4 ms·
> the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle IMO the huge corpor
by donmcronald 6y ago
> the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle
IMO the huge corporation making outsized profits is in the best position to absorb the increased cost, so if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss, I agree.
If you mean the disabled person should pay more, I don’t agree. Accommodating outliers with disabilities is one of the very few things a huge company can do better than a small business. It should be expected of them IMO.
- chii 6y ago> if you mean Uber should pay their driver more and eat the loss they don't really eat the loss - it merely spreads the cost onto all the drivers in that case, rather than specific drivers (e.g., the payment for all drivers would decrease by a small amount). May be it's going to be a very small amount, such that nobody cares. In that case, it makes business sense to do so - and sell the PR that uber is more disabled-friendly than their competition. A corporation cannot be altruistic.