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

161–170 of 212 posts

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

#161

Post by dhruvbird »

true_religion wrote: post #159
URSpider94 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it happened twice to her in two weeks. The question is, does Uber have training in place on what rights a disabled passenger has? Do they discipline or dismiss drivers who receive disability complaints? It sounds like Uber's response has been that it has no duty to support or enforce the ADA. Uber is forcing taxis out of business. One of the reasons that taxis are regulated is that they are bound by law to transp…

Taxis are regulated primarily because they do business on public streets. If the only way to get a taxi were to call them up, there'd be far less of a reason to regulate them.

Do you mean to say that it's okay for private operators to discrimate based on whether their potential client is disabled or not (when it has nothing to do with the safety of the client or the driver)?

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

#162

Post by toomuchtodo »

true_religion wrote: post #155
jackgavigan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> London's black cabs all have ramps. It's worth noting that this is due to a legal requirement that all licensed taxis (i.e. black taxis) must be wheelchair accessible. I think that requirement came into force around 1999 and it resulted in a lot of older taxis that weren't wheelchair-accessible being sold on the second-hand market when their owners were forced to upgrade. So, in addition to successfully completing…

I think its fair to say... Follow all these regulations and we'll let you do business on the public streets. or Do business in private, via the phone or internet, and you don't have to follow these regulations. --- Don't force the choice by saying regulations apply to everyone, even people who aren't going to get any benefit out of it. Uber doesn't have to use wheel-chair accessible vehicles, but they also can't resp…

Or:

You may do transportation business on our roads if you follow our regulations, with no regard to how the ride was arranged.

Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Why would we allow Uber to freeload? Because they're "innovative"? Or "disruptive"?

No. Follow the rules Uber or GTFO out of the market.

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

#163

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxlybbert wrote: post #138
sp332 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA But Uber is breaking the ADA.

As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument). Taxis are also independent contractors. Not every taxi cab must be wheelchair accessible to comply with the ADA. Therefore it stands to reason that Uber's drivers don't necessarily need to modify their cars to comply w…

> As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument).

I have a fun experiment. Let's ask the IRS if Uber's drivers truly are "independent contractors" as they argue, despite the regulations they impose on drivers which are surprisingly close to regulations you'd impose on an employee.

This has happened before, with costly consequences (Fedex Ground attempted to (illegally) label its drivers as independent contracts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/23/h...

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

#164

Post by toomuchtodo »

vinceguidry wrote: post #153
gohrt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars does it take before you are no longer a "small" actor?

That's not the right question to ask. The right question is whether we think Uber is innovative enough to change the laws for. You've got your thinking backwards. It's not us that has to conform to the law, it's the law that has to conform to us. The right thing to do, IMO, is to make Uber conform to disability law, and do away with the other laws that seem to be doing nothing at this point besides protecting rents,…

> Uber deserves to be rightly rich for being pioneers in this space.

I have never been more disgusted by an answer on Hacker News. My apologies for that.

Uber's "wealth" is merely an artifact of VC money rushing into a space with an unjustifiable valuation predicated on the violation of transportation and disability laws.

Uber will be the Web Van of the mobility space. Cool idea, replaced by self-driving vehicles owned and operated by organizations willing to follow laws of the jurisdictions they operate in.

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

#165

Post by maxlybbert »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #163
maxlybbert wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument). Taxis are also independent contractors. Not every taxi cab must be wheelchair accessible to comply with the ADA. Therefore it stands to reason that Uber's drivers don't necessarily need to modify their cars to comply w…

> As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument). I have a fun experiment. Let's ask the IRS if Uber's drivers truly are "independent contractors" as they argue, despite the regulations they impose on drivers which are surprisingly close to regulations you'd impose…

It happens all the time. And often the parent company is trying to avoid taxes (well, in theory the amount of taxes stays the same, it's just a question of who pays and who keeps the records). In this case, Uber's also trying to avoid learning about and complying with local, state and federal regulations (and, so far, they've been successful).

At least as far as federal tax is concerned, the IRS has some advice at http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... and http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... .

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

#166

Post by throwaway12309 »

parfe wrote: post #126

Airbnb, Uber, and the unbonded money transmitter of the month, are all making obscene amount of money breaking the law and investors keep rewarding them. It's really easy in home construction to make a profit if you hire illegal immigrants, pay them an illegal wage, don't carry insurance, don't pay payroll taxes, and don't pay overtime. If only I could hide all that behind an app, I'd call it a startup and become a b…

I agree with you, but take in account that if these companies didn't exist like this (and I'm not saying this is a valid excuse) a lot of programmers (and other positions) wouldn't exist. A lot of folks here go with the 'I rather work at a startup then a corporate job', but the truth is, if these ventures didn't exist, they wouldn't be able to get a 'normal' job at a boring company, since those actually care about following the law and standards and what not. Most of these 'senior' developers in the new startup flavour of the week wouldn't be considered much above juniors in other industries.

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

#167

Post by venomsnake »

true_religion wrote: post #160
venomsnake wrote: post #2

Here is the thing with "sharing" economy - the moment money exchange hands, this is no longer sharing but commercial activity. So you must abide to the regulations. You cannot cherry pick only the rules that suit you.

I agree. Their statement is that they are a black car service, not a taxi service. Personally I think having a meter in the car makes them a taxi, and I'm glad to see the UK government agrees. However, if they simply take out their meter they are a black car service and only have to comply with the rules set about for those. Just being a better private car service, doesn't make them illegal by default.

No, but it means they must comply with relevant regulation - like accommodating disabled people.

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

#168

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxlybbert wrote: post #165
toomuchtodo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument). I have a fun experiment. Let's ask the IRS if Uber's drivers truly are "independent contractors" as they argue, despite the regulations they impose on drivers which are surprisingly close to regulations you'd impose…

It happens all the time. And often the parent company is trying to avoid taxes (well, in theory the amount of taxes stays the same, it's just a question of who pays and who keeps the records). In this case, Uber's also trying to avoid learning about and complying with local, state and federal regulations (and, so far, they've been successful). At least as far as federal tax is concerned, the IRS has some advice at ht…

Can anyone submit a letter of determination to the IRS asking them to determine if Uber is operating legally with regards to its independent contractor worker classification?

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

#169

Post by sillygoose »

true_religion wrote: post #156
sillygoose wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter. Their lives must be miserable without The Queen's "taximeter"!

I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able…

The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee.

Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people.

So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash.

The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel. Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.

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

#170

Post by vinceguidry »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #164
vinceguidry wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the right question to ask. The right question is whether we think Uber is innovative enough to change the laws for. You've got your thinking backwards. It's not us that has to conform to the law, it's the law that has to conform to us. The right thing to do, IMO, is to make Uber conform to disability law, and do away with the other laws that seem to be doing nothing at this point besides protecting rents,…

> Uber deserves to be rightly rich for being pioneers in this space. I have never been more disgusted by an answer on Hacker News. My apologies for that. Uber's "wealth" is merely an artifact of VC money rushing into a space with an unjustifiable valuation predicated on the violation of transportation and disability laws. Uber will be the Web Van of the mobility space. Cool idea, replaced by self-driving vehicles own…

> predicated on the violation of transportation and disability laws.

You forgot labor laws.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've attempted to lay out a rationale from as close to first principles as I can reasonably approach for the right relationship startups should have with the law and society and you've ignored it out of disgust.

No alternatives given for fixing the problems that legislation engenders for commerce, just irrational hatred.

Post reply on HN