[Massachusetts-NFB] Fwd: [NAGDU] My Thoughts on the NAGDU Seminar

[Al and Masha Sten-Clanton]

Greetings!


I'm on the NAGDU list, so I've read Al Elia's message below and a good 
many others.  I haven't flown since 2005, mostly because my ears and 
planes hate each other, but these seemingly eternal guide dog hassles 
make me not want to fly even if the cabin pressure is perfect.  I don't 
yet know how to call for an Uber or Lyft driver, and right now I hope I 
never need to do it.  That said, from what I've read and heard, I 
believe that Al and the other leaders involved are doing the very best 
they can to deal with this abysmal business.  Since I am sometimes quite 
critical of our outfit, I feel especially driven to say so when I think 
we're getting it right as well as we can.


Best!

Al


On 7/7/23 14:19, Justin Heard via Massachusetts-NFB wrote:
>
> Good afternoon everyone.
>
> During yesterday's general session, Uber did not have much to offer 
> us. However, I learned today that NAGDU has been doing some important 
> work with airlines and Uber. Here is an insightful email sent by a 
> member of the NAGDU executive board. If you are interested in more 
> information, please subscribe to the nagdu email list.
>
> I am sharing this because I never would have known about NAGDU's 
> efforts if not for the email. I believe others also may not have any 
> information, and may feel frustrated about our lack of progress with 
> Uber and the airlines. We are making strides, but quietly. Perhaps too 
> quietly.
>
> I hope you find this helpful.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> Subject: 	Re: [NAGDU] My Thoughts on the NAGDU Seminar
> Date: 	Sun, 02 Jul 2023 22:17:26 -0500
> From: 	Al Elia via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Reply-To: 	NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog 
> Users <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> To: 	NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users 
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> CC: 	Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>, NAGDU <board at nagdu.org>
>
>
>
> Mike and all, On behalf of myself and the NAGDU executive board:
>
> Regarding the ACAA: We are hopeful that the pilot program that was 
> included in the draft FAA reauthorization will pass. That is the best 
> chance for something to happen soon, meaning in less than two to three 
> years. We sought statutory provisions to prohibit forms entirely, but 
> that was rejected on a partisan basis. We sought a statutory 
> restriction that the forms could not be required before boarding and 
> that airlines needed to provide both the forms and assistance 
> completing them, but that was similarly rejected on a partisan basis. 
> We also sought a private right of action to sue in the FAA 
> reauthorization, but that was similarly rejected on a partisan basis. 
> I should add that when I say "a partisan basis," I mean that one party 
> told us that they would not agree to anything that the airline lobby 
> opposed. The pilot program was the best we could do, so we did it.
>
> We are also drafting a petition for a new rulemaking regarding service 
> animals on airlines that we plan to submit to the DOT before the end 
> of the summer. We could petition for things to go back to pre-2021 
> rules, but we have been told that such a petition will be rejected. We 
> plan to propose that if an airline requires attestation forms, they 
> must provide assistance completing them. That means that they must 
> assist completing them at the airport at the gate and at no earlier 
> time, or that if they require them in advance of travel, they must 
> assist in completing the forms over the phone. That new rulemaking 
> will take two to three years. The airlines will oppose it. We should 
> protest when they do.
>
> There are two possible ways to address the forms discrimination issue 
> in a shorter period of time. One is to pursue an APA action to set 
> aside the current regulations as unlawful. I have been told by the 
> NFB's general counsel that the likelihood of success with an APA 
> action is low, and the risk of losing is that our rights could be 
> rolled back further if a court holds that requiring forms from guide 
> dog users is lawful. That said, we are still considering filing such 
> an action, with the requirement that if, after reviewing the 
> administrative record NFB believes we are likely to lose, we will seek 
> dismissal of the action in order to avoid making bad law. If it looks 
> like we might win, we should mobilize guide dog users to show up at 
> the court house.
