25 ms·

Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

141 points by luu 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago
Here is the thing with "sharing" economy - the moment money exchange hands, this is no longer sharing but commercial activity. So you must abide to the regulations. You cannot cherry pick only the rules that suit you.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  They've been able to do it to the tune of a tens of billions of dollars valuation. So has Airbnb. Why change now? They'll get their IPO before anyone has to answer for anything, so investors & founders will be happy. Keep running the marketing machine with the "sharing" moniker right until the check clears, and after that, it's the shareholders' problem.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    "Why change now?" Because what they're doing is wrong, and doing something wrong because you can get a lot of money for it is pretty awful.
    - Drakim 11y ago
      That is how business and capitalism works. Being immoral can hurt your profits, because customers might be repulsed and boycott you. Breaking the law can hurt your profits, because the government might take action against your business. Those are the sole reasons why you would avoid doing immoral and illegal things. If the benefit outweighs the negatives, then businesses will do those things. If they don't do it, they will lose against other businesses that are willing to do it. Fortunately, the downsides can be quite big, which means that most of the time businesses will "stay in line". A huge boycott from the people or hard damaging actions from the government really hurts profits, so it's very rarely a profitable thing to be immoral and break the law.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Of course people can be moral actors in the business world. "Because you might get caught" is by no means the only reason to do the right thing, even if it means leaving money on the table. What you're describing is a sociopathic greed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  It's not "sharing". It was never "sharing". It's sharecropping.
  - mason240 11y ago
    You might have a case for calling it "sharecropping" if Uber owned the cars and the drivers were paying Uber for the privilege of using them. They are not though, so it's a gross misapplication of the term.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Drivers pay for the vehicle as well as all maintenance and operational costs. They also pay for insurance. They aren't covered by workers compensation if injured while on the job. Oh, and Uber even "helps" you get a car and they get a cut of the purchase and financing: https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/ https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Drivers pay for the customers they get. The analogy thus fits.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        ...no, I don't think that really fits. Besides, it wasn't the sharecropping itself that was a problem, it was the abusive lending.
- murbard2 11y ago
  One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens... The way I see it is that there is no such thing as "commercial activity". There is voluntary activity of all sorts, and all kind of transactions happen, whether it be through payments, barter or goodwill. If I'm exempt from the ADA when inviting friends over, so should you be when you rent your room on AirBnB, and so should the motel across the street. All exist on a continuum, and the "sharing economy" is now making that continuum more explicit than ever before. Decreeting that some activity is commercial and subjecting it to government rules merely because it involves money is arbitrary and unfair. Laissez faire, laissez passer.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    How can there be no such attribute if there is a continuum of that attribute? Picking thresholds is not unfair. It's the fundamental way that life interacts with the world around it. You physically cannot examine everything that could affect you with infinite precision. The job of regulation is not to pick a mythical "perfect" result for every possible case, it's to force a good guideline into place. This is partially arbitrary, and that is okay. It doesn't matter if that fine is $200 or $220, the regulation just needs to work.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      What I mean to say is that the attribute isn't categorical, even though it is treated as such in the discussion. I'm also not saying the regulation cannot "work" by picking a threshold, I am appealing to our moral intuition that regulating private behavior is wrong to explain why regulating "commercial" behavior is also wrong.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        But how does it explain that? The situations are clearly very different on either end of the spectrum, so you can't directly use the intuition from one end on the other. The only thing you've really shown is that the categorization will be mildly imperfect.
- true_religion 11y ago
  I agree. Their statement is that they are a black car service, not a taxi service. Personally I think having a meter in the car makes them a taxi, and I'm glad to see the UK government agrees. However, if they simply take out their meter they are a black car service and only have to comply with the rules set about for those. Just being a better private car service, doesn't make them illegal by default.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    No, but it means they must comply with relevant regulation - like accommodating disabled people.
    - true_religion 11y ago
      Do private cars have to accommodate disabled people?
striking 11y ago
It doesn't matter what the law says, in my opinion. Discrimination is discrimination. You wouldn't stop an African-American from getting into your car, right?
- hvs 11y ago
  Which is why those laws were created in the first place. Because some people WOULD stop an African-American from getting in their car.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I bet a lot of uber drivers would.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  I'd like to think an Uber driver who did would be dropped by the company, but given what this article says I'm beginning to wonder. I recall reading a while back[1] that driver ratings were so important that some drivers were canned after just a few mediocre reports and forced to undergo training that they had to pay for themselves. I can't imagine a driver who discriminates getting a good review, and if it becomes a pattern they should be suspended based on Uber's own policies. But it sounds like Uber is circling the wagons here. [1] http://observer.com/2015/02/uber-drivers-the-punishment-for-bad-ratings-is-costly-training-courses/ http://observer.com/2015/02/uber-drivers-the-punishment-for-...
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Uber drivers regularly discriminate based on race by discriminating based on location of drop off... hence the high rates of 'cancelled' riders Uber users in SF and NYC see when traveling to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that just happen to have higher percentages of non-white residents. This is why we have laws against drop-off discrimination here in NYC. But Uber being Uber sees them as bureaucratic red tape that shouldn't apply to them. Just like disability access laws. And ethics.
