7 ms·
Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
by pineaux 4y ago
Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
- Ekaros 4y agoWhy 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 agoAsking 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 agoThe cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the employee or the disabled customer.
- Ekaros 4y agoExactly. 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 agoOr, 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 agoMaybe Uber can pay those workers better.
- pxeboot 4y agoIs it still reasonable if it makes a contractor earn below minimum wage?
- dimensi0nal 4y agoIs it still reasonable if it makes a small business spend thousands of dollars on a ramp?
- frumper 4y agoAs a society we said that is a reasonable cost of doing business in the US. Reasonable accommodations, it is the law of the land.
- collegeburner 4y ago"the law of the land" is a really shitty argument for supporting something when its questioned. its an unfair burden on small businesses. large enough ones probably get enough business it makes sense to install.
- frumper 4y agoSociety had this debate in 1990 and it was more than a super majority that supported ADA. You're welcome to go look up about that debate that made it the law of the land, many people on this board are old enough to remember it. I promise you that people brought up the burden on small businesses back then too. It's not even a hard calculus to make if you're starting a new business. Is it worth it for me to open my business while paying the costs to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to my services. If you choose to put in steps, or have an old building with steps then you can decide the tradeoffs. If you're renting you can probably negotiate those costs with your landlord as the improvements will continue beyond your lease. These aren't surprise costs, they can be made ahead of time to decide if you have a viable business.
- Aerroon 4y ago
- wolpoli 4y agoThey shouldn't because the government is mandating equity, not equality.
- Ekaros 4y agoIsn'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 agoNo. You don't pay Uber for someone's time, you pay Uber for rides. You're confusing equity and equality.
- Ekaros 4y agoAren'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 agoNo, you're paying Uber to go from point A to B. Uber decides what to pay drivers.
- Ekaros 4y agoWhich is billed by time and distance. Thus having to pay the same for both is equity.
- frumper 4y agoThe 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 agoWhy 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 agoThey're saying the opposite.
- londons_explore 4y agoI 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 agoWhy should the state subsidize Uber?
- alistairSH 4y agoThat'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 agoIf you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
- alistairSH 4y agoAnd? 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 agoAre 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 agoyes if they use more resources. they should pay more.