>
> The second option is something that we will be attempting by the fall, 
> as it has no risk but may not succeed. I have discussed it with the 
> board and with NFB, and we are agreed that we should try it. However, 
> we are not discussing it openly because we do not want the airlines or 
> others to have advance warning of our plans, as they would then have 
> an opportunity to prepare to thwart our efforts. Again we should plan 
> a march in support once we have pulled the trigger on this.
>
> We have discussed a more immediate protest at the DOT. We and NFB are 
> not opposed to such a protest. However, we will need enough folks with 
> guide dogs to attend such a protest to make it worth everyone's time 
> and effort, and to ensure that it may be effective.. Unlike other 
> protests where the NFB can easily mobilize lots of blind protesters, 
> we feel it would be important for the bulk of the protesters to be 
> guide dog users. That is harder to mobilize just based on membership 
> numbers. If there is support for such a protest at the business 
> meeting, we will work with NFB's advocacy team to move forward on 
> that. We still may hold off until we have a petition filed for a new 
> rulemaking, as a protest in support of something we just filed is more 
> likely to be helpful in making change than a protest just because we 
> don't like what is happening now.
>
> We have also been coordinating our advocacy efforts with GDUI, the 
> ACB's guide dog division, as our interests are aligned on this issue. 
> We may be able to work with them on a joint protest in order to boost 
> numbers.
>
> One concern that we must think about is the public reaction to such a 
> protest. It is one thing to protest to demand access to public 
> buildings, jobs, accommodations, etc. However, the public may feel 
> that filling out forms to bring your dog somewhere is no big deal, 
> especially if it keeps others from bringing their fake service animals 
> places and bothering all of the non-disabled people. The airlines and 
> media did a great job publicizing the few instances of fake service 
> animals and ESAs causing mayhem. We will have a very uphill battle if 
> we want to try to re-cork that bottle. I'm not saying we shouldn't 
> try, but we should consider the possible public backlash.
>
> We all know that guide dogs are not the problem, and that people 
> aren't faking blindness and falsely claiming their pet is a guide dog. 
> They are falsely claiming an invisible disability and a need for a 
> fake service animal for that disability. However, agencies are loathe 
> to apply different rules to guide dogs than to service animals for 
> other disabilities. In addition, advocacy organizations for other 
> disabilities have opposed and will oppose any differentiation between 
> guide dogs and other types of service animals.
>
> As an aside, I would like to point out that we are now facing similar 
> treatment as non-blind service animal users have always faced when 
> flying. In other areas of life we frequently still maintain a 
> privileged position relative to other service animal users. We may 
> wish to consider that before insisting on a return to the status quo 
> ante. We are no longer the only (or at least near only) users of 
> service animals, as we used to be. That is largely why we are dealing 
> with these new impositions. We may want to consider accepting this new 
> world, and only requiring accommodations rather than our previously 
> privileged status.
>
> That said, I have always represented the interests of guide dog users 
> specifically, and will continue to do so. Where there is a conflict 
> between our interests and the interests of non-blind service animal 
> users, I will pursue our interests. Where I can find common ground on 
> an intersectional basis, I will pursue that with a "rising tides lift 
> all boats" mindset.
>
> Regarding JetBlue: I think that, given the multiple denials of 
> different members by JetBlue, we should consider a protest at their 
> headquarters in Long Island City, NY. Again we need numbers. I would 
> welcome your and any others' assistance with organizing.
>
> Regarding the pilot: It will be open to everyone, regardless of how 
> frequently they travel. It will be open to everyone, regardless of 
> their facility with technology. Airlines will have to take a service 
> animal number by phone just as they take a pre-check number by phone. 
