Uber ordered to pay $1.1m to blind woman refused rides

As the arbitrator suggests, it's Uber's fault because when the complaints got to Uber, they developed a program to help drivers evade responsibility by teaching them how to more effectively deny service to the disabled; refused to remove drivers that violated their rules from their platform; and failed to abide by a previous settlement they had entered into for doing the exact same thing; and they did this to her specifically over a dozen times despite her repeatedly asking them for help and trying to work through the system.

More like: uber has two contracts, one between the themselves and the driver and one between themselves and the rider.

If a driver is refusing rides based on race, then that is Uber’s problem. If they then want to pursue legal action against the driver, that should be entirely between Uber and the driver.

the alternative is stakeholder capitalism. Giving workers, customers, and locals ownership in the business. I love people owning companies, but in my opinion it should be the workers and customers.

In Germany for example, large companies are obligated to have a third of their voting seats be workers. If we want to fix Uber, why not start there. Give drivers a third of the seats at the table, and make it so that the management and ownership is as diverse as the people Uber serves. Would be interesting to hear if they have disabled people in management.

> The drivers would have known that when they showed up and she has a geared-up guide dog and she can't see. If a driver cancels the ride at this point, there is no ambiguity that they're just shitty people

but if the uber driver did not expect this, then aren't they getting a shitty deal if forced to accept the ride?

If the blind person had to specify ahead of time that they have a service dog, and let the drivers accept it knowing so, then there shouldn't have been any problems. And if there's no drivers willing to accept this condition, then obviously the price is too low - the price would have to be increased such that it is acceptable for a driver to take the risk/damage of a service animal to their vehicle.

> Basically everywhere where you aren’t required by law to allow animals refuses them because making even the smallest voluntary accommodations for people is just something that doesn’t happen.

What about accommodations for people who are allergic to pets or have phobias about certain animals?

Real service animals are specific breeds that are known to be trainable, docile, and are less likely to cause allergic reactions. They're a compromise that allows people who have certain disabilities to have a way to live a more normal life that they would not otherwise have access to. We can't fix blindness and many other disabilities, but service animals can help with improving the quality of life of people who are disabled.

Pets aren't that though. They do provide companionship and enjoyment, but they're not necessary for providing assistance with basic needs like locomotion and navigation. They're not breeds that minimize the effects on people who have pet allergies, nor are they necessarily trained to behave properly in almost all situations.

When people are putting a "service animal" vest on their pets, bringing them where they would normally not be allowed, and they cause trouble, it makes life harder for people who actually do need service animals for fulfilling their basic needs.

> The flip side of this is that modern life is really really unfriendly to people with pets.

Pets—unlike service animals—are a privilege, not a right. No one is born needing a pet to survive, or to participate in society.

If a pet inconveniences someone else, the pet owner needs to make accommodations, and not the other way around.

There's a big difference between refusing to allow a blind person to take their rigorously-trained guide dog into an Uber or a restaurant, or an aeroplane, and refusing access access to someone's service pitbull (or, as you mention it, service pony[1]). The concept of service animals and unofficial assistance dogs as opposed to guide dogs abuses the accommodations that societies have made to help blind people. And now businesses are being put in a position where they have to find a way of limiting the downsides from the proliferation of "service animals" and "emotional assistance animals" without discriminating against blind people, with both hands tied behind their backs.

Cities are unfriendly to people with pets. Private rented accommodation and transportation are unfriendly to people with pets. And an Uber surcharge that covered finding drivers who were willing to [generally] transport people with dogs would probably be unpopular with dog owners, as are additional deposits and cleaning fees for apartments. Have you considered that many people would prefer not to use an Uber that had previously been used to transport a dog (guide dogs excepted), or to go to a mall that had dogs (apart from guide dogs)? And there's the question of training. Do you know how much it costs to train a guide dog (even excluding the helping-blind-people parts)? Or that many breeds of dog aren't suitable for the high level of training that enables guide dogs to be accepted and respected? Realistically, the vast majority of people wouldn't go to the lengths of training their [emotional support] animal to that level. And would you be happy with restricting access to malls to pet owners that could afford that level of training? Some would see it as discriminatory. And it would all be completely unenforceable and lead to massive liability for business owners.

1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miniature-horse-on-plane-woman-...

In Vienna people can bring their dogs on public transit as long as they are leashed and muzzled. It seems to work fine.

Oh look, a slightly difficult customer, this will hurt my expected hourly income, will Uber compensate me thus? Well since a real human never replies to my support tickets and they take no responsibility for anything that happens to me even when it is directly the fault of their app, no they won't = cancel and find another customer.

When I had to suffer through driving for Uber I would sometimes hang up on people who called me and cancel the ride, because I don't want to do something out of the ordinary and waste time, explain how uber works or whatever, I want to get you and get rid of you. When you drive: Uber doesn't care about you, your customers actively work against you and lie about it, so you have to look after yourself. Need a pickup from Ikea? not in my car!