  - jordanthoms 11y ago
    My understanding is that Uber drivers don't see the dropoff location until they pick up the passenger, and at any rate you can simply not enter the destination and tell the driver where to go.
dia80 11y ago
This kind of concerns me. I have a T4/T5 spinal cord injury from a snowboarding accident 4.5Y ago. I have good hand and arm function but that's it no abdominals etc. I drive myself to work everyday and transfer in and out and fold up my wheelchair. London's black cabs all have ramps. UBER is making big inroads here and I'm worried that eventually it'll be tricky to get a black cab. I can transfer into a regular car but I would need the driver to put my wheelchair in the boot (trunk) and given busy streets, harassed drivers, needing to pull right up to the kerb etc. I've not really had the guts to try it. It's particularly relevant here as the tube is mostly inaccessible and the buses painfully slow.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. I think they'd have an extremely hard time claiming that they are exempt from UK and EU law. Furthermore, Black Cabs are an entirely different taxi group and the competition between them is regulated AFAIK.
  - jackgavigan 11y ago
    > Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. That is not correct.
    - hahainternet 11y ago
      Is it not? Can you tell me why all the Ubers I use have the exact same markings and plates as private hire firms? I'm in Manchester.
      - jackgavigan 11y ago
        > licensed taxi drivers > private hire firms You need to learn the difference between these.
- viscanti 11y ago
  The issue isn't that Uber is discriminating. In fact, the subject of the article was a twice weekly user of Uber for two years. A single driver didn't think the wheelchair would fit in the car. It seems like something that should be reported, and the driver should be dealt with. To take an issue that happens less than 1% of the time and make it sound like it's UBER is a bit absurd.
afandian 11y ago
I don't know what people expected from an organisation set up for the prime purpose of avoiding regulation.
- marknutter 11y ago
  A better service at a cheaper rate.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > A better service at a cheaper rate ...While replicating all of the problems the regulation was created to address in the first place.
  - thomasz 11y ago
    unless you have a disability, then fuck you and everybody like you.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    Which really only work if you're in the majority. Some groups of people rely on the rest of us to subsidise the services they require. If we allow companies to only service the group of people that are the most profitable, we risk excluding others from purchasing that service altogether. That's the exact same reason why Obama-care (sorry I don't know the correct name for it) disallows the insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. I understand rule and service levels are different around the world, but allowing Uber, AirBNB and other to pretend that all the rules are solely in place to keep competition out is doing society a disservice.
    - kedean 11y ago
      The Affordable Care Act
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      I think it's been clearly shown that part of the regulation is harmful to both drivers and riders. Also that some of the beneficial regulation goes unenforced. In many cities it's definitely possible to make a system that's better than the old one for everyone (except for certain investors).
MrSourz 11y ago
I think I understand Uber's stance here. From a business perspective their drivers are all independent contractors. This is an important part of the discussion because if they start telling them what the can and cannot do during their time then they start to look more and more like employees (something they absolutely do not want). An example of this are the popularly discussed drivers that run jewellery or other businesses out of their car while also driving. The moment Uber says you cannot do this on while a contractor for us the legal waters become murkier. It may be the case that once someone challenges in court an Uber driver (not Uber itself) and wins on the grounds that not accepting a disabled passenger is illegal then the company will have the grounds (and precedent) to enforce that their contractors do not break the law. To drive the point home, even if Uber wants to prevent their drivers from doing certain things doing so moves them closer to the realm of employees not contractors. Edit: To clarify I don't necessarily believe that Uber drivers should be considered contractors, but until a case is brought against them and they lose and all drivers become employees they're going to be as hands off as possible to maintain their ability to defend the position. Also providing instructions to a contractor (provide water) does not make them an employee.
- MrSourz 11y ago
  Imagine the overhead (taxes and all) for managing all of their drivers as employees not contractors.
  - stephenr 11y ago
    So, fuck the disabled - we gots to get paid?
  - halostatue 11y ago
    I imagine it, and I don’t care. Uber is trying to play it both ways (regulating their drivers heavily while not having to obey regulations that everyone else has to follow) and I have no sympathy for them at all.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago
aikah 11y ago
> but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service, it doesn’t fall under the ADA’s jurisdiction. What the ? Come on ,They don't get to decide what law they should follow. Or maybe they know that all these lawsuits cost them less than having to respect the law, I don't know. All I can say is that Uber displays an unbelievable level of arrogance.
- sigzero 11y ago
  Maybe. That doesn't mean they aren't right though.
- hnnewguy 11y ago
  I found that odd as well. What exactly is a "technology company"?
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Apparently it's any company that (a) wants people to think it's hip and cool, and (b) doesn't want to play by the same rules as its competitors. Get out of the way; we're INNOVATING here! This kind of thing isn't going to fly in court. Judges have a long history of following the duck principle: if it looks like a taxi company and acts like a taxi company, it's probably a taxi company. Like any observant human, the judge is going to conclude that Uber is a taxi company and will require that it follow the same laws as other taxi companies. This will be the simplest case on the judge's docket this year.
    - corin_ 11y ago
      What about a website like Just Eat in the UK, which offers an online ordering interface to thousands of independently run takeaways in the UK, are they are technology company or a food company?
      - fredkbloggs 11y ago
        Neither. I'd probably call that business services or retailer/reseller. There's also the salient difference that those takeaways are not being paid as contractors by Just Eat (if anything it's probably the other way around). If they were, Just Eat would be a takeaway. If Just Eat made a piece of software for sale that other companies could use to provide takeaway resale services, it would be a technology company.
