uber drivers denied service, not the company itself. The drivers violated Uber’s own policy regarding service animals.

jachee 9y ago
Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior. >Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues. Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lhorie 9y ago
  This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers. I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion. It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it. [1](https://accessibility.uber.com/ https://accessibility.uber.com/)
RangerScience 9y ago
It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice". Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.
black_puppydog 9y ago
This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind. By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X". This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation. Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...
27182818284 9y ago
My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)

jachee 9y ago

Was disciplinary action taken against those drivers? If they continued to be associated with Uber, without consequences, then Uber is complicit in their behavior. >Steele’s suit notes that Uber corporate were not especially helpful in resolving her ongoing denial-of-service issues. Seems like Uber is the ultimate root cause.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lhorie 9y ago
This[1] suggests that they do have specialized channels to report this exact type of problem, and that they do investigate and take action on reported cases. It says they also periodically send reminder emails about the legal requirements for drivers. I talked to a driver once that said that he got suspended when a rider had erroneously reported that he "looked high" (despite that being the only complaint that day despite him having had many passengers). He complained that Uber had not even bothered to hear his side of the story before suspending him and they should've told him to come to a driver center to get tested, instead of just taking someone's report at face value. He said he went to the hospital to get drug tested and had to submit the results to get reinstated. So at least from anecdata, it seems non-compliant drivers do get booted on a shoot-first-ask-later fashion. It sounds like the problem here is that some drivers still choose to break the law on the 1 out a 1000 chance they run into the service dog situation, even despite all the warnings telling them not to do it. [1](https://accessibility.uber.com/ https://accessibility.uber.com/)

RangerScience 9y ago

It always bothers me when people lay out the defense "but it was their choice". Sure. It was. It was a choice made within a context created by someone else; to deny the role Uber played in that choice is just as problematic as blaming Uber for the loss of taxi jobs.

black_puppydog 9y ago

This shifting of responsabilities (and, mostly, blame) is exactly what I've come to expect of Uber and it's kind. By "it's kind" I don't mean evil people but rather anything that might describe itself as "Uber for X". This is why I'm so happy about developments like in the UK [1], which forces Uber to assume responsibility in this kind of situation. Responsibility to the customer is something that should not be delegated IMHO. If you sell someone a TV set including installation and the person installing it fucks up, you deal with the company who sold it (and it's their reputation on the line) and if they want to, they then deal with their employee/contractor. Why should we settle for anything else with Uber? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-loses-appeal-employment-rights-workers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/10/uber-lose...

27182818284 9y ago

My immediate thought reading the headline was, "Drivers are or Uber the company is?" so there was some ambiguity for me. Especially since I just took a Lyft ride with the parent of someone with cerebral palsy (we talked about it during the ride)