Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#481

Post by Ekaros » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 5:04 AM UTC

URSpider94 wrote: post #478

Ekaros wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be easily solved if the system were working correctly. That is independent contractors were able to make bid on ride request. Undesirable destination? Customer just has to offer price someone is willing to offer a service at. At some price point someone is willing to do the job.

The whole point of granting taxi medallions in the first place was to provide a semi-monopoly on the service, in return for requiring taxi drivers to act like a public utility. There’s a societal benefit to being able to get a ride from wherever, to wherever for a pre-determined fare, without having to worry that your destination is a “bad neighborhood” or your skin is the wrong color or your guide dog might not be a…

So we should ban them from operating without medals? You can't have it both ways... And I don't understand why shouldn't free market apply to them as well. Or maybe start applying it to all labour. Demand that all workers can be hired at certain price level for any job...

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#482

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 5:37 AM UTC

whatastory wrote: post #452

techsupporter wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, yes? If their allergies are such to the point that they cannot be physically in the presence of a service animal for any length of time, they may be required to decline the fare and the income. We impose a lot of duties on people who are employed in the service of the general public. Humans are messy, unpredictable, inconsistent beings with unique needs so, yes, it is possible that two humans will be a…

So it’s not fair that some cars can’t accommodate all passengers of all sorts with any various disability, but it’s fair to deny employment to those with some sort of disability (animal allergies). Odd perspective.

Animal allergies (as opposed to asthma triggered by animal dander) is only considered a disability is it actively affects your ability to breathe or otherwise function in pretty basic ways. So, yes, under the ADA in the US, denying someone employment with allergies is fine but refusing to give rides to service dogs is not.

Of course, a simpler solution would be to have Uber choose an appropriate car that was willing to give rides to service animals.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#483

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #480

yarcob wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are giving service providers way too much leeway. Service providers should offer their service to everyone, not just to "easy" customers. Service providers should not reject you because you are disabled, because you have a child, because you have a certain religion, or whatever else is the problem. If someone is in the business of transporting people, they shouldn't be allowed to just pick the most profit…

>>Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so profitable customers. They're not a charity. If you want to help the less fortunate, then donate directly to them. Or if you believe that helping the less fortunate should be something people should be required to do, under pain of imprisonment, then adv…

The idea is that larger companies in the space (like Uber) should be the ones subsidizing the drivers. Just like we could have offered complex taxes and subsidies to encourage banks to invest in local communities, but instead we just passed a law. Or simply required private insurers to supply insurance regardless of preconidtions.

Uber, Bank of America, and Blue Cross are big enough they can handle mixing the more and less valuable customers themselves, and don't need a government program.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#484

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #456

lm28469 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Uber drivers barely make minimum wage. Because they're legally allowed to be underpaid contractors. The law should be changed to fix the root cause, not to change this side effect. Uber drivers aren't barely making min wage because they have no incentives to pick up disabled people ...

By "fix the root cause" you mean shut down uber right? because if all the "solutions" I have seen just in this thread were required (everything from Uber outfitting every car with Hypoallergenic compartments, to paying drivers extra for different types of customers (with out charging extra to the customer ofcourse) ) then the cost of the ride would be so prohibitively expensive that no one would use the service Peopl…

If Uber cannot afford to pay their drivers minimum wage, they should raise more money and operate at a loss for longer or raise fares or shut down. Any of those three solutions seem to work. And those are basic, there are others.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#485

Post by rPlayer6554 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:49 AM UTC

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #469

rPlayer6554 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you said yes to the parent comment but are not actually saying yes. Saying that "people with dog allergies cannot drive with Uber" is discrimination; allergies are also legally considered disabilities under the ADA[0]. Plus why would it be nessary if only a small portion of people have animals, and an even smaller portion need them for disabilities? What should happen is allow drivers to get a doctor's note t…

The ADA does not apply to independent contractors - Uber does not have to accommodate driver disabilities AFAIK.