eire1130 11y ago
It's really not that hard to "do the right thing." Yet they have to go out their way to be dicks about it.
- Thriptic 11y ago
  It depends on how you define doing the right thing. If you mean telling drivers to be accomodating of passengers with disabilities, then yes I agree. If you mean fielding an entire discrete service of vehicles across the world to service a small, non uniformally distributed number of users without actually employing their drivers; that's a bit harder. I'm not saying that Uber shouldn't deploy such a discrete service, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that ADA compliance in this context is cheap or easy.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    ADA compliance is almost never cheap or easy. That was the knock on the law when it was being debated and any business owner will tell you it's still every bit the costly nightmare people said it would be at the time. It's a terrible law and most of it should be repealed (the rest should devolve to the states, which unlike the federal government have the constitutional authority to impose it), but the fact remains that courts have upheld it and it is the law. There's no reason one taxi company should have to follow it and not another.
kaolinite 11y ago
This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bottle of water to drink and there was stuff to read too (and not rubbish either, quality stuff like the FT). For a while, it seemed like Uber was about the high-end - as Travis himself said, he created Uber to have a more "baller" way to travel around San Francisco - but then they started to care more and more about being seen as affordable and UberX is now clearly the company's top priority. And as prices drop and margins are squeezed, articles like this are the end result. People will complain that luxury isn't important (and they might be right) but Uber had a really good service that was different. Now they're just like all the other ride sharing companies. I really, really wish they would shut down UberX. I know they won't. But I want to love Uber again - but with all of these stories, almost all regarding UberX drivers - I feel obnoxious if I use them. I don't want to support them. Love the service, hate the company. [1] I was recently in a taxi where the taxi driver said a number of very racist things, directly insulted me, my fellow passenger and pretty much anyone he came into contact with during the ride (other cars, pedestrians, etc) and swore repeatedly. This isn't the first time I've experienced this (although it was the worst). I'm somewhat shy and find taxis to be, on occasion, somewhat intimidating. I've never felt that way in an Uber.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  Have you ever considered since there cutting into established markets now, the vast vast majority anti-uber articles are PR pieces from competitors. You'll be surprised how common this is.
  - untog 11y ago
    Are you suggesting that Uber does not discriminate against disabled people? Because the evidence outlined in the article is quite damning. Dismissing any criticism as "probably PR by a competitor" is really not that useful.
codingdave 11y ago
I just want to point out that posting about how wrong Uber is on HN, but then still using them, doesn't help anyone. If you feel they are in the wrong, do not use Uber until they update their policies and actions.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  That's not true though, hypocritical advocacy can logically be effective. If you convince just 2 other people to make the change you are arguing for, you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect.
  - a3n 11y ago
    > you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect. That's not true though. You're still not effecting the change that would result from you yourself taking action. In your example, you're shy the result of 1/3 of possible change.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      In your reply you are just ignoring my intended meaning with "personally". You obviously understood what I said. If you think a different phrasing would be better, feel free to suggest that.
      - a3n 11y ago
        > You obviously understood what I said. I agree with that.
      - Istof 11y ago
        Yeah, if you get everyone else to not use Uber, you won't be able to use it either because it will be in business anymore. I have never used them but they sure hope to avoid all existing laws... some cities have even written specific laws that apply only to them because of that.
- untog 11y ago
tobiasu 11y ago
Uber: Pissing off judges worldwide
goatforce5 11y ago
I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to ignore accessibility. > [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-...
- mhurron 11y ago
  If you can't run a business by following relevant laws and regulations, can you really say you have a viable business model? I don't care what stage of running your business you're in, you shouldn't get to ignore laws and regulations that apply just because you don't like them, or it would be too expensive right now.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    Ask any number of companies that skirt the law (mining/extraction) or who are powerful enough to simply evade the law (most pipeline incidents aren't fully accounted for in terms of environmental/damage cost because lax laws shield the companies that maintain/build pipeline). It's a question - if your business is big enough to essentially buy off legislators or judiciary, is it your company's fiduciary duty to go into legally gray area for higher profits?
    - mhurron 11y ago
      Pretty sure that being a legal entity requires you to act in a legal manner. I do not buy the 'business must do everything inside and outside the law to make money,' schtick, but then again, I'm not willing to look at companies as more important or the most important part of society either.
    - rquantz 11y ago
      This is why punishment for corporate law breaking needs to include revocation of the corporate charter after a point.
DannyBee 11y ago
Company set up to lower prices by avoiding regulatory overhead tries to avoid regulatory overhead - film at 11. FWIW: It seems really unlikely Uber will be able to play both sides of the coin on this one for much longer. Just in case anyone thought "courts have never considered things like Uber and the ADA before", they have. Search for "demand responsive transportation ADA" The fact that the drivers are or are not employees will not matter. Also "49 C.F.R. § 37.171 - Equivalency Requirement for Demand Responsive Service Operated by Private Entities Not Primarily in the Business of Transporting People" Whoops. Oh well, there goes any argument about not being in the business of transporting people ...
- alkonaut 11y ago
  In places where Uber is just another taxi company, it likely has to follow all the local regulations that apply to taxi companies. It's only special in the places where Uber pretends not to be a taxi by claiming it's some kind of "ride sharing". I think that isn't going to last very long.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "It's only special in the places" My point is precisely: It is not special, for ADA purposes, in any of these places, regardless of the outcome of the "we aren't really a taxi company" argument they make.
