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

81–90 of 212 posts

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

#81

Post by seiji »

kaolinite wrote: post #27

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 bot…

> it was one of my favourite companies.

But, why? They've always been boisterous and exploitative. Just because someone provides a "do what I want" button doesn't absolve them of all their koala-fueled tyranny in the background.

It turns out when you allow cutthroat capitalism with no regulators or oversight (or regulators that lag by 5-10 years), it becomes easy to abuse so many features of our shared economy. Startups figured this out about 7 years ago and are going full steam ahead with exploitation at the speed of business model evolution.

> he created Uber to have a more "baller" way to travel around San Francisco

so, uber is basically 100% BroTaxi, just not so obviously branded. Then lyft is half BroTaxi ("mustache rides!") an half HippyTaxi (we'll be super dope BFFs forever! (at least until the end of this transactional ride)). What if transportation fractures like online communities fracture? Does each online message board get its own taxi service? That could potentially fix the quality problem since you would only be associating with people already like yourself. "MRA-only taxi service, hackernews-only taxi service, ..."

Know the most 'baller' way to travel around San Francisco? Spend an hour trying to get somewhere 5 miles away on public transit then focus on fixing the system itself. Don't try to elevate yourself above what you perceive to be the oh-so-dirty unwashed masses. Remember: melting-pot, not gilded tower.

Of course, all this people-taxi drama is time limited until we have self aware cars fulfilling our every transportation wish (let's just hope they don't get too clairvoyant).

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

#82

Post by forgottenpass »

zo1 wrote: post #40
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.

They make an app that allows people to charge for driving services. I wouldn't call that as Uber providing a transportation service, personally. Remember, just because it "seems obvious" that they are "somehow" a company related to "transportation", doesn't make them a "transportation service" by whatever definition is used by the government for transportation service company regulations (or whatever that law is call…

They make an app that allows people to charge for driving services.

No, Swipe is an app that allows people to charge for driving services. Uber is how the car is ordered, ride metered and payment processed. Oh, and the people driving are Uber's 1099s.

I don't have the background to say anything about whether the court will hold Uber liable in this suit. But on the question of classifying Uber, I find it incredibly unlikely the court will be receptive to the idea they're functionally equivalent to swipe.

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

#83

Post by alkonaut »

DannyBee wrote: post #34

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 e…

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.

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

#84

Post by corin_ »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #46
hnnewguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

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?

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

#85

Post by rquantz »

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…

This is why punishment for corporate law breaking needs to include revocation of the corporate charter after a point.

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

#86

Post by devcpp »

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!"

But going the other way hinders progress in the name of very few people (if any) who may benefit from this kind of measures in very early stages. When the company gets a broad audience, then it becomes a concern.

And since the founders have growth in mind anyway, they'll be sure to make it possible to implement the measures later on (or they'll pay the price in court, either way all is well).

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

#87

Post by lkiernan »

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!"

Because you're catering to much smaller markets? I think the view above is something like a food delivery service not offering gluten-free or vegetarian options?

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

#88

Post by halostatue »

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.

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.

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

#89

Post by ceejayoz »

pekk wrote: post #59
ceejayoz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely I can tell a web developer contractor they can't build insecure/shitty code without turning them into an employee? They tell their drivers all sorts of instructions already - turn down tips, offer water, be courteous, etc.

Don't ask HN, look up the actual difference between an employee and a contractor if you are not sure and are employing contractors.

I don't. It's a hypothetical. Why can't Uber say "you must comply with the ADA" to their drivers if I'm able to say to a web developer contractor "website must be accessible to the visually impaired".

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

#90

Post by goatforce5 »

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!"

If i'm building an MVP I might not even fully support all of the popular browsers, let alone the correct standards for screen readers, and my page layout will probably break if you increase the font size. Similarly my website is probably only in one language.

(I'm not sure what my point is... I'm just thinking out loud.)

Post reply on HN