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

71–80 of 212 posts

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

#71

Post by stephenr »

MrSourz wrote: post #12
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…

Imagine the overhead (taxes and all) for managing all of their drivers as employees not contractors.

So, fuck the disabled - we gots to get paid?

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

#72

Post by mhurron »

r00fus wrote: post #61
mhurron wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 int…

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.

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

#73

Post by maxerickson »

a3n wrote: post #55
maxerickson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

#74

Post by UK-AL »

stephenr wrote: post #67
UK-AL wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? You think it's more likely that their competitors have made up junk stories, than a company which has a known public history of ignoring rules and regulations, is breaking more rules and regulations?

Considering how many other taxi companies break regulations like this, but nothing said.

Uber does it, and its a massive issue.

I've lost count how many disabled unfriendly private taxi's there are, how many times the card machine "stops working". The industry in general is scummy. In general Uber is better than average.

And junk stories are very common, common service PR companies provide. About 50% of news stories are PR pieces, basically because journalists are lazy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations#Negative

I'm not saying this is one of those stories, but a huge quantity are. Especially when they mention other taxi companies in a good light, it makes it obvious.

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

#76

Post by maxlybbert »

stephenr wrote: post #44
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!"

In New York, there are thousands of wheelchair accessible taxis ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml ), but there are also thousands of taxis that aren't wheelchair accessible. The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA (then again, the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation," so the ones that aren't wheelchair accessible probably still have to make an effort to put a wheelchair in the trunk, if requested).

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

#77

Post by UK-AL »

untog wrote: post #54
UK-AL wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

No, i'm saying this is fairly common in the industry in general.

It's only highlighted because its Uber, and there's a lot interest in giving them negative press.

I've known disabled people who in general thinks Uber is better than tradional private cabs for his needs.

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

#78

Post by goatforce5 »

Frondo wrote: post #58
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…

It's funny how you call it "accessibility issues" when others would (rightly) call it "obeying the law".

Well Uber is trying to say the law doesn't apply to them. Let's say that they find a technicality that means the law doesn't actually apply to them, should they address the underlying issue or not?

Presumably they should be saying "We will fix this issue regardless of whether we're obliged to by law or not."

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

#79

Post by maxlybbert »

tickit wrote: post #19
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…

Where I'm located existing taxi drivers are also independent contractors (freelancers) running under taxi brands. Those taxis are still regulated by authorities to make sure they comply with laws and charge standard price bands - they do spot checks and the licenses are revoked if problems occur. Technology companies shouldn't be given a free ticket just because they're the next big thing.

I believe Uber's implicit argument is that the individual drivers should be fined for not complying. If that actually happens, and drivers stop signing up, I would expect Uber to come up with some kind of program to limit driver liability.

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

#80

Post by anthony_romeo »

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…

If governments cannot crack down on Uber for this issue, then presumably they could start going after the individual contractors who don't comply with the regulations? I can't imagine this going well for Uber either way without some sort of change in their policy for obtaining contractors.
Post reply on HN