ccurtsinger 11y ago
I just closed my account. Unfortunately, this requires sending an email to support@uber.com. It's inconvenient, but gives you a place to explain that you will not use the service until they comply with the ADA.
beat 11y ago
This is a terrible business approach. It's just begging for crusader retaliation from legislators and district attorneys - exactly the sort of negative relationship that Uber needs to avoid. Acting "above the law" makes the people who represent the law WANT to cut you down to size. Uber's success may make its founders arrogant enough to think they're too big to mess with. They've been fighting municipal governments so far, not Washington. Washington crushes entire countries.
hellopeople1234 11y ago
I've found myself using ride sharing services less and less lately, mostly because I've found uber drivers to be more and more annoying they want to talk non-stop and half the time have no idea where their going or how to get there properly since whatever mapping system they uses seems to constantly fail for whatever reason lately
jgalt212 11y ago
better title: Uber: No Laws Apply to Us
fredkbloggs 11y ago
You know, everything about Uber's structure and approach to the market has been designed with the sole purpose of evading the law. It's only a matter of time before some ambitious US Attorney starts thinking about tying all this stuff together with RICO.
marvel_boy 11y ago
Sad. This is the reason state legislation is necessary. Uber is banned to operate in a lot of countries because his lack of respect to law.
JoergR 11y ago
What does this even have to do with laws? It's basic human decency. Uber is just the worst of the worst of douchebro-culture.
moron4hire 11y ago
>> Parisi says the driver called her an “invalid” and said she “must not be a Christian” and needed to “develop thicker skin.” At the end of her ride, Parisi says the driver asked her if was going to give her a bad review. Maybe the driver should have thought of the possibility of a bad review before berating a customer. I don't know, maybe that's just me. Causality might not be a real thing.
lorddoig 11y ago
Using Uber with certain disabilities appears to be a real problem, this is true, but there's a very real risk that regulating Uber to within an inch of it's life will make it just another cab company -- and then what? What's the point? The goals here are not in question: Uber should not be turning these customers away - ever - and currently it seems to be deficient in that regard. But Uber's success is testament to the fact that the old system was also deficient, just in different ways and for different people. Solving this problem optimally is a big thing to ask of a centuries old legislative/political machine, and it's quite likely it just plain old won't manage it - some absurdly moralistic view such as "all Uber cars must be capable of accommodating wheelchair passengers" is a far too predictable outcome, if we let it get that far. There is almost always a better way, and we should be very careful about going on a witch hunt with things like this, lest we allow the old guard to slowly destroy this exciting new world minutes after we build it.
copsarebastards 11y ago
I don't give a fuck about the law. Basic human decency still applies. EDIT: Anyone care to explain the downvotes?
- jgalt212 11y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but foul language almost guarantees a downvote.
paulv 11y ago
The disabled is a club anyone can join. Often without notice.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rorykoehler 11y ago
I would imagine that self driving cars will be much easier to design for accessibility seeing as other design considerations become less relevant (such as needing the driver to be in a certain position and facing the front in the vehicle). If I were to design an autonomous car today I would design it with one huge top hinged door on each side and a ramp that makes it easy to drive a wheelchair straight in. Have all the seats facing each other and ensure that at least one folds up/swivels to the side to make room for the wheelchair. This would also benefit people traveling with over-sized luggage. The only thing Uber will get from this is bad PR. Their seeming arrogance (not only in this matter) is a real turn off.
Radle 11y ago
"...but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service..." What the fuck?!
parfe 11y ago
Airbnb, Uber, and the unbonded money transmitter of the month, are all making obscene amount of money breaking the law and investors keep rewarding them. It's really easy in home construction to make a profit if you hire illegal immigrants, pay them an illegal wage, don't carry insurance, don't pay payroll taxes, and don't pay overtime. If only I could hide all that behind an app, I'd call it a startup and become a billionaire! It's to the point where I have serious issues with the morals of people working for and investing in such outright abusive companies. You might "just" be a programmer, but you're still earning your paycheck breaking the law and skimming money away from businesses that are legit, protect their customers, and exercise the base level of ethics. But I guess you personally didn't abandon a handicapped person on the side of the road, or deny a trip to a black neighborhood, so you don't feel like you did anything wrong?
- throwaway12309 11y ago
  I agree with you, but take in account that if these companies didn't exist like this (and I'm not saying this is a valid excuse) a lot of programmers (and other positions) wouldn't exist. A lot of folks here go with the 'I rather work at a startup then a corporate job', but the truth is, if these ventures didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to get a 'normal' job at a boring company, since those actually care about following the law and standards and what not. Most of these 'senior' developers in the new startup flavour of the week wouldn't be considered much above juniors in other industries.
chourobin 11y ago
"But Uber describes its drivers as independent contractors, and says it therefore is unable to control their actions." Not being able to control the actions of its drivers is a bad excuse, and precisely why there should be new regulation.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
RodericDay 11y ago
Did this get downvoted out of the front page?
tzs 11y ago
The real model of many "disruptive" startups is to come into some regulated industry and only handle the easy cases/jobs/customers. Because they are only doing the easy cases, they can do it cheaper and make the experience more streamlined or friendly. Their regulated competitors are required to handle all cases. Since the easy cases are usually them most profitable, and the hard cases might even be money losers that are subsidized by the easy cases, this can be very bad. The disruptive startup might even kill off the competitors, and then those people who are the hard cases can be left unserved until regulators manage to catch up and put the startup under regulation.
limeyx 11y ago
This would be an awesome chance for Uber to take a leadership position and embrace rather than try to avoid & deny. Looks like that wont happen though ...