But then it would be in the full right of someone with dog allergies to refuse service to someone with a service animal. Their being able to live completely trumps the person's ability to get a car. Then the customer who was refused service would probably feel discriminated against (because Uber did not make reasonable accommodations to prevent this) and we are back where we started.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#486

Post by kart23 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:59 AM UTC

m-ee wrote: post #440

kart23 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not allowed to ask you/the dog to demonstrate though. Someone could just say yes or make something up. It's lying, but the business can't really do anything about it. > Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task. https://www.ad…

Sure people could always lie. In practice I’ve seen people say it’s an emotional support animal or produce their doctors note for it, which somewhat ironically confirms it’s not actually a service dog.

yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect from those types of people.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#487

Post by CryptoPunk » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #483

CryptoPunk wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Because if you allow that, everyone will try to undercut the competitors prices to get the "good" customers, and nobody will bother to offer services to the not so profitable customers. They're not a charity. If you want to help the less fortunate, then donate directly to them. Or if you believe that helping the less fortunate should be something people should be required to do, under pain of imprisonment, then adv…

The idea is that larger companies in the space (like Uber) should be the ones subsidizing the drivers. Just like we could have offered complex taxes and subsidies to encourage banks to invest in local communities, but instead we just passed a law. Or simply required private insurers to supply insurance regardless of preconidtions. Uber, Bank of America, and Blue Cross are big enough they can handle mixing the more an…

They eventually pass the cost down to consumers. Even profits, redirected from shareholders, to these projects, indirectly costs consumers in the form of reduced investment that would otherwise enchance productivity and bring down consumer prices.

I'm arguing that we shouldn't be forcing private companies, large or otherwise, to fulfill social justice agendas, because it creates an unstable business environment where firms can be encumbered by any conceivable regulatory barrier to participating in the marketplace. It's also mixing concerns, leading to less optimized and well thought out social interventions. For example, forcing banks to lend in high-credit-risk neighbourhoods turned out to be a huge mistake, as this article from 21 years ago presciently warned:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/trillion-dollar-bank-shake...

If we do decide to force society to collectively help the less fortunate, it should be out of general revenue, in the form of cash subsidies.

If a disabled person gets $1,000 a month, they may use it for more rides, or they may find their money can go further if they instead pay to have service providers do home-visits to their place. Or they may rent special exo-suits that let them operate like a non-disabled person. Letting the affected party decide will let them maximize the return they get from the resources being allocated to the cause of helping them.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#488

Post by Rule35 » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #472

Rule35 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift. We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

> And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift. Some drivers may want this. Others might not. I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

> I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

It's the self-selected group of people who have chosen it. Much different than a random sampling.

Uber drivers have pretty clearly chosen being a contractor, and if you listen to them they say they like the freedom - require it even. You can usually moonlight as a contractor without permission from your primary job.

Other drivers, driving as full-time employees, have obviously made their decision in the other direction and seem happy.

It seems wrong to tell either that they must change.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#489

Post by tgv » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 9:31 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #323

tgv wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1600 hours is 9 months at 40hr/week. What's the risk they were taking? They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing was high, so their E(X) was at least 250k.

That math assumes one lawyer working on this which I doubt.

In my experience, they always report total number of hours worked. That's what they bill.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#490

Post by tgv » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 9:32 AM UTC

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #387

tgv wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1600 hours is 9 months at 40hr/week. What's the risk they were taking? They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing was high, so their E(X) was at least 250k.

> They wouldn't have taken the case if the risk of losing was high Depends how you define high. 75% chance of winning is still a 25% chance of the lawyers walking away with nothing. Lawyers who operate like this are effectively making a calculated investment of their own time (which could be money from paying clients) as well as associate and support time (which is money) and they do deserve to be compensated for the…

I've defined high as >= 30%, hence the expected win of .3 * 800k = 240k. That would still have been $150/hour.