13 ms·

I'm glad they got a fine, but I'm concerned that a) they'll go right back to discriminating when the 2-year period mentioned is up, and b) I'm not sure requirin

I'm glad they got a fine, but I'm concerned that a) they'll go right back to discriminating when the 2-year period mentioned is up, and b) I'm not sure requiring the user to get a waiver is the right approach. It's more PII that Uber now stores and can be used to discriminate in other ways that might not be detectable from the outside.

viscanti 4y ago
Could it be that they launched a feature to compensate drivers for waiting around (not getting paid as the customer only pays for on trip time) and they didn't intend to discriminate? I get that big tech companies are evil, but is the theory that they intentionally wanted to cause harm to disabled people? That doesn't seem to be supported by their actions once they were notified about the issue so it's weird to see concern about them doing it again in two years. For customers who aren't disabled, should they be able to make drivers wait around for a long time or should they pay? If they should pay, how else would they give exemptions to disabled people? If they shouldn't pay, then why would drivers sit around not making money? It seems like it's fair to compensate those drivers for their time (most jobs work like that) and if people don't have a good reason for that, they should be paying for the time they're making that driver wait.
- pineaux 4y ago
  Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Why shouldn't they? They use more of service in this case time. So of course they should pay for it.
    - dimensi0nal 4y ago
      > Why shouldn't they? Reasonable accommodations.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        CPLX 4y ago
        Asking a multi-billion dollar company to make reasonable accommodations so Americans who suffer from disabilities can still use their products and services is probably not something you can reasonably compare to slavery.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        The cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the employee or the disabled customer.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Exactly. There should be some sort of governmental department where the disabled could file claims for reimbursement with appropriate paper work. Then these claims could be verified and support given in due time. Kinda like insurance work. Even further maybe there could be system of prior authorizations where eligible people can request decisions before using services.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Or, just give them a monthly stipend to cover any/all costs. They file once, get thee stupid, maybe re-up annually or every few years. It's not like their costs are going to go away - being disabled is just more costly. Italy has(had?) a similar program for residents with celiac disease (requires a gluten-free diet). It's a max 140 euro/month stipend to cover the higher costs of groceries.
        pkaye 4y ago
        Maybe Uber can pay those workers better.
      - pxeboot 4y ago
        Is it still reasonable if it makes a contractor earn below minimum wage?
    - wolpoli 4y ago
      They shouldn't because the government is mandating equity, not equality.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        Isn't paying same for same work(in this case time spend servicing them) exactly equity? And not being forced to pay is not equity?
        HWR_14 4y ago
        No. You don't pay Uber for someone's time, you pay Uber for rides. You're confusing equity and equality.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Aren't you paying for person to provide you a time slot in their vehicle plus distance travelled? So equity would be to pay for both for same rate as anyone else.
        frumper 4y ago
        No, you're paying Uber to go from point A to B. Uber decides what to pay drivers.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Which is billed by time and distance. Thus having to pay the same for both is equity.
        frumper 4y ago
        The customer doesn't set any of that. That is between Uber and their drivers. Uber has a legal obligation to not charge different prices with reasonable accommodations to someone because they're disabled. They can of course pay the driver more, but that is between the driver and Uber.
    - reaperducer 4y ago
      Why shouldn't they? Because we are all citizens and all human beings, even the one with disabilities. This is something that we, as a nation and a society, decided years ago, and we shouldn't throw out our ideals because they're inconvenient for tech companies.
  - syrrim 4y ago
    They're saying the opposite.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I am saying disabled people should pay more, and the state should give them free money to cover the higher costs they incur for day to day services. Trying to get every business to charge all customers equally, even when some customers are far more costly to serve is a bad model. Better to just let the business charge whatever the real cost of providing the service is, and directly subsidize the disabled person to cover that increased cost. /Unpopular opinion
    - foobiekr 4y ago
      Why should the state subsidize Uber?
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        That's the wrong view. The state is subsidizing the disabled residents, so they can live their lives without undue burden. Those subsidizes might be used with Uber or a regular cab or some other transit provider.
        aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        If you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        And? We wouldn’t be reimbursing just for Uber, it would apply to any transit (I’m assuming taxis have the same problem). Running Uber out of business isn’t the point. Making the lives of citizens easier is the point. If Uber can make a business out of that, more power to them.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to individually apply each trip for the compensation? Both seem problematic/inefficient to me, compared to having Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset their reportable taxable income to compensate for the cost of providing services to disabled customers.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    yes if they use more resources. they should pay more.
hulitu 4y ago
I'm sure that UBER will follow the law as they always did. /s
foobiekr 4y ago
It's Uber. Of _course_ they will go right back to doing something unethical when the heat is off. It may not even last two years. I really have come to believe that computer science and EE programs should include two mandatory semesters in ethics. So many of the companies in the space are laughably, comic-book-villian-level bad. People defend them because they also pay super well.