141 points by luu 11y ago

Here is the thing with "sharing" economy - the moment money exchange hands, this is no longer sharing but commercial activity. So you must abide to the regulations. You cannot cherry pick only the rules that suit you.

JonFish85 11y ago
They've been able to do it to the tune of a tens of billions of dollars valuation. So has Airbnb. Why change now? They'll get their IPO before anyone has to answer for anything, so investors & founders will be happy. Keep running the marketing machine with the "sharing" moniker right until the check clears, and after that, it's the shareholders' problem.
- Frondo 11y ago
  "Why change now?" Because what they're doing is wrong, and doing something wrong because you can get a lot of money for it is pretty awful.
  - Drakim 11y ago
    That is how business and capitalism works. Being immoral can hurt your profits, because customers might be repulsed and boycott you. Breaking the law can hurt your profits, because the government might take action against your business. Those are the sole reasons why you would avoid doing immoral and illegal things. If the benefit outweighs the negatives, then businesses will do those things. If they don't do it, they will lose against other businesses that are willing to do it. Fortunately, the downsides can be quite big, which means that most of the time businesses will "stay in line". A huge boycott from the people or hard damaging actions from the government really hurts profits, so it's very rarely a profitable thing to be immoral and break the law.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Of course people can be moral actors in the business world. "Because you might get caught" is by no means the only reason to do the right thing, even if it means leaving money on the table. What you're describing is a sociopathic greed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JohnTHaller 11y ago
It's not "sharing". It was never "sharing". It's sharecropping.
- mason240 11y ago
  You might have a case for calling it "sharecropping" if Uber owned the cars and the drivers were paying Uber for the privilege of using them. They are not though, so it's a gross misapplication of the term.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Drivers pay for the vehicle as well as all maintenance and operational costs. They also pay for insurance. They aren't covered by workers compensation if injured while on the job. Oh, and Uber even "helps" you get a car and they get a cut of the purchase and financing: https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/ https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Drivers pay for the customers they get. The analogy thus fits.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      ...no, I don't think that really fits. Besides, it wasn't the sharecropping itself that was a problem, it was the abusive lending.
murbard2 11y ago
One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens... The way I see it is that there is no such thing as "commercial activity". There is voluntary activity of all sorts, and all kind of transactions happen, whether it be through payments, barter or goodwill. If I'm exempt from the ADA when inviting friends over, so should you be when you rent your room on AirBnB, and so should the motel across the street. All exist on a continuum, and the "sharing economy" is now making that continuum more explicit than ever before. Decreeting that some activity is commercial and subjecting it to government rules merely because it involves money is arbitrary and unfair. Laissez faire, laissez passer.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  How can there be no such attribute if there is a continuum of that attribute? Picking thresholds is not unfair. It's the fundamental way that life interacts with the world around it. You physically cannot examine everything that could affect you with infinite precision. The job of regulation is not to pick a mythical "perfect" result for every possible case, it's to force a good guideline into place. This is partially arbitrary, and that is okay. It doesn't matter if that fine is $200 or $220, the regulation just needs to work.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    What I mean to say is that the attribute isn't categorical, even though it is treated as such in the discussion. I'm also not saying the regulation cannot "work" by picking a threshold, I am appealing to our moral intuition that regulating private behavior is wrong to explain why regulating "commercial" behavior is also wrong.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      But how does it explain that? The situations are clearly very different on either end of the spectrum, so you can't directly use the intuition from one end on the other. The only thing you've really shown is that the categorization will be mildly imperfect.
true_religion 11y ago
I agree. Their statement is that they are a black car service, not a taxi service. Personally I think having a meter in the car makes them a taxi, and I'm glad to see the UK government agrees. However, if they simply take out their meter they are a black car service and only have to comply with the rules set about for those. Just being a better private car service, doesn't make them illegal by default.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  No, but it means they must comply with relevant regulation - like accommodating disabled people.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    Do private cars have to accommodate disabled people?

striking 11y ago

It doesn't matter what the law says, in my opinion. Discrimination is discrimination. You wouldn't stop an African-American from getting into your car, right?

hvs 11y ago
Which is why those laws were created in the first place. Because some people WOULD stop an African-American from getting in their car.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
I bet a lot of uber drivers would.
morganvachon 11y ago
I'd like to think an Uber driver who did would be dropped by the company, but given what this article says I'm beginning to wonder. I recall reading a while back[1] that driver ratings were so important that some drivers were canned after just a few mediocre reports and forced to undergo training that they had to pay for themselves. I can't imagine a driver who discriminates getting a good review, and if it becomes a pattern they should be suspended based on Uber's own policies. But it sounds like Uber is circling the wagons here. [1] http://observer.com/2015/02/uber-drivers-the-punishment-for-bad-ratings-is-costly-training-courses/ http://observer.com/2015/02/uber-drivers-the-punishment-for-...
JohnTHaller 11y ago
Uber drivers regularly discriminate based on race by discriminating based on location of drop off... hence the high rates of 'cancelled' riders Uber users in SF and NYC see when traveling to certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that just happen to have higher percentages of non-white residents. This is why we have laws against drop-off discrimination here in NYC. But Uber being Uber sees them as bureaucratic red tape that shouldn't apply to them. Just like disability access laws. And ethics.
- jordanthoms 11y ago
  My understanding is that Uber drivers don't see the dropoff location until they pick up the passenger, and at any rate you can simply not enter the destination and tell the driver where to go.

