Now that's a lawsuit that is going to cost you in PR about ten times what any fine will likely amount to, a hundred times what you made with the policy, and exactly as much as you deserve for being a caricature of the scumbag corporation stereotype.
Possibly. But if you're a big company, then not thinking about the impact of your product on the disabled is wilful ignorance, even if it doesn't make you that much more money.
A perfect example of equality vs equity. Uber treated everyone equally, but it wasn't equitable.
I feel bad for the drivers. I have kids and I know it takes me longer to get in the car than just an adult. I wish there was a way to indicate in the app "traveling with kids" so the driver could get a bonus for picking me up, which I'd gladly pay for.
But in this case, Uber should still pay the driver the waiting fee but not charge the rider. It should be on Uber to cover this cost of doing business.
Good point. Honestly I don't think that uber should allow drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport. The discrimination and inequity, as you've noted, runs very deep with uber and indeed many other companies
How do normal taxi services handle this? I really have no idea. I assume better, since they'd have already dealt with these sorts of suits decades ago if they didn't.
For wheelchairs, in DC and the suburbs (VA and MD), the customer calls and asks for a wheelchair-accessible taxi. IIRC, taxi fleets are required to maintain a certain % of the fleet as wheelchair-accessible. Wait times for dispatch can be quite long.
In DC, there's an initial fee (charged for the pickup and first 1/8 mile). Additional wait-time fees start accruing after 5 minutes. Mileage/time fees then get added by the meter as the ride progresses. This formula applies to all taxis - wheelchair or not.
Does it cost the same? I'm all for charging everyone the same, but just seeing how it was in the family, helping the wheelchair person into the car, it's not an easy task.
Of course I don't think that the complaint here is only about wheelchairs.
Yes, cost to consumer is the same, by regulation. Maintaining part of the fleet as handicapped-accessible is just part of doing business, despite the additional costs associated with acquiring/maintaining wheelchair-accessible vehicles (usually vans or buses with hydraulic lifts/ramps).
I looked into buying a taxi medallion recently - they are historically very cheap and would dramatically increase in value if Uber and Lyft fail.
Turns out that there are a lot of financial incentives available from city/state/federal governments for attaching the taxi medallion to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
If Uber needs to mandate all vehicles must be equipped for disabled people, then costs will go up and non disabled people who are low income will suffer the increase in costs to accommodate disabled people.
By trying to be fair to specific groups, you tend to make things unfair for others.
This is a good case of perfect being the enemy of better. Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users? Assuming that 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-accessible, and a rule like that doubles the number of wheelchair-accessible Uber cars, you've cut your total supply by 80% to satisfy a small percentage of users (and in doing so made the experience worse for those users as well, because they are now competing for a smaller supply).
> 10% (WAG) of Uber cars are currently wheelchair-accessible
I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware, stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible -- it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be installed.
Sure, I just made up a number in the tail to make the point, hence the "Wild-Ass Guess" in the tail (I need a better flag for "estimate for numerical simplicity only"-type numbers).
Depends on what you need. Some wheelchair users can stand and walk short distances, so they'd just need trunk space. Others can transfer independently, others still can't leave their chairs without expensive lifts.
So it can really range from needing a bit of help to needing a special vehicle.
>Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users?
The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair ramps.
A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do that in a cost effective manner that is the business's problem and not the law's.
Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they include both positive and negative consequences. Making it more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society has decided to accept in the name of making the world more accessible to people with disabilities.
I'm not sure why it matters whether the cost is one time or ongoing. Either way, wheelchair ramps were simply one example. There are plenty of other accessibility considerations that do have ongoing costs. Elevators are probably the most similar parallel that have both an upfront cost and an ongoing maintenance cost and are often required for the same accessibility reasons.
But in this case, the business relies on drivers providing their own vehicles. The tradeoff would be that most drivers would no longer be able to drive for Uber.
It doesn't matter who pays for it. That is a debate between Uber at its drivers. All that matters it the requirements for the service that is provided to the public.
If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are Uber's problems and not the law's.
Should we also allow companies to run sweatshops and dump pollutants in the local water supply because not doing those things causes prices to skyrocket?
The law doesn't require all cars be equipped for wheelchairs, just that wheelchair users can get service for the same price and same wait time as others. You can accomplish that without requiring all cars to have wheelchair access.
I'm not the one who suggested that all Uber vehicles need to be wheelchair accessible. However increasing the current percentage of their fleet to an acceptable level will have costs associated with it that either Uber or its drivers will need to cover.
