11–15 of 15 posts
When certain "no-go" areas are so dangerous that neither police, ambulance, or fire fighters will go there (alone), I certainly don't expect Uber drivers to go there either - even if the corporate overlords are are insisting on it.
This article is over three years old.
Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful id…
I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.
Isn't this overlap more due to poverty rather than "high-diversity" as you put it?
I'm trying to point out that it is beneficial to some groups to frame it as only-crime (if trying to defend treating the area differently), and beneficial to other groups to treat it as only-diversity (if trying to punish those who treat the area differently).
That sounds like something you could reasonably demand of employees, but not contractors like Uber drivers.
From the IRS: "A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work is ordinarily an employee." Sure seems like you are correct.