dia80 11y ago

This kind of concerns me. I have a T4/T5 spinal cord injury from a snowboarding accident 4.5Y ago. I have good hand and arm function but that's it no abdominals etc. I drive myself to work everyday and transfer in and out and fold up my wheelchair. London's black cabs all have ramps. UBER is making big inroads here and I'm worried that eventually it'll be tricky to get a black cab. I can transfer into a regular car but I would need the driver to put my wheelchair in the boot (trunk) and given busy streets, harassed drivers, needing to pull right up to the kerb etc. I've not really had the guts to try it. It's particularly relevant here as the tube is mostly inaccessible and the buses painfully slow.

hahainternet 11y ago
Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. I think they'd have an extremely hard time claiming that they are exempt from UK and EU law. Furthermore, Black Cabs are an entirely different taxi group and the competition between them is regulated AFAIK.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  > Uber in the UK uses licensed taxi drivers the same as any other Private Hire firm. That is not correct.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    Is it not? Can you tell me why all the Ubers I use have the exact same markings and plates as private hire firms? I'm in Manchester.
    - jackgavigan 11y ago
      > licensed taxi drivers > private hire firms You need to learn the difference between these.
viscanti 11y ago
The issue isn't that Uber is discriminating. In fact, the subject of the article was a twice weekly user of Uber for two years. A single driver didn't think the wheelchair would fit in the car. It seems like something that should be reported, and the driver should be dealt with. To take an issue that happens less than 1% of the time and make it sound like it's UBER is a bit absurd.

afandian 11y ago

I don't know what people expected from an organisation set up for the prime purpose of avoiding regulation.

marknutter 11y ago
A better service at a cheaper rate.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > A better service at a cheaper rate ...While replicating all of the problems the regulation was created to address in the first place.
- thomasz 11y ago
  unless you have a disability, then fuck you and everybody like you.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  Which really only work if you're in the majority. Some groups of people rely on the rest of us to subsidise the services they require. If we allow companies to only service the group of people that are the most profitable, we risk excluding others from purchasing that service altogether. That's the exact same reason why Obama-care (sorry I don't know the correct name for it) disallows the insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. I understand rule and service levels are different around the world, but allowing Uber, AirBNB and other to pretend that all the rules are solely in place to keep competition out is doing society a disservice.
  - kedean 11y ago
    The Affordable Care Act
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    I think it's been clearly shown that part of the regulation is harmful to both drivers and riders. Also that some of the beneficial regulation goes unenforced. In many cities it's definitely possible to make a system that's better than the old one for everyone (except for certain investors).

MrSourz 11y ago

I think I understand Uber's stance here. From a business perspective their drivers are all independent contractors. This is an important part of the discussion because if they start telling them what the can and cannot do during their time then they start to look more and more like employees (something they absolutely do not want). An example of this are the popularly discussed drivers that run jewellery or other businesses out of their car while also driving. The moment Uber says you cannot do this on while a contractor for us the legal waters become murkier. It may be the case that once someone challenges in court an Uber driver (not Uber itself) and wins on the grounds that not accepting a disabled passenger is illegal then the company will have the grounds (and precedent) to enforce that their contractors do not break the law. To drive the point home, even if Uber wants to prevent their drivers from doing certain things doing so moves them closer to the realm of employees not contractors. Edit: To clarify I don't necessarily believe that Uber drivers should be considered contractors, but until a case is brought against them and they lose and all drivers become employees they're going to be as hands off as possible to maintain their ability to defend the position. Also providing instructions to a contractor (provide water) does not make them an employee.

MrSourz 11y ago
Imagine the overhead (taxes and all) for managing all of their drivers as employees not contractors.
- stephenr 11y ago
  So, fuck the disabled - we gots to get paid?
- halostatue 11y ago
  I imagine it, and I don’t care. Uber is trying to play it both ways (regulating their drivers heavily while not having to obey regulations that everyone else has to follow) and I have no sympathy for them at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
11y ago

aikah 11y ago

> but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service, it doesn’t fall under the ADA’s jurisdiction. What the ? Come on ,They don't get to decide what law they should follow. Or maybe they know that all these lawsuits cost them less than having to respect the law, I don't know. All I can say is that Uber displays an unbelievable level of arrogance.

sigzero 11y ago
Maybe. That doesn't mean they aren't right though.
hnnewguy 11y ago
I found that odd as well. What exactly is a "technology company"?
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Apparently it's any company that (a) wants people to think it's hip and cool, and (b) doesn't want to play by the same rules as its competitors. Get out of the way; we're INNOVATING here! This kind of thing isn't going to fly in court. Judges have a long history of following the duck principle: if it looks like a taxi company and acts like a taxi company, it's probably a taxi company. Like any observant human, the judge is going to conclude that Uber is a taxi company and will require that it follow the same laws as other taxi companies. This will be the simplest case on the judge's docket this year.
  - corin_ 11y ago
    What about a website like Just Eat in the UK, which offers an online ordering interface to thousands of independently run takeaways in the UK, are they are technology company or a food company?
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      Neither. I'd probably call that business services or retailer/reseller. There's also the salient difference that those takeaways are not being paid as contractors by Just Eat (if anything it's probably the other way around). If they were, Just Eat would be a takeaway. If Just Eat made a piece of software for sale that other companies could use to provide takeaway resale services, it would be a technology company.

eire1130 11y ago

It's really not that hard to "do the right thing." Yet they have to go out their way to be dicks about it.