> As for your comment that " it still leaves the door open for 
> discrimination at the airport," I don't understand. airlines were 
> always able to discriminate without facing consequences, even 
> pre-2021. I used to avoid flying Southwest because I faced 
> discrimination nearly every time I flew them pre-2021 when staff 
> required me to sit in the bulkhead even if I didn't want to. I was 
> threatened with being removed from the aircraft if I didn't move. MY 
> complaints to DOT went nowhere. Again, the pilot is an improvement, 
> not a cure-all.
>
> As for your belief that we may be able to find enough republican 
> support for a bill that provides for a cause of action to sue 
> airlines, I respectfully disagree. As I mentioned above, one party has 
> essentially outsourced decision-making on their support to the 
> airlines. If you know of members who would buck their party on this, 
> please connect John PAre, Justin Young, and me with their offices and 
> we will happily make that a priority. However, we are all volunteers 
> here, and our time is valuable. We do not want the perfect to be the 
> enemy of the good. Right now we are facing bad to very bad. Good would 
> be better. We can achieve good. Once we achieve good, we may pursue 
> perfect. However, if perfect is unattainable, as seems certain given 
> partisan efforts to strip causes of action from the ADA, partisan 
> rhetoric about the negative effects of ADA lawsuits on businesses, 
> partisan outsourcing to the airlines, and the information we have 
> gleaned from hill staffers regarding partisan attitudes, we have 
> chosen to seek the good. We do not want to spend our time fruitlessly 
> tilting at a perfect windmill when we can successfully achieve good 
> and make our lives better than they are now. That is true even if 
> making our lives better still falls short of being as good as the past.
>
> As for Uber: We are never going to get all drivers to stop denying us, 
> just as we never got all taxis to stop denying us. All we can do is 
> make it so that when a driver denies us, they are not permitted to 
> continue driving for paying passengers. Over time, the result will be 
> that long-time drivers will be the drivers who take their obligations 
> seriously and don't deny us, and newer drivers who get the message 
> that denying service-animal users is not tolerated and will be swiftly 
> punished. Uber has raised the priority of service-animal denial 
> complaints to the highest level, which is the same level as 
> investigations of sexual and physical assault complaints. We have been 
> told that Uber is now requiring evidence that a driver did not deny 
> based on a service animal when a complaint is made. As for past 
> denials, We were also told that even when we received emails saying 
> that a driver was educated, those drivers were also removed from 
> Uber's platform. We continue to push Uber to provide us with outcome 
> determinations after investigations of service animal denials, as we 
> have gotten from Lyft.
>
> The Self-ID pilot will automatically suspend drivers when they deny 
> based on a service animal. That is not nothing. Right now drivers are 
> only suspended pending an investigation when a complaint is lodged by 
> a rider. That often doesn't happen because lodging a complaint is 
> difficult and time-consuming. We have tried to address that difficulty 
> as well, and as a result of our efforts Uber implemented a change to 
> require their trust and safety hotline to accept complaints about 
> service animal denials. However, that is still frustrating and 
> time-consuming, especially when multiple drivers deny. The automated 
> system will immediately suspend in the moment of the denial without 
> the rider having to take any action. That should help eliminate 
> denying drivers from the platform over time in a much more efficient 
> manner than the current system provides. We can't stop drivers from 
> betting that they aren't likely to be faced with transporting a 
> service animal in their car, and refusing to do so when they lose that 
> bet. What we can do is make it so that the consequences of refusing 
> are immediate and serious. The Self -ID system I proposed and Uber 
> agreed to pilot does that.
>
> We are also encouraging riders to file DOJ complaints because our 
> attorneys have said that DOJ is actively investigating such 
> complaints. a DOJ investigation is far more concerning to Uber than a 
> potential lawsuit by NFB or its members.
>
> Regarding PR: We are not afraid of Uber and others' PR. However, we 
> are not mindless of it either. For reasons to be mindful, see above 
> regarding airlines and the media surrounding fake service animal and 
> ESA mayhem. I think a protest of Uber may be effective. I am also 
> mindful of similar public perception, turnout, and other concerns as 
> above with respect to airline/DOT protests.
