Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 212 posts

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#41

Post by mhurron »

goatforce5 wrote: post #33

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…

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.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#43

Post by MrSourz »

chimeracoder wrote: post #22
MrSourz wrote: post #7

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 bus…

Engaging in litigation claiming you don't have to follow the ADA simply because you don't want to deal with the tax implications of doing so is unbelievably low. > 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) Uber may not want it, but their drivers are undeniably employees, not contractors. Whenever…

It's low in the same way that if a non-profit starts to use your IP or trademarks you must go after them for doing so.

If you don't then you weaken your position of ownership of those properties for the rest of time.

In this case if they did not fight it they would weaken themselves on any future case about the drivers being contractors vs. employees.

View this from the position of a business with investors they're beholden to, not from an emotional standpoint.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#44

Post by stephenr »

goatforce5 wrote: post #33

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…

> companies might want to skip around accessibility issues when they're first getting started

So, if it's inconvenient, you get to pretend it doesn't exist because you're a "startup"?

That kind of mindset is what's wrong with the startup community. "Disrupt" isn't a synonym for "break any laws you don't like" and "startup" isn't a synonym for "I am above the law!"

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#46

Post by fredkbloggs »

hnnewguy wrote: post #20
aikah wrote: post #10

> 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.

I found that odd as well. What exactly is a "technology company"?

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.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#47

Post by beat »

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.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#48

Post by hellopeople1234 »

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

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#49

Post by tormeh »

malka wrote: post #24
aikah wrote: post #10

> 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.

Uber may not fall under ADA. Its drivers are. Sue the individual drivers.

Problem: That's a whack-a-mole. Same reason the "right to be forgotten" is for search engines rather than websites.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#50

Post by stephenr »

MrSourz wrote: post #43
chimeracoder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engaging in litigation claiming you don't have to follow the ADA simply because you don't want to deal with the tax implications of doing so is unbelievably low. > 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) Uber may not want it, but their drivers are undeniably employees, not contractors. Whenever…

It's low in the same way that if a non-profit starts to use your IP or trademarks you must go after them for doing so. If you don't then you weaken your position of ownership of those properties for the rest of time. In this case if they did not fight it they would weaken themselves on any future case about the drivers being contractors vs. employees. View this from the position of a business with investors they're b…

If you have IP that you know a non profit is using without an explicit licence, you do not have to "go after them" - you own the IP and if you feel they're a worthy cause worth supporting, offer them "support" in the form of a no cost licence for your IP.

> View this from the position of a business with investors they're beholden to

I'm pretty sure even the most vindictive of VC investors can't compel a startup to break the law "because profits".

Post reply on HN