4 ms·

Are you saying that the drivers didn't know what they were doing to this woman was wrong? Or are you claiming Uber told the drivers to mistreat her?

scsilver 6y ago
That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society. They have a legal argument why they arent responsible, but that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users, shareholders and other stakeholders. Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like their arguments were legally insufficient. Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They even have a link declaring how much they care about providing accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility . All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was stranded by their "contractor".
- valuearb 6y ago
  What externalities?
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    Her getting fired from her job is a big one.
- xmprt 6y ago
  I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - amyjess 6y ago
    Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay five-figure fines in addition to termination in the case they're found to have engaged in discrimination. They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for violations. They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to how they were treated.
    - tinalumfoil 6y ago
      > Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Why should Uber ban drivers that do not comply if Uber faces no consequences for the drivers' actions? Why should Uber spend one cent of investors' money "allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app" if Uber is not responsible?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Yes, employers are generally liable for their employees actions.
  - omgwtfbbq 6y ago
    >Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability. >It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries. >Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'. In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.
mrweasel 6y ago
My guess is that either: They knew it was wrong, at least morally, but they didn’t feel like the payment justify the extra work, and they don’t want dogs in their cars. Or Uber failed to train their drivers correctly (assuming any training takes place and isn’t left to the individual contractors). Maybe Uber should sue the drivers for inflicting damage to their brand.
somethingwitty1 6y ago
I think they are more generally saying that drivers for these ride share companies aren't aware of the risks that the company is passing on to them. They used the example that quite a few drivers have standard insurance (rather than one that covers ride-sharing). I don't think they were claiming the drivers didn't know what they were doing in that they were mistreating her, but more that they weren't aware of the laws around it. And that from Uber's perspective, it was the driver's responsibility to know all of them and take financial liability for violating them. This is counter to so many other jobs. If this happened in a fast food restaurant, you'd expect that food chain to be held responsible, just like Uber was here. The restaurant would likely fire the person (how they are held responsible).
- plank_time 6y ago
  Uber supplies the insurance while the driver is driving for Uber.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    They have some insurance, which was mostly a result of backlash from their original attempts to completely externalize those costs. If you wreck while driving an Uber, and your liability exceeds the amount Uber bought on your behalf, you are responsible for the remainder, and most all personal insurance policies will exclude coverage for this. Rideshare companies are well aware of the advantages of using independent contractors (it's basically the entire point), and many of the independent contractors themselves are not entirely aware of the consequences of that arrangement.
stefan_ 6y ago
Why does it matter? I hired Uber; if they hire contractors to do their job, that doesn't matter to me. If it goes wrong, I'm still gonna sue Uber.
- passivate 6y ago
  I think that the general point people are making is that Uber is like Ebay - a platform. If a seller on Ebay sells you a busted iphone, Ebay has a 'buyer protection' policy to help you seek redress. Maybe Uber needs to have some of that as well.
  - stefan_ 6y ago
    Thats what Uber likes to pretend, but at the end of the day they are the ones charging my credit card.
    - passivate 6y ago
      They don't hire the drivers, and pretty much anyone can join the platform, so I don't agree that its 'pretend'. However, I do think we can do more to make sure the disabled are taken care of. Maybe riders could mark themselves as needing assistance, and drivers could get paid a few more pennies per mile for taking care of them - at the end of the ride, when the passenger approves the 'bonus'.
      - mcguire 6y ago
        Uber checks the drivers' licenses of the drivers, no? Criminal background checks?
  - patmcc 6y ago
    When I buy something on Ebay I can choose which individual person/store I buy from - I can see reviews, their specific listing, etc. - even if I'm buying the exact same product. With Uber I press a button and some driver shows up. I definitely think I'm dealing directly with Uber a lot more than I am with Ebay.

scsilver 6y ago

That at the end of the day, Uber sent a woman into terrible situation, creating a bunch of externalities that society has to bare. Society should have the right to identify those externalities and bring the companies attention to those externalities. If the company says "not my problem" the public should get to decide if they want to allow a company to blithely foist those externalities onto society. They have a legal argument why they arent responsible, but that doesnt mean they are socially responsible to its users, shareholders and other stakeholders. Even then, the courts have made their order, so it looks like their arguments were legally insufficient. Its hard for me to defend a system that blatently hurts the disabled then tries to argue a loophole around the ADA. They even have a link declaring how much they care about providing accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/accessibility . All this lip service and they wont take responsibility for a blind woman being stranded multiple times, because she was stranded by their "contractor".

