Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by madeofpalk » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #79

tickit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That happened in four cities in Australia - Uber just paid the fines on behalf of them.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/uber-pled...

http://www.brw.com.au/p/entrepreneurs/uber_deep_pockets_thwa...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/uber-dodges-fines...

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/rideshare-...

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

#112

Post by jessriedel » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #98

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…

> I was recently in a taxi where the taxi driver said a number of very racist things, directly insulted me, my fellow passenger and pretty much anyone he came into contact with during the ride (other cars, pedestrians, etc) and swore repeatedly. Please do always reprt this! I know you shouldn't have to; I know it happens far too often. But please do report it. https://www.tfl.gov.uk/forms/12397.aspx https://www.tfl.g…

> Please do always reprt this!

Relevant satire:

https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372

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

#113

Post by Radle » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

"...but Uber claims that because it’s a technology company, not a transportation service..." What the fuck?!

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

#114

Post by ohitsdom » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

kweinber wrote: post #101

tedunangst wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, some provisions of the law only apply to businesses above a certain size, so yes, a startup literally can be above the law.

Uber is larger than most huge corporations. Their funding is astronomical (5.9 Billion) and their investors include folks like Goldman Sachs. It isn't fair to real startups for giants like Uber to claim startup loopholes.

No one is claiming Uber has an out due to "startup" status. OP said "(somewhere well before billion dollar valuations)", which sounds like a clear shot at them.

Point is, early on it is understandable that Uber would take this kind of stance. Now, it's unconscionable.

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

#115

Post by madeofpalk » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

stevenjohns wrote: post #107

dia80 wrote: post #4

This kind of concerns me. I have a T4/T5 spinal cord injury from a snowboarding accident 4.5Y ago. I have good hand and arm function but that's it no abdominals etc. I drive myself to work everyday and transfer in and out and fold up my wheelchair. London's black cabs all have ramps. UBER is making big inroads here and I'm worried that eventually it'll be tricky to get a black cab. I can transfer into a regular car b…

I think what we'll eventually see are Uber drivers purchasing their own ramps and Uber marking them as wheelchair-friendly, with the customer given the ability to request a wheelchair-friendly car. In turn this would probably pressure other Uber drivers to also get ramps so they're able to compete, and the majority of fulltime Uber drivers will eventually get ramps. Edit: this might also extend to things like baby se…

Yeah they did that in Houston and Sydney, Australia

http://blog.uber.com/UberACCESSHou

http://blog.uber.com/WATSYD

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

#116

Post by seiji » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

kaolinite wrote: post #102

seiji wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Start…

> But, why? They've always been boisterous and exploitative. Agreed. I'm not saying that I'm proud that I supported them. Previously, I bought into the "taxi mafia" story that Travis spun. I was at a talk he gave and, well, he was convincing. I think at the time, he was probably telling the truth: there probably was a lot of corruption in the taxi industry (and probably still is). But now, after he's used it time aft…

> a lot of corruption in the taxi industry

That's a great point. Start a new exploiting service under the guise of freeing people from an already exploiting service. That tactic provides cover, plausible deniability, and an automatic anti-establishment camaraderie following. Though that's basically the same tactic taken by every politician in every election these days ("Washington is CORRUPT! It's full of insiders and lobbyists and lifers. I will be expose the corruption and fight FOR YOU!").

By the time people realize you have become the new corrupt rent-seeking entity, it's too late for people to fight you and your $6 billion VC war chest (yes, uber has raised 6 billion-with-a-B dollars in "funding" — they seem to be taking the PayPal model of just giving people free money in exchange for loyalty (subsidies paid for by middle america retirement funds invested in VC funds)).

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

#117

Post by Drakim » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #68

JonFish85 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been able to do it to the tune of a tens of billions of dollars valuation. So has Airbnb. Why change now? They'll get their IPO before anyone has to answer for anything, so investors & founders will be happy. Keep running the marketing machine with the "sharing" moniker right until the check clears, and after that, it's the shareholders' problem.

"Why change now?" Because what they're doing is wrong, and doing something wrong because you can get a lot of money for it is pretty awful.

That is how business and capitalism works.

Being immoral can hurt your profits, because customers might be repulsed and boycott you. Breaking the law can hurt your profits, because the government might take action against your business.

Those are the sole reasons why you would avoid doing immoral and illegal things. If the benefit outweighs the negatives, then businesses will do those things. If they don't do it, they will lose against other businesses that are willing to do it.

Fortunately, the downsides can be quite big, which means that most of the time businesses will "stay in line". A huge boycott from the people or hard damaging actions from the government really hurts profits, so it's very rarely a profitable thing to be immoral and break the law.

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

#118

Post by MrSourz » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #106

MrSourz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Incidentally, this is common legal advice on Internet forums, but is not really true, as lawyers like DannyBee have explained more than once in other threads. It's a misconception that litigating companies tacitly condone, because it paints them in a more sympathetic light, but it's not actually "r…

Thanks for clarifying aspects of this. It was an ip lawyer that first introduced me to this concept, though not the nuances of it.

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

#119

Post by fredkbloggs » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:31 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #84

fredkbloggs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Neither. I'd probably call that business services or retailer/reseller.

There's also the salient difference that those takeaways are not being paid as contractors by Just Eat (if anything it's probably the other way around). If they were, Just Eat would be a takeaway. If Just Eat made a piece of software for sale that other companies could use to provide takeaway resale services, it would be a technology company.

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

#120

Post by CHY872 » Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #84

fredkbloggs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They're primarily a tech firm. Particular distinctions from Uber are: You know which restaurant you're ordering from, you sometimes pick it up from the restaurant itself. They never try to make it sound like they're the service; they're saying that they connect customers and businesses. The businesses stand up on their own; they're just brokering the deal.

The difference is that with UberX, Uber is the service from end to end; they perform every single role of the taxi firm; they tell the drivers where to go, they pay the drivers, etc.