7 ms·

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

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.

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.