21–30 of 502 posts
> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.
Most of the money went to the attorneys. "Irving took legal action against Uber, resulting in an arbitrator this month awarding her $324,000 in damages plus legal expenses of $805,313" https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-drivers-re...
Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.
I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no recourse for riders. A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing no signs of turning aroun…
> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.
> It rejected Uber's claim that the company itself was not liable, because, it argued, its drivers had the status of contractors rather than employees. I feel like money would be better spent raising awareness of service dogs and dealing with fraudulent (they do call it fraud, right?) service dogs than fining Uber.
Yes, makes no sense that anyone can register their pet as emotional support.
Service dogs are specially trained for a job and cost upwards of $25-30k to train and maintain their training.
Emotional support animals don't require any training and don't have nearly as many rights as a proper service dog.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably not. Even if they did, what should they do with that information? Service dogs have special status.
How does this work for workers with dog allergies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but that's entirely off-topic
Is it? I think it falls squarely on the topic of "Uber drivers breaking the law and Uber choosing to not deal with it (to the detriment of riders) 'because contractors'", that is, just what TFA is about.