[NAGDU] My Thoughts on the NAGDU Seminar

[Al Elia]

Mike – Just to address two items:

Regarding tech skills: In all of my advocacy I have emphasized that 
there are guide dog users who do not have access to technology necessary 
to handle online means of dealing with airlines and the DOT. Just as DOT 
requires airlines to waive phone booking fees for persons with 
disabilities, there must be a means for persons with disabilities to 
handle any documentation needs without resorting to technology. The 
known service animal pilot program would require an option for service 
animal users to apply for the program over the phone without any 
recourse to online forms or other technology beyond the use of a voice 
phone call. I have and will not budge on that in representing the needs 
of all guide dog usrs.

Second, with respect to Uber and driver removals: We learned from our 
discussions with Uber that they were sending a boilerplate email upon 
completing an investigation of service animal complaints. What that 
means is that the same email message was going to riders whether the 
driver was permanently removed from Uber or was given a strike. That 
email said  something to the effect that “the driver has  been 
educated on Uber policies.” We expressed our frustration, echoed in 
your email, that drivers were never removed but were always just 
educated. That was how we learned that Uber was saying drivers were 
educated when those drivers were actually removed from the platform.

We do not know how many drivers have been removed because Uber refuses 
to provide the outcomes of  investigations into complaints. Uber has 
never provided  that information to any riders. We continue to push Uber 
on this issue, and continue to ask them to provide outcome 
determinations as Lyft has now decided to provide us. However, what that 
means is that you actually have no idea whether any of the drivers you 
complained about were removed or not. You received an email indicating 
that they were educated, and like all of us concluded that they were 
warned. Uber has assured us that drivers were actually removed in 
circumstances where the investigation determined they knowingly denied a 
person because of a service animal. Uber admitted that the language in 
their boilerplate was confusing and misleading. They have since changed 
that boilerplate to no longer give that suggestion.

Again, Is Uber doing enough? No. However, we are exerting pressure on 
Uber to do more. It’s experience with the DOJ seems to have made it 
take this issue seriously. We believe the self-ID  program will help 
reduced driver refusals more quickly and efficiently by weeding out the 
drivers who deny with a minimum of imposition on us as riders with 
service animals. That is not to say we are resting there, but we believe 
it will  be very helpful.

Regarding protests:  neither I nor the board are against protests of 
Uber, DOT, airlines, Lyft, or others that have been discussed. However, 
if we are going to protest, we need to make sure it is likely to be 
effective. Protesting DOT will not have any result absent something for 
DOT to act on. That is why I suggested that a march on the DOT might be 
something to consider once we have a petition before them.

A protest against Uber will be most effective if Uber stops negotiating 
with us  and we can protest a specific failure, rather than a 
generalized failure. At this point, Uber has agreed to do many of the 
things we asked of them during the initial settlement period, and that 
they refused to do or ignored during that period. I am not saying we 
should never protest Uber or Lyft, but I suggest that we should protest 
whichever one is doing the least, and at this point that is not Uber. If 
the memebrship doesn’t care about that and wants to protest Uber even 
though they have been more cooperative with NFB on this issue than their 
competitors, then so be it. In that case I will organize the protest 
myself.  However, I don’t think that is a good strategy for getting 
companies to work with us in the future.

Finally and generally regarding protests, I reiterate my concern about 
having sufficient numbers of guide dog users to show up at any protests 
we organize. That may mean asking members to take time off of work 
and/or expend funds traveling to a protest. As people  who have the 
means to do that, I know and appreciate that you and I would be able to 
participate. However, many of our members are not in that position. I am 
hesitant to base our advocacy on protests that require many of our 
members to spend their time and funds on such high-cost efforts unless 
there is a very high likelihood of effectiveness. That is doubly true 
where I believe our efforts would be more effective at less cost by 
other means.

I look forward to further discussion at the meeting.

Yours,

/Æ





On 3 Jul 2023, at 16:05, Michael Forzano wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> Thanks for your reply and for providing some additional context.
>
> Regarding the airlines, I definitely understand the desire to pursue 
> action
> that will give us some relief in the short term. I do think it's 
> important
> to keep in mind the various skill levels among the blind community 
> when it
> comes to technology. Even if airlines take the guide dog number over 
> the
> phone, getting such a number still requires awareness that it's 
> possible to
> get one, and understanding how to, and having the tech skills to fill 
> out
> the application. And to my point about it leaving the door open for
> discrimination at the airport, as long as these hoops that we have to 
> jump
> through exist, there is potential for things to go wrong. As an 
> example,
> when I flew from Seattle to Houston, I was told by the gate agent that 
> my
> dog wasn't on the reservation even though I had gone through the 
> process
> and flown from New York to Seattle on the same reservation. Luckily it
> wasn't an issue, but what if I had gone to the ticket counter to check 
> a
> bag? Would it have been an issue then? Would I have been stuck in 
> Seattle?
>
> I recognize that we have had a priveleged status compared to other 
> service
> dogs and I won't comment on whether it's right or wrong. But it is 
> what we
> have come to expect. And guide dogs still enjoy this status to a
> significant degree in many European countries for example. Giving up 
> that
> right would be an extremely hard sell for me. Especially with the 
> airlines
> in particular I don't believe these regulations are helping. I still
> encounter many dogs in the airports and on flights. It is very 
> questionable
> that many of them are legitimate service animals. And after all, 
> what's the
> difference between commiting fraud by purchasing a service dog vest on
> Amazon and showing up at a store, and fraudulently filling out a DOT 
> form.
> Maybe this is something we could somehow gather data on or ask the 
> airlines
> to do so as part of the rule making process?
>
> It is good to hear that there is openness to a protest of JetBlue. 
> Public
> perception is honestly not something I had thought about, but I think 
> we
> can all agree that if the protest is centered around blind people 
> being
> denied boarding, the public should get behind that.
>
> Regarding Uber, I hear where you are coming from and I think the pilot
> program is well-intentioned. I just don't see why we should be 
> trusting
> Uber to follow through on reports and deactivate drivers. Yes the 
> reporting
> process is cumbersome and that's something that should be improved, 
> but as
> a tech savvy person I always file reports and I don't think any of my
> reports have ever led to a driver being deactivated from the platform. 
> Uber
> deals with high driver turnover and is strongly disincentivized to 
> fire
> drivers, they rarely if ever did it during the monitoring period of 
> the NFB
> settlement, and I'm just not sure why they would suddently hange their
> tune. I worry that implementing this pilot program is just something 
> they
> are doing to give us the illusion of progress and distract us from the 
> real
> issue which is that there is no driver accountability. If the various
> social media posts i've seen are any indication, I think that public
> support for a protest of Uber would be quite strong.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 11:28 PM Al Elia via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org> 
> wrote:
>
>> 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/michaeldforzano%40gmail.com
>>