It potentially becomes a problem for the public if we lose a commonly used transportation service, if Uber and it's drivers can't afford to pay for it.
> Why should Uber (and, by extension both drivers and users) be forced to treat all users as if they are the most expensive users?
It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?
Sure, and I agree that Uber should be ensuring sufficient supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but this is really another place where Uber's model (treat their drivers like independent companies whenever it is convenient to Uber) falls apart.
Because few companies / cities / etc do it without being regulated to do so. I would imagine in the case of Uber they will grant additional time for anyone who files with them the paperwork indicating they require an accommodation. Generally speaking if Uber extended the wait period to 5 minutes for everyone it would also be in violation of the ADA as again, they are not providing an accommodation for people with disabilities.
ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be unreasonable to bear the additional costs.
Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of society we want, do we want one where cities have to make curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks. The balance the US has currently settled on is that small business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must accommodate.
It should be noted that this case has not been ruled against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait times, not wheelchair accessible cars.
To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by society at large they are not very expensive in general. It is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and services are not provided at scale.
> “I don't think that uber should allow drivers to use any vehicles not equipped for wheel chair transport”
Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price hike resulting from your suggestion — disabled people should just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else doesn’t to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for all parties involved.
If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
> “There would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive.”
This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.
There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model.
To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people.
You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people.
And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious.
It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause".
It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases".
And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more than the other transport companies in the area, because your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting sued, because you're charging disabled customers more than your competitors are charging other people (and people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").
That doesn't logically follow. It's not cost prohibitive to equip a small fraction of ubers with the equipment to transport the fraction of customers who need it. Indeed, some fraction of uber drivers are going to have handicap accessible vehicles simply because they or members of their household need those features anyway. Having such features is a competitive advantage - you can take passengers no one else can and thus secure their business. It only becomes prohibitive when you need an enormous surplus of equipment well in excess of demand - then this expense doesn't lead to serving more customers, it's just a burden that needs to be borne by existing customers.
Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
It can be a win for users more generally- a wheelchair accessible cab also turns out to be quick to jump in and out of, and has amazing space for people and luggage.
I never said all Ubers should be wheelchair accessible. I was responding to your assertion that wheelchair-bound customers should bear all the cost of their accommodations.
Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that).
If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it.
Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.
You may not have made that claim, but GP comment did, and it's the context of this discussion.
If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster.
I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.
There is no way this would work. This would limit uber vehicles to at least a modified minivan. Most school buses and public transport buses are not wheelchair accessible. Those orgs have specialized vehicles that can be dispatched as needed. It's fine to require the same of Uber.
I can't remember that last time I saw a public transport bus that wasn't wheelchair accessible. It may not be completely obvious, but the floor at the front of the bus flips out onto the sidewalk and the air suspension lowers the bus to make it level. The front seats fold up to reveal a wheelchair area, complete with belts and attachment points to keep a wheelchair safely in place.
That would work for me as long as wait times were within reason. I think it could be accomplished with some well crafted earnings incentives to drive for Uber with a wheelchair accessible vehicle
Is it 2009 again and Uber was just founded? Meanwhile, in 2021, there isn't a fee or tip that this ethical void of a company has not stolen from its drivers.
You are right, they should pay, but we certainly should not rely on their goodwill or initiative to do so.
Thanks! At least someone appreciates it. I think my average score is probably pretty low -- I make a lot of comments. :). Maybe one day I'll figure out my average and median scores, and a separate "top level only" score, since I do that a lot less frequently.
There is no "cost of doing business". You're asking that the riders without children cover the extra cost. It's an interesting proposition and we can of course discuss it, but please, for the sake of all that is rational and logic, don't pretend the money comes from thin air.
It's to my advantage to pay more when traveling with kids on Uber/Lyft. What ends up happening now is my driver rating gets affected by drivers who have to deal with me without extra compensation (because they don't see my tip until the rate me).
If they knew they were getting extra money they'd be less likely to penalize me for it.
My girlfriend has a visual impairment. When it's dark outside, it can take awhile for her to locate the Uber and get to it. A number of times she's been unable to locate the Uber and the driver has just left. I'll have to look and see if she's been charged wait fees.