>
> In short, we are working on making the lives of guide dog users 
> better, particularly with respect to airlines and rideshare companies. 
> Those have been the absolute priority of the board, and of my personal 
> NAGDU advocacy since joining the board two years ago. It is my opinion 
> that we will get farther faster with the incremental approach I have 
> been pursuing than with the swing-for-the-fences approach you seem to 
> prefer. After all, the home-run hitters are also strike-out kings.
>
> I appreciate your thoughts and hope to continue our discussion at the 
> business meting.
>
> Yours,
>
> Al (undersigned by Raul, Paul, Jessica, and Stacie)
>
>
>
> On 2 Jul 2023 at 9:57:21 AM, Michael Forzano wrote:
>
>>> It was nice to see quite a bit of discussion about what are arguably the biggest issues of discrimination facing guide dog users today, rideshare and the airlines. Unfortunately, there was not a whole lot in the way of even working towards solutions that truly eliminate these problems. What I heard is that the best hope of changing the airline situation is a pilot program in the FAA reauthorization Act that would create essentially TSA pre-check for guide dogs. This would make things easier for frequent travelers, but what about folks who don't travel often? What about folks who aren't good with technology? And at the end of the day, it still leaves the door open for discrimination at the airport. On rideshare, we are working with Uber on a pilot program where riders can identify themselves as service animal users before a ride and have reports automatically filed if they are denied. Considering some of the drivers I've encountered, I would not be surprised if drivers continue to deny us even if they're threatened by a message in their app. And when they do, Uber has a terrible track record of handling reports and taking action, as we all know. Even during the settlement period when Uber was required to deactivate drivers in certain situations, they rarely did.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the NAGDU board has taken the position that we now live in a world where these discriminations are our reality. As was pointed out by a NAGDU member, guide dog access was better 25 years ago and our rights are being rolled back. But there is no realistic way to go back to "the good old days".  We are so afraid of losing more, that we're not willing to demand back the rights that the blind fought so hard for. While that's a perfectly valid position for someone to take at an individual level, is that the position we want the NFB, the voice of the nation's blind, to take?
>>>
>>> Protesting was brought up multiple times during the seminar. The response from our leaders was that they did not think it would be effective. The fact is that we don't know if it will be unless we try. Protesting has helped advance civil rights causes in the past, including those of the blind. In my opinion, the NAGDU board should not be worrying about members traveling across the country for a protest that turns out to be ineffective. Advocacy takes work, and I'd like to think that people signing up for a protest are well aware that it probably won't yield immediate results. As was pointed out, we would not have the ADA if disabled advocates hadn't crawled up the steps of the capitol. The NFB has protested on a number of issues as well.
>>>
>>> Particularly when it comes to Uber, I think a protest is long overdue. We've sued them, settled with them, and tried to work with them for almost 10 years. It is long past time to change our strategy, and yet we're too afraid because of their PR resources.
>>>
>>> Another argument that I heard was that we would be unable to advance legislation due to Republican control of Congress. My question is, do other civil rights orgs put their advocacy on hold when the party that most supports their cause isn't in power? The split in Congress is quite narrow and I doart think it's that far fetched that we could convince some Republicans on the importance of some of our legislation.
>>>
>>> I am curious if other members have similar sentiments, and thoughts on what actions we can take. I have thought about bringing a resolution to the convention to make these issues a top priority for the NFB as a whole but I assume it's too late this year. Open to ideas, and happy to help in any way I can. That said, doing this work as an individual doesn't make a lot of sense, we need to be aligned as an organization in order to make real progress.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NAGDU mailing list
>>> NAGDU at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/psandoval%40nagdu.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> NAGDU mailing list
> NAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> NAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/braillemasterjustin%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Massachusetts-NFB mailing list
> Massachusetts-NFB at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Massachusetts-NFB:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20230707/47b85fa2/attachment.html>