viscanti 4y ago

Could it be that they launched a feature to compensate drivers for waiting around (not getting paid as the customer only pays for on trip time) and they didn't intend to discriminate? I get that big tech companies are evil, but is the theory that they intentionally wanted to cause harm to disabled people? That doesn't seem to be supported by their actions once they were notified about the issue so it's weird to see concern about them doing it again in two years. For customers who aren't disabled, should they be able to make drivers wait around for a long time or should they pay? If they should pay, how else would they give exemptions to disabled people? If they shouldn't pay, then why would drivers sit around not making money? It seems like it's fair to compensate those drivers for their time (most jobs work like that) and if people don't have a good reason for that, they should be paying for the time they're making that driver wait.

pineaux 4y ago
Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Why shouldn't they? They use more of service in this case time. So of course they should pay for it.
  - dimensi0nal 4y ago
    > Why shouldn't they? Reasonable accommodations.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      - CPLX 4y ago
        Asking a multi-billion dollar company to make reasonable accommodations so Americans who suffer from disabilities can still use their products and services is probably not something you can reasonably compare to slavery.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        The cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the employee or the disabled customer.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Exactly. There should be some sort of governmental department where the disabled could file claims for reimbursement with appropriate paper work. Then these claims could be verified and support given in due time. Kinda like insurance work. Even further maybe there could be system of prior authorizations where eligible people can request decisions before using services.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Or, just give them a monthly stipend to cover any/all costs. They file once, get thee stupid, maybe re-up annually or every few years. It's not like their costs are going to go away - being disabled is just more costly. Italy has(had?) a similar program for residents with celiac disease (requires a gluten-free diet). It's a max 140 euro/month stipend to cover the higher costs of groceries.
      - pkaye 4y ago
        Maybe Uber can pay those workers better.
    - pxeboot 4y ago
      Is it still reasonable if it makes a contractor earn below minimum wage?
  - wolpoli 4y ago
    They shouldn't because the government is mandating equity, not equality.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Isn't paying same for same work(in this case time spend servicing them) exactly equity? And not being forced to pay is not equity?
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        No. You don't pay Uber for someone's time, you pay Uber for rides. You're confusing equity and equality.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Aren't you paying for person to provide you a time slot in their vehicle plus distance travelled? So equity would be to pay for both for same rate as anyone else.
        frumper 4y ago
        No, you're paying Uber to go from point A to B. Uber decides what to pay drivers.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Which is billed by time and distance. Thus having to pay the same for both is equity.
        frumper 4y ago
        The customer doesn't set any of that. That is between Uber and their drivers. Uber has a legal obligation to not charge different prices with reasonable accommodations to someone because they're disabled. They can of course pay the driver more, but that is between the driver and Uber.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    Why shouldn't they? Because we are all citizens and all human beings, even the one with disabilities. This is something that we, as a nation and a society, decided years ago, and we shouldn't throw out our ideals because they're inconvenient for tech companies.
- syrrim 4y ago
  They're saying the opposite.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  I am saying disabled people should pay more, and the state should give them free money to cover the higher costs they incur for day to day services. Trying to get every business to charge all customers equally, even when some customers are far more costly to serve is a bad model. Better to just let the business charge whatever the real cost of providing the service is, and directly subsidize the disabled person to cover that increased cost. /Unpopular opinion
  - foobiekr 4y ago
    Why should the state subsidize Uber?
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      That's the wrong view. The state is subsidizing the disabled residents, so they can live their lives without undue burden. Those subsidizes might be used with Uber or a regular cab or some other transit provider.
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        If you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        And? We wouldn’t be reimbursing just for Uber, it would apply to any transit (I’m assuming taxis have the same problem). Running Uber out of business isn’t the point. Making the lives of citizens easier is the point. If Uber can make a business out of that, more power to them.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to individually apply each trip for the compensation? Both seem problematic/inefficient to me, compared to having Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset their reportable taxable income to compensate for the cost of providing services to disabled customers.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  yes if they use more resources. they should pay more.

hulitu 4y ago

I'm sure that UBER will follow the law as they always did. /s

foobiekr 4y ago

It's Uber. Of _course_ they will go right back to doing something unethical when the heat is off. It may not even last two years. I really have come to believe that computer science and EE programs should include two mandatory semesters in ethics. So many of the companies in the space are laughably, comic-book-villian-level bad. People defend them because they also pay super well.