4 ms·

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.

shuntress 6y ago
This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any" According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
    - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
      That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.
      - shuntress 6y ago
        I feel like you might kind of be missing the point here... Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers. Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.
        ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it. A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.
        Miner49er 6y ago
        I don't see much of an other option for Uber if they want to fix this. It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the only driver around if they aren't going to take service animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't drive unless they are willing to take service animals or there is another driver around that is willing to.
        shuntress 5y ago
        They have to make sure the service they offer complies with the ADA's requirements and where that is not possible they must not offer that service.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Ah, a Stephen Breyer counterfactual.
NullPrefix 6y ago
Work on yourself. That's the only way
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified and I don't need to work on myself. Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be forced to be around dogs. If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on themselves"?
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law. Having service dogs is.
    - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
      How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.
      - adoxyz 6y ago
        https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.
        ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening. You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger. If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired. If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.
- keenreed 6y ago
  Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that is ability to refuse some rides. Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety. So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?
NLips 6y ago
If you are driven into a panic by being near a service dog, you are not fit to be a taxi driver. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pfhreak 6y ago
If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this qualification, then your options are limited. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)
- lupire 6y ago
  Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber, which is the business.
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    That's how it should be, that is not how it is.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I mean, yeah, I'd love to liver in that world. Unfortunately, Uber has campaigned widely that their drivers are, in fact, independent contractors and not employees. The drivers should be employees, imo, but the way the company is structured today, they are not.
Operyl 6y ago
Then it’s time to get into a different kind of business, really.
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.
  - Operyl 6y ago
    I'm terrified of heights, I probably shouldn't get a job as a window cleaner. Not every window cleaner has a thousand companies trying to hire them either.
    - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
      I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.
dapids 6y ago
Then don't drive Uber. Most businesses legally must allow service dogs.
adoxyz 6y ago
Don't do a job that legally requires you to potentially have a service animal in your car then...
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing. I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.
  - adoxyz 6y ago
    Because it's discrimination against people with disabilities and per the ADA illegal.
    - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
      So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...
      - adoxyz 6y ago
        With that kind of logic, why not just a rob a bank if you really need cash. They're both illegal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive comparison.
ARandumGuy 6y ago
Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and they should have to pay up until they implement one.
- ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
  Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.
Miner49er 6y ago
The ADA says that is not a good enough reason to deny service: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
__turbobrew__ 6y ago
The ADA has defined protected classes, and if you are not OK with a protected class you need to deal with it. How would you feel if I rephrased your comment: Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near one sends me into panic.

shuntress 6y ago

This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any" According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.
- shuntress 6y ago
  I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car. Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.
    - shuntress 6y ago
      I feel like you might kind of be missing the point here... Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers. Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.
      - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it. A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.
        Miner49er 6y ago
        I don't see much of an other option for Uber if they want to fix this. It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the only driver around if they aren't going to take service animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't drive unless they are willing to take service animals or there is another driver around that is willing to.
        shuntress 5y ago
        They have to make sure the service they offer complies with the ADA's requirements and where that is not possible they must not offer that service.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Ah, a Stephen Breyer counterfactual.

NullPrefix 6y ago

Work on yourself. That's the only way

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified and I don't need to work on myself. Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be forced to be around dogs. If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on themselves"?
- airstrike 6y ago
  Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law. Having service dogs is.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.
    - adoxyz 6y ago
      https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.
      - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening. You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger. If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.

BoiledCabbage 6y ago

You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs. As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired. If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.

keenreed 6y ago
Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that is ability to refuse some rides. Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety. So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?

NLips 6y ago

If you are driven into a panic by being near a service dog, you are not fit to be a taxi driver. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Pfhreak 6y ago

If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this qualification, then your options are limited. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)

lupire 6y ago
Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber, which is the business.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  That's how it should be, that is not how it is.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I mean, yeah, I'd love to liver in that world. Unfortunately, Uber has campaigned widely that their drivers are, in fact, independent contractors and not employees. The drivers should be employees, imo, but the way the company is structured today, they are not.

Operyl 6y ago

Then it’s time to get into a different kind of business, really.

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.
- Operyl 6y ago
  I'm terrified of heights, I probably shouldn't get a job as a window cleaner. Not every window cleaner has a thousand companies trying to hire them either.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.

dapids 6y ago

Then don't drive Uber. Most businesses legally must allow service dogs.

adoxyz 6y ago

Don't do a job that legally requires you to potentially have a service animal in your car then...

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing. I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.
- adoxyz 6y ago
  Because it's discrimination against people with disabilities and per the ADA illegal.
  - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
    So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...
    - adoxyz 6y ago
      With that kind of logic, why not just a rob a bank if you really need cash. They're both illegal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive comparison.

ARandumGuy 6y ago

Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and they should have to pay up until they implement one.

ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.

Miner49er 6y ago

The ADA says that is not a good enough reason to deny service: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

__turbobrew__ 6y ago

The ADA has defined protected classes, and if you are not OK with a protected class you need to deal with it. How would you feel if I rephrased your comment: Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near one sends me into panic.