[Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, serv...
Roger Crome
rogerc at lifecilmo.org
Mon Jul 11 17:02:03 UTC 2016
I think there have been some very valid points discussed in this thread thus far, and I understand, Dan, how you can see things from a different perspective as a former cabby. I do, however, disagree that the business model makes it more problematic for enforcement. The contractual obligation that exists between Uber and Lift and their contracted drivers is an at will agreement. Like any other opportunity, the driver can either agree to follow the policy or enforcement can be as simple as removing that individual as a driver. I understand that in any civil rights situation it is important to evaluate intent and exceptions can be made for a genuine issue. However, in the beginning of any forced change, it is imperative to be steadfast in one's resolve and not give any leeway because there are going to be people who are testing the limits. So, from that perspective, there is no excuse for denying access. If your child is allergic to dogs, then you should probably buy some disinfectant and stop by the car wash on the way home. Ten years from now, I would hope that common sense would start winning out. For now, we have to keep hitting it hard.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan Flasar via Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 10:08 PM
To: nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, serv...
I agree that everyone should be covered by the ADA, but as a former cabbie in Chicago, there are a few things to remember:
Cab drivers who own their own cabs still drive them as part of an established company - for example, Yellow or Checker cabs, and so are governed by all the policies, rules and regulations of the parent company.
Such drivers do not use their cab for personal use, unlike Uber drivers.
The reason a driver might want to own their own cab is to increase their share of the fare. In effect, the company driver pays the parent company rental for the cab they use that day. There might be rental agencies that would be willing to rent a car for commercial use, but all the rental car agreements I've ever signed exclude use of the car for commercial (ie, taxi) use.
There are no doubt cabbies who do refuse to pick up passengers based on all kinds of reasons - including allergies, discrimination or any other issue they can come up with, but in doing so, they are violating any of a number of laws, including the ADA.
Uber and Lift, due to their unique business nmodel, escape the scrutiny that cab companies are subject to, and in doing so, are problenatic in fitting the legal definition of being a public common carrier.
When I referred to insurance, I was speaking only for damage to the cab and the other vehicle. Different jurisdictions have different rules for personal injury insurance requirements. I know that Uber provides no insurance of any sort for their contracted drivers - it's all on the driver.
I'm glad to see that there has been a successful suit against Uber (and if anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it), and I hope they live up to it. But don't be surprised if Uber finds it problematic to enforce that rule - their drivers are not employees, have no right to negotiate their
working conditions, much less form a union. It's good news that Uber has been
slapped down in court. Don't be surprised if they appeal.
If you're going to get into the business of providing taxi service, you best be prepared to pick up all fares, after all, that's how you make your money. When I drove a cab, I picked up anyone, no matter when,
where or who, but it wasn't my car, and took no financial risks.
I stand by my original post - the unique business arrangement Uber has with their drivers might make it problematic for the company to demand
that it's drivers adhere to the requirements of the ADA. I hope these
companies change their policies to ensure a profitable - and safe - means of public transportation, for everyone concerned, including the driver.
Dan
In a message dated 7/8/2016 7:17:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:
Not really. Many cab drivers drive their own vehicle. The alternative is
usually one of renting a car by the day which eats into the driver's
earning
potential.
The same type of issues with dog guides come up with regular cab companies
too. The difference is that the regular cab driver sometimes will just be a
no show as they keep driving. Others are more bold and site allergies,
religion, or fear of dogs as why they can't take you in their car.
I don't even think the cab companies all cover injury to the driver or
pasengers.
Discrimination is very real and it must be addressed when it occurs.
Regulations don't always ensure non-discrimination or passenger safety.
Programs like Uber and lift are newcomers I'm glad we have as
transportation
options. Let's address the problem drivers and hold Uber responsible for
carrying out the settlement they have recently agreed upon. Let's not
conclude that the service as a whole is problematic. I get really weary of
people trying to justify why someone discriminated against one of us.
Shelia
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan Flasar via
Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:12 PM
To: nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind
man, service dog
And this is exactly the problem with Uber, or Lift or any other service
that
puts all the risk on the 'contractor' (Uber drivers are not considered
employees, legally). A cab driver drives for a company vehicle, carries
company insurance, is paid a salary and receives all tips on top of that.
The more they drive, the nore they make, at little personal risk.
U
Uber drivers pay for everything themselves (gas, insurance, maintenance
), provide their own vehicle, and are not allowed to accept tips. If an
Uber driver gets in an accident, it's tough luck for the driver - he is
out
everything. If a cab driver is in an accident, the company bears the cost
- the driver is out nothing, though he could lose his job if he is at
fault.
So this is the problem - a cab is just as much a public conveyance as a
bus or a train or a plane - there are hard fought laws that guarantee the
right of people to bring their service dogs into such vehicles.
But when it's your own car, that's something quite different. Unlike a
cabbie, an Uber driver DOES take his car home, and if a family member is
allergic to dog fur, that's a legitimate concern.
Right now, the status of Uber drivers is in legal limbo - they are
not considered to be employees of the company, do not have assigned
shifts,
have no benefits whatsoever, and can refuse to take on riders for their
own reasons.
Full disclosure, Uber is just the latest example of the eroding
status of workers rights. Uber has been thrown out of cities and
countries
all over the world, primarily because it's business model is designed to
evade
the 'public' part of 'public transportation'). I hope Uber is taken
to
court over this issue . Uber has had many challenges to it's business
model in the last few years - they were thrown out of Austin, Texas
because they refused to comply with state law that all cab drivers have
their fingerprints scanned for criminal records. Right now they skirt
public safety laws via their business mnodel - courts may help to sort
this
out.
And of course, not all Uber drivers will refuse to allow a service dog
in their vehicle, but it appears that right now, they are under no legal
obligation to do so.
This case could be a game-changer.
Dan
In a message dated 7/8/2016 6:29:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:
His daughter is allergic to dogs, so he didn't want to allow a service dog
in his vehicle.
Source:
http://www.fox4news.com/news/u-s-world/170689636-story
We have all heard stories of drivers refusing service to dog handling
teams
on the grounds they are allergic or fear dogs. But Uber introduces a new
wrinkle into this battle. Since they use their own private cars, they can
claim that relatives are allergic to dogs to refuse service.
This is not something to be overlooked in light of the proposed settlement
with Uber now pending in the court.
Regards
Daniel Garcia
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/sbwright95%40att.net
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/rogerc%40lifecilmo.org
More information about the NFBMO
mailing list