valuearb 6y ago
What externalities?
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  Her getting fired from her job is a big one.
xmprt 6y ago
I'm not sure how this could be fixed though. Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amyjess 6y ago
  Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance. Perhaps they can even require drivers to sign contracts making them pay five-figure fines in addition to termination in the case they're found to have engaged in discrimination. They could make drivers keep dashcams, with microphones, in their cars and stream them to Uber HQ where a random sample of rides will be analyzed by corporate for violations. They could hire blind people with service dogs to act as "secret shoppers", requesting rides in random parts of random cities, and then reporting back to corporate as to how they were treated.
  - tinalumfoil 6y ago
    > Uber could be much more proactive in surveilling drivers and terminating them for noncompliance I know some do it for fun but most people don't become Uber drivers because they're swimming in cash. Your solution to helping the blind is to give 5-figure liability to low income drivers, and put them on a tight leash as you secretly try to trip them up.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Why should Uber ban drivers that do not comply if Uber faces no consequences for the drivers' actions? Why should Uber spend one cent of investors' money "allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app" if Uber is not responsible?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Yes, employers are generally liable for their employees actions.
- omgwtfbbq 6y ago
  >Uber tells the drivers that they have to comply with ADA for legal reasons but if the drivers still don't then Uber is liable? Yes, because they are employees of Uber and this is why they tried to argue that they were actually contractors to avoid liability. >It kind of feels like me suing a grocery store because someone pushed me into a wall that was built by the store. A better analogy would be Cashiers repeatedly refusing to check out a blind women's groceries. >Uber could definitely do more (like banning drivers that don't comply and allowing passengers and drivers to indicate their disabilities in the app for example) but I don't see how this is Uber's fault more than the drivers'. In the US at least all companies are beholden to the ADA and would certainly be liable to compliance. You seem to think that Uber drivers are not really employed by Uber which I don't think is a settled legal question but that argument was rejected in this case.

mrweasel 6y ago

My guess is that either: They knew it was wrong, at least morally, but they didn’t feel like the payment justify the extra work, and they don’t want dogs in their cars. Or Uber failed to train their drivers correctly (assuming any training takes place and isn’t left to the individual contractors). Maybe Uber should sue the drivers for inflicting damage to their brand.

somethingwitty1 6y ago

I think they are more generally saying that drivers for these ride share companies aren't aware of the risks that the company is passing on to them. They used the example that quite a few drivers have standard insurance (rather than one that covers ride-sharing). I don't think they were claiming the drivers didn't know what they were doing in that they were mistreating her, but more that they weren't aware of the laws around it. And that from Uber's perspective, it was the driver's responsibility to know all of them and take financial liability for violating them. This is counter to so many other jobs. If this happened in a fast food restaurant, you'd expect that food chain to be held responsible, just like Uber was here. The restaurant would likely fire the person (how they are held responsible).

plank_time 6y ago
Uber supplies the insurance while the driver is driving for Uber.
- kube-system 6y ago
  They have some insurance, which was mostly a result of backlash from their original attempts to completely externalize those costs. If you wreck while driving an Uber, and your liability exceeds the amount Uber bought on your behalf, you are responsible for the remainder, and most all personal insurance policies will exclude coverage for this. Rideshare companies are well aware of the advantages of using independent contractors (it's basically the entire point), and many of the independent contractors themselves are not entirely aware of the consequences of that arrangement.

stefan_ 6y ago

Why does it matter? I hired Uber; if they hire contractors to do their job, that doesn't matter to me. If it goes wrong, I'm still gonna sue Uber.

passivate 6y ago
I think that the general point people are making is that Uber is like Ebay - a platform. If a seller on Ebay sells you a busted iphone, Ebay has a 'buyer protection' policy to help you seek redress. Maybe Uber needs to have some of that as well.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Thats what Uber likes to pretend, but at the end of the day they are the ones charging my credit card.
  - passivate 6y ago
    They don't hire the drivers, and pretty much anyone can join the platform, so I don't agree that its 'pretend'. However, I do think we can do more to make sure the disabled are taken care of. Maybe riders could mark themselves as needing assistance, and drivers could get paid a few more pennies per mile for taking care of them - at the end of the ride, when the passenger approves the 'bonus'.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Uber checks the drivers' licenses of the drivers, no? Criminal background checks?
- patmcc 6y ago
  When I buy something on Ebay I can choose which individual person/store I buy from - I can see reviews, their specific listing, etc. - even if I'm buying the exact same product. With Uber I press a button and some driver shows up. I definitely think I'm dealing directly with Uber a lot more than I am with Ebay.