Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxlybbert | Hacker News Reader

In New York, there are thousands of wheelchair accessible taxis ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/accessible.shtml ), but there are also thousands of taxis that aren't wheelchair accessible. The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA (then again, the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation," so the ones that aren't wheelchair accessible probably still have to make an effort to put a wheelchair in the trunk, if requested).

View on HN

Black cabs are more accessible by default, but I'd assume if I called ahead for any taxi I'd need to let them know of any special needs, the same as if I needed to let them know I wanted a taxi for 7 people?

Shouldn't there be an area for adding special requests such as accessibility? You filter to the vehicles that are able and willing to take this passenger's money.

I can only assume that, as contracted drivers, they have to worry about scratches that may be caused by loading and unloading wheelchairs? Am I overlooking some kind of personal discrimination expecting people to be better?

The point here is that no special accommodation is required!!! The subject's chair fits anywhere a second passenger or a large suitcase would go. These two drivers didn't even want to try, and the second driver harassed her all the way to the airport, even after she put her chair in the car herself.

The special request feature wouldn't be hard to implement, but I'm not sure that it benefits drivers to respond to it unless there was also a system to incentivize them.

Such as being paid for accepting the business?

I'm sure I'm not the only person seeing ads from Uber to use my own car for extra income. For the record, I haven't signed up.

My own car is not wheelchair accessible. It is spacious, and could fit a collapsed wheelchair. But I don't have a lift. Even if I were to sign up as an Uber driver, I can't say that I'm a kind enough soul to add a wheelchair lift or other equipment to make my car wheelchair accessible.

I might be willing to do so for the right incentive. If Uber were to get me a discount on the modification, or promise to buy my car from me when I no longer want it, or give me a higher percentage of the fare when I pick somebody up, etc. But I, personally, wouldn't foot the bill for purely altruistic reasons.

That seems like to right answer to me.

The ones that aren't accessible aren't breaking the ADA

But Uber is breaking the ADA.

As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument).

Taxis are also independent contractors. Not every taxi cab must be wheelchair accessible to comply with the ADA. Therefore it stands to reason that Uber's drivers don't necessarily need to modify their cars to comply with the ADA. I will concede that Uber drivers have a requirement to make a reasonable accomodation for disabled passengers.

It still isn't established if Uber's drivers really are independent contractors. But if they are, I don't see how Uber is in violation of the ADA. Individual drivers may well be. And Uber will need to sort things out if it expects people to continue to sign up as drivers.

Uber is clearly the one provisioning the service to the customer, and is a large company. The drivers are contractors who do work for Uber, not for the customer. The customer pays Uber, Uber pays the driver. Uber is the car service, and must support its disabled customers.

I think that particular argument is pretty weak. Uber notifies the drivers of a pickup opportunity and they have the option of taking it and doing what the customer says for a while.

There's a lot of things that suggest Uber to be an employer, but the rides themselves seem very contractor-y.

Taking a percentage fee for putting driver and customer together leans away from employment, in my view. There are a lot of types of middlemen that are not employers.

> As far as I can tell, Uber's argument is that its drivers are independent contractors, and if anybody's breaking the law it's the drivers and not Uber (because, frankly, that's always Uber's argument).

I have a fun experiment. Let's ask the IRS if Uber's drivers truly are "independent contractors" as they argue, despite the regulations they impose on drivers which are surprisingly close to regulations you'd impose on an employee.

This has happened before, with costly consequences (Fedex Ground attempted to (illegally) label its drivers as independent contracts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/23/h...

It happens all the time. And often the parent company is trying to avoid taxes (well, in theory the amount of taxes stays the same, it's just a question of who pays and who keeps the records). In this case, Uber's also trying to avoid learning about and complying with local, state and federal regulations (and, so far, they've been successful).

At least as far as federal tax is concerned, the IRS has some advice at http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... and http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... .

Can anyone submit a letter of determination to the IRS asking them to determine if Uber is operating legally with regards to its independent contractor worker classification?

I doubt it. But anybody can tell the IRS that they believe a person or company isn't paying their full share of taxes. I suspect that the IRS would prioritize complaints from, say, disgruntle corporate accountants, but it should be possible for anybody to report what they believe is tax fraud.

The IRS probably already knows about Uber. They probably haven't audited the company or asked for details, but they must be vaguely aware of how the company operates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com