There was another incident which was caused by a very poor UI decision by Uber (or maybe just a bug). She scheduled a ride in advance from her work to a doctor's office. Then when she went to get a ride home (this time in real time, not scheduling in advance), the origin was set by default to the last place she scheduled a ride from - her workplace, NOT her current location at the doctor's office. She didn't realize that Uber wasn't doing its usual thing of setting the origin to your current location, so the driver showed up at her workplace. She ended up paying the driver cash to come to the doctor's office and pick her up from there.
> The lawsuit seeks relief from the court, including ordering Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the department asks the court to order Uber to modify its wait time fee policy to comply with the ADA; train its staff and drivers on the ADA; pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees; and pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.
- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
- Should all disabilities be treated equally?
- Who decides how much time should be granter per?
- Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?
- Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
- Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
These are good questions. They have been mostly answered by the law, rules and public paperwork. Past a certain size, having a dedicated team working on disability is not only the right thing to do, it's almost essential to ensuring compliance. (Below that size, a consultant.) Dealing with disability is complicated; "disability" deals, by definition, with edge cases.
> Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly).
You are relying on "ethical" principles that I would say are alien to the vast majority of people.
There is no reason why Pareto efficiency should be ethically prioritized if the alternative is welfare enhancing in the aggregate.
Can you describe to me a situation in which reaching pareto efficiency would, in your opinion, not be the optimal state for the welfare of the aggregate? I'm trying to imagine a situation where resources are optimally distributed where that would be suboptimal for the welfare of everyone.
edit: I'm new to the concept of pareto efficiency, so hopefully this reads more as a sincere question rather than a challenge to your opinion
Imagine a situation with two people and a state-like actor.
One person has all of the food in the entire world minus one loaf of bread. The other person has one loaf of bread. After they eat that loaf, they will probably die of starvation in the next 30 days.
This is a Pareto efficient distribution.
If the state-like actor intervened and re-distributed some of the food to the other person (with coercion), I would argue that aggregate welfare would be improved.
That makes sense, I guess there's subjectivity involved as to what that would look like as I imagine the death of one of those people would be an unwanted consequence to the person with all the food and as such the first person would be better off giving food to the starving person.
Your point makes sense to me now though, so thanks
> unwanted consequence to the person with all the food and as such the first person would be better off giving food to the starving person.
Doesn't really play out that way in actual real life (people still starve every day and both you and i probably have the resources to stop at least one of those starvation deaths), so didn't think of including this altruism in my toy model
This is a straw-man description of the ethics of Pareto efficiency. Even as such, if the second person has nothing the first person desires, what obligation does the first have to share their bread? Why can't the second person make bread or an alternative? Are they unable to, and if so, are they strictly a burden on the first person?
Yes, you are coming from a very objectivist/libertarian perspective that I reject.
It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency, it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto efficient distribution, and not the most welfare enhancing one.
What if neither person can make bread and the other just happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is burdening who?
And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth distributions are really derived from consensual interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively violent takings?
I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.
I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.
So then you'll agree that in a society where people without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is no longer an existential threat?
The fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?
> what obligation does the first have to share their bread
None. However, part of the role of government (I would likely say it's entire role) is to make society as a whole better. It does this by imposing rules (obligations) on members of that society (taxes, a force to enforce the concept of private property, etc).
In the toy case described above, it is likely to the benefit of society to have both members survive and one member be unhappy; rather than have one member survive, but be happier. Hence, the government enforces an obligation on the first person to share their food.
That's not a pareto efficient distribution. The efficient option would be for the person with bread to sell bread to the person without bread in exchange for future labor.
Pareto efficiency is defined to be an economic state where resources cannot be reallocated to make one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. If a redistribution can make things better, it is not an efficient state.
> The efficient option would be for the person with bread to sell bread to the person without bread in exchange for future labor.
Okay, with work, let's say they are given the bare minimum to survive and they will get their work done (no rational reason to offer a higher wage). It would still be welfare enhancing to re-distribute.
> If a redistribution can make things better, it is not an efficient state.
This is just straight-up false, no other comment. Not what Pareto efficiency. The redistribution makes the person taken from worse off.
If they both have the bare minimum to survive, redistributing from one to the other puts the first below the minimum. If someone has a surplus, the efficient thing is to trade it. If they don't, redistribution hurts them as much as it helps another. There is no free lunch.
Again, that is the definition of pareto efficiency.
> If someone has a surplus, the efficient thing is to trade it.
With only two people, the most efficient thing to do is to trade it for the bare minimum the other person needs to survive. Beyond that is not Pareto efficient.