Thriptic 11y ago
It depends on how you define doing the right thing. If you mean telling drivers to be accomodating of passengers with disabilities, then yes I agree. If you mean fielding an entire discrete service of vehicles across the world to service a small, non uniformally distributed number of users without actually employing their drivers; that's a bit harder. I'm not saying that Uber shouldn't deploy such a discrete service, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that ADA compliance in this context is cheap or easy.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  ADA compliance is almost never cheap or easy. That was the knock on the law when it was being debated and any business owner will tell you it's still every bit the costly nightmare people said it would be at the time. It's a terrible law and most of it should be repealed (the rest should devolve to the states, which unlike the federal government have the constitutional authority to impose it), but the fact remains that courts have upheld it and it is the law. There's no reason one taxi company should have to follow it and not another.

kaolinite 11y ago

This really saddens me. I used to love Uber, it was one of my favourite companies. I remember when I first used it - I'd gone down to London and was going to try UberLux out, just for the one trip. I ended up using it about four times that day, even though it was far more expensive than a taxi. It was incredible and worth every penny because unlike taxis, Uber was professional[1]. The driver was polite, you got a bottle of water to drink and there was stuff to read too (and not rubbish either, quality stuff like the FT). For a while, it seemed like Uber was about the high-end - as Travis himself said, he created Uber to have a more "baller" way to travel around San Francisco - but then they started to care more and more about being seen as affordable and UberX is now clearly the company's top priority. And as prices drop and margins are squeezed, articles like this are the end result. People will complain that luxury isn't important (and they might be right) but Uber had a really good service that was different. Now they're just like all the other ride sharing companies. I really, really wish they would shut down UberX. I know they won't. But I want to love Uber again - but with all of these stories, almost all regarding UberX drivers - I feel obnoxious if I use them. I don't want to support them. Love the service, hate the company. [1] I was recently in a taxi where the taxi driver said a number of very racist things, directly insulted me, my fellow passenger and pretty much anyone he came into contact with during the ride (other cars, pedestrians, etc) and swore repeatedly. This isn't the first time I've experienced this (although it was the worst). I'm somewhat shy and find taxis to be, on occasion, somewhat intimidating. I've never felt that way in an Uber.

UK-AL 11y ago
Have you ever considered since there cutting into established markets now, the vast vast majority anti-uber articles are PR pieces from competitors. You'll be surprised how common this is.
- untog 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that Uber does not discriminate against disabled people? Because the evidence outlined in the article is quite damning. Dismissing any criticism as "probably PR by a competitor" is really not that useful.

codingdave 11y ago

I just want to point out that posting about how wrong Uber is on HN, but then still using them, doesn't help anyone. If you feel they are in the wrong, do not use Uber until they update their policies and actions.

maxerickson 11y ago
That's not true though, hypocritical advocacy can logically be effective. If you convince just 2 other people to make the change you are arguing for, you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect.
- a3n 11y ago
  > you've exceeded the change that you can personally effect. That's not true though. You're still not effecting the change that would result from you yourself taking action. In your example, you're shy the result of 1/3 of possible change.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    In your reply you are just ignoring my intended meaning with "personally". You obviously understood what I said. If you think a different phrasing would be better, feel free to suggest that.
    - a3n 11y ago
      > You obviously understood what I said. I agree with that.
    - Istof 11y ago
      Yeah, if you get everyone else to not use Uber, you won't be able to use it either because it will be in business anymore. I have never used them but they sure hope to avoid all existing laws... some cities have even written specific laws that apply only to them because of that.
untog 11y ago

tobiasu 11y ago

Uber: Pissing off judges worldwide

goatforce5 11y ago

I can kinda get that companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started. But once you reach a certain point (somewhere well before billion dollar valuations) it's unconscionable to ignore accessibility. > [Tim] Cook replied [...] that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-...

mhurron 11y ago
If you can't run a business by following relevant laws and regulations, can you really say you have a viable business model? I don't care what stage of running your business you're in, you shouldn't get to ignore laws and regulations that apply just because you don't like them, or it would be too expensive right now.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Ask any number of companies that skirt the law (mining/extraction) or who are powerful enough to simply evade the law (most pipeline incidents aren't fully accounted for in terms of environmental/damage cost because lax laws shield the companies that maintain/build pipeline). It's a question - if your business is big enough to essentially buy off legislators or judiciary, is it your company's fiduciary duty to go into legally gray area for higher profits?
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Pretty sure that being a legal entity requires you to act in a legal manner. I do not buy the 'business must do everything inside and outside the law to make money,' schtick, but then again, I'm not willing to look at companies as more important or the most important part of society either.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    This is why punishment for corporate law breaking needs to include revocation of the corporate charter after a point.

DannyBee 11y ago

Company set up to lower prices by avoiding regulatory overhead tries to avoid regulatory overhead - film at 11. FWIW: It seems really unlikely Uber will be able to play both sides of the coin on this one for much longer. Just in case anyone thought "courts have never considered things like Uber and the ADA before", they have. Search for "demand responsive transportation ADA" The fact that the drivers are or are not employees will not matter. Also "49 C.F.R. § 37.171 - Equivalency Requirement for Demand Responsive Service Operated by Private Entities Not Primarily in the Business of Transporting People" Whoops. Oh well, there goes any argument about not being in the business of transporting people ...

alkonaut 11y ago
In places where Uber is just another taxi company, it likely has to follow all the local regulations that apply to taxi companies. It's only special in the places where Uber pretends not to be a taxi by claiming it's some kind of "ride sharing". I think that isn't going to last very long.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "It's only special in the places" My point is precisely: It is not special, for ADA purposes, in any of these places, regardless of the outcome of the "we aren't really a taxi company" argument they make.

ccurtsinger 11y ago

I just closed my account. Unfortunately, this requires sending an email to support@uber.com. It's inconvenient, but gives you a place to explain that you will not use the service until they comply with the ADA.

