Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehmmmmmmmm | Hacker News Reader

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go."

Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.

View on HN

Then the business needs to find some way to accommodate both the employee and the customer. In Uber's case, the only requirement is that riders with guide dogs should be able to get a ride in the same time window as any other rider, at the same price. The ADA does not require that every driver has to drive guide dogs. It's up to Uber to figure out a solution, and they should have to pay up until they implement one.

Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.

If you are providing rides as a business, you must be willing to accept seeing eye dogs. If you cannot meet this qualification, then your options are limited.

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you might not want to own a driving business or you may want to work with your employer to accommodate your needs. (e.g. by dispatching another driver, etc.)

Drivers are not a "business". They are laborers for Uber, which is the business.

That's how it should be, that is not how it is.

I mean, yeah, I'd love to liver in that world. Unfortunately, Uber has campaigned widely that their drivers are, in fact, independent contractors and not employees.

The drivers should be employees, imo, but the way the company is structured today, they are not.

You should take that into consideration before taking on a job that might require you to drive around dogs.

As a country we decided long time ago, that people who require seeing-eye dogs shouldn't be subjected to substandard treatment by society - as was the case before the law protected the visually impaired.

If you want to completely avoid dogs, then don't take a job that involves having to interact with dogs.

Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that is ability to refuse some rides.

Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety.

So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?

If you are driven into a panic by being near a service dog, you are not fit to be a taxi driver. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

This is equivalent to a landlord saying "Sorry, it's to expensive to build wheel chair ramps. So we didn't build any"

According to Uber, you need to call up another driver and get them to come take over for you because Uber will not.

If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them.

If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.

I don't think there was anyone signed up as a driver with Uber before the ADA existed but for the sake of argument, we can assume those people exist. Yes, I agree that they should receive government-funded training that teaches them to tolerate a service dog in their car.

Every who signs up to be an Uber driver after the signing of the ADA must be capable of transporting service dogs.

That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders.

It's a shitty policy IMO.

I feel like you might kind of be missing the point here...

Uber should have to deal with this systemically because it is shitty to just leave it up to the drivers.

Please note that in your example here, it is also shitty for the rider who is expecting to be driven somewhere safely.

Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it.

A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.

I don't see much of an other option for Uber if they want to fix this.

It's not uncommon for small towns to have one Uber driver going at certain times. Well that driver can't be the only driver around if they aren't going to take service animals. So Uber would have to tell them that they can't drive unless they are willing to take service animals or there is another driver around that is willing to.

They have to make sure the service they offer complies with the ADA's requirements and where that is not possible they must not offer that service.

Ah, a Stephen Breyer counterfactual.

The ADA says that is not a good enough reason to deny service:

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

Don't do a job that legally requires you to potentially have a service animal in your car then...

Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing.

I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.

Because it's discrimination against people with disabilities and per the ADA illegal.

So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...

With that kind of logic, why not just a rob a bank if you really need cash. They're both illegal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive comparison.

Then don't drive Uber. Most businesses legally must allow service dogs.

Then it’s time to get into a different kind of business, really.

Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.

I'm terrified of heights, I probably shouldn't get a job as a window cleaner. Not every window cleaner has a thousand companies trying to hire them either.

I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.

The ADA has defined protected classes, and if you are not OK with a protected class you need to deal with it. How would you feel if I rephrased your comment:

Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by black people? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a black person in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with black people and being near one sends me into panic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com