beat 11y ago

This is a terrible business approach. It's just begging for crusader retaliation from legislators and district attorneys - exactly the sort of negative relationship that Uber needs to avoid. Acting "above the law" makes the people who represent the law WANT to cut you down to size. Uber's success may make its founders arrogant enough to think they're too big to mess with. They've been fighting municipal governments so far, not Washington. Washington crushes entire countries.

hellopeople1234 11y ago

I've found myself using ride sharing services less and less lately, mostly because I've found uber drivers to be more and more annoying they want to talk non-stop and half the time have no idea where their going or how to get there properly since whatever mapping system they uses seems to constantly fail for whatever reason lately

jgalt212 11y ago

better title: Uber: No Laws Apply to Us

fredkbloggs 11y ago

You know, everything about Uber's structure and approach to the market has been designed with the sole purpose of evading the law. It's only a matter of time before some ambitious US Attorney starts thinking about tying all this stuff together with RICO.

marvel_boy 11y ago

Sad. This is the reason state legislation is necessary. Uber is banned to operate in a lot of countries because his lack of respect to law.

JoergR 11y ago

What does this even have to do with laws? It's basic human decency. Uber is just the worst of the worst of douchebro-culture.

moron4hire 11y ago

>> Parisi says the driver called her an “invalid” and said she “must not be a Christian” and needed to “develop thicker skin.” At the end of her ride, Parisi says the driver asked her if was going to give her a bad review. Maybe the driver should have thought of the possibility of a bad review before berating a customer. I don't know, maybe that's just me. Causality might not be a real thing.

lorddoig 11y ago

Using Uber with certain disabilities appears to be a real problem, this is true, but there's a very real risk that regulating Uber to within an inch of it's life will make it just another cab company -- and then what? What's the point? The goals here are not in question: Uber should not be turning these customers away - ever - and currently it seems to be deficient in that regard. But Uber's success is testament to the fact that the old system was also deficient, just in different ways and for different people. Solving this problem optimally is a big thing to ask of a centuries old legislative/political machine, and it's quite likely it just plain old won't manage it - some absurdly moralistic view such as "all Uber cars must be capable of accommodating wheelchair passengers" is a far too predictable outcome, if we let it get that far. There is almost always a better way, and we should be very careful about going on a witch hunt with things like this, lest we allow the old guard to slowly destroy this exciting new world minutes after we build it.

copsarebastards 11y ago

I don't give a fuck about the law. Basic human decency still applies. EDIT: Anyone care to explain the downvotes?

jgalt212 11y ago
I didn't downvote you, but foul language almost guarantees a downvote.

paulv 11y ago

The disabled is a club anyone can join. Often without notice.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rorykoehler 11y ago

I would imagine that self driving cars will be much easier to design for accessibility seeing as other design considerations become less relevant (such as needing the driver to be in a certain position and facing the front in the vehicle). If I were to design an autonomous car today I would design it with one huge top hinged door on each side and a ramp that makes it easy to drive a wheelchair straight in. Have all the seats facing each other and ensure that at least one folds up/swivels to the side to make room for the wheelchair. This would also benefit people traveling with over-sized luggage. The only thing Uber will get from this is bad PR. Their seeming arrogance (not only in this matter) is a real turn off.

Radle 11y ago

"...but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service..." What the fuck?!

parfe 11y ago

Airbnb, Uber, and the unbonded money transmitter of the month, are all making obscene amount of money breaking the law and investors keep rewarding them. It's really easy in home construction to make a profit if you hire illegal immigrants, pay them an illegal wage, don't carry insurance, don't pay payroll taxes, and don't pay overtime. If only I could hide all that behind an app, I'd call it a startup and become a billionaire! It's to the point where I have serious issues with the morals of people working for and investing in such outright abusive companies. You might "just" be a programmer, but you're still earning your paycheck breaking the law and skimming money away from businesses that are legit, protect their customers, and exercise the base level of ethics. But I guess you personally didn't abandon a handicapped person on the side of the road, or deny a trip to a black neighborhood, so you don't feel like you did anything wrong?

throwaway12309 11y ago
I agree with you, but take in account that if these companies didn't exist like this (and I'm not saying this is a valid excuse) a lot of programmers (and other positions) wouldn't exist. A lot of folks here go with the 'I rather work at a startup then a corporate job', but the truth is, if these ventures didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to get a 'normal' job at a boring company, since those actually care about following the law and standards and what not. Most of these 'senior' developers in the new startup flavour of the week wouldn't be considered much above juniors in other industries.

chourobin 11y ago

"But Uber describes its drivers as independent contractors, and says it therefore is unable to control their actions." Not being able to control the actions of its drivers is a bad excuse, and precisely why there should be new regulation.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

RodericDay 11y ago

Did this get downvoted out of the front page?

tzs 11y ago

The real model of many "disruptive" startups is to come into some regulated industry and only handle the easy cases/jobs/customers. Because they are only doing the easy cases, they can do it cheaper and make the experience more streamlined or friendly. Their regulated competitors are required to handle all cases. Since the easy cases are usually them most profitable, and the hard cases might even be money losers that are subsidized by the easy cases, this can be very bad. The disruptive startup might even kill off the competitors, and then those people who are the hard cases can be left unserved until regulators manage to catch up and put the startup under regulation.

limeyx 11y ago

This would be an awesome chance for Uber to take a leadership position and embrace rather than try to avoid & deny. Looks like that wont happen though ...