Yes, you give someone the bare minimum they need to survive. Then they want more. Now you're back to the situation where you have a surplus and they're willing to trade, the efficient thing is to trade your surplus. Continue repeating until one of you dies of old age, and the remaining survivor has all the bread.
So long as you have surplus, and that surplus has value, it makes sense to trade it, rather than have it sit idle.
I don't think you're understanding this. As long as person A has more bread than they're going to eat, and person B still wants more bread, it is still optimal to trade. A well fed individual can do more labor than a minimally fed person who can in turn do more labor than a dead person. As person B's quality of life improves, they are in an ever better position to trade. The bread is worthless to person A, it doesn't matter how little person B gives for it, it is still optimal.
It does not become Pareto efficient until person A is worse off by trading bread, by which point they no longer have enough to completely satisfy their needs.
Respectfully, I don't think we can say axiomatically that welfare is enhanced in the aggregate by Uber stakeholders ({drivers|employees|shareholders}) sacrificing in favor of the disabled because the Nth degree ethical consequences are unknowable.
My claim is that there is nothing about Pareto efficiency that is ethically preferable to a situation in which more people are better off.
Arguing that this policy would render some consensual exchanges illicit is irrelevant, because I don't think the most ethical outcome is axiomatically realized by solely consensual exchange without any coercion.
> - Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?
Are these sorts of things considered "disabilities" though, from the perspective of ADA and other disability-related laws? A bunch of years ago I broke my foot and was on crutches for 8 weeks. I don't recall it being that difficult to get to my Ubers in time (they may have been more lax with wait time back in 2014). It didn't occur to me to even think I should be entitled to extra time.
> - Should all disabilities be treated equally?
I would assume not? IIRC the key phrase in disability cases is "reasonable accommodation". I think it's reasonable to grant someone extra time if they have a mobility issue, but perhaps not if they have something like diabetes?
- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
That might not matter? From what I understand, the ADA (and similar laws) are worded and interpreted to give the person claiming a disability the benefit of the doubt. I would guess that Uber is expected to eat the cost of fraud here, unless they can prove in specific instances fraud occurred. In general, though, the opposite case is much worse: denying an accommodation because you (erroneously) believe no accommodation is needed can get you in big trouble.
> - Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
Personally I would say yes, definitely. I know this isn't how Uber works from the driver perspective, but the "meter" should start running as soon as the driver gets to the pickup spot. Uber eats (or builds in) the cost of a reasonable "grace period" for riders, which is Uber's decision. Ignoring the disability question, if Uber drivers were truly independent contractors and had full autonomy, they could certainly decide to give riders zero time: either be at the pickup location already when the driver arrives, or you miss your ride. (Not saying this is a good policy, but in theory this could be something that's allowed; pre-Uber taxis in San Francisco would sometimes do this, and it sucked.)
Not sure if Uber should specifically note "this person is disabled so you'll be getting a little more money as compensation for waiting longer"; probably not? Though I guess after they accept the ride and arrive at the pickup point, they'll see their required pickup wait time be 8 minutes instead of 4 (or whatever), so they'll at least know at that point.
> - Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver?
Because, despite Uber's insistence that drivers are independent contractors and are not employees, Uber still sets ride pricing and does not give drivers all that much flexibility in what fares they are willing to take (that is, they don't give drivers much information up-front about fare details, to avoid discrimination).
Ultimately, though, the cost will more likely fall on riders (all riders, that is), not drivers; the rational response here from Uber will be to raise the cost of every ride slightly, in order to cover the added cost to transport people with disabilities.
> the rational response here from Uber will be to raise the cost of every ride slightly, in order to cover the added cost to transport people with disabilities.
And ironically, one of the reasons a lot of people like Uber is because it's cheaper than cabs... because it ignores regulations. Complying with regulations has a cost.
A user with a disability books an Uber. They are unable to get to the Uber within the allotted time. The driver leaves. The customer then books another Uber, and this time successfully makes the trip. The customer calls Uber to refund the cancellation fee, which Uber does. Uber is then out the time the first driver took to reach the destination, the driving time, and the cost of the customer service contact (which can be quite expensive). They also have to deal with reputational and regulatory risk. This isn't an invented scenario - I've seen this happen.
Wouldn't it be less costly for Uber for the driver to just wait an extra 5 minutes?
> How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
There are already systems for allowing people with disabilities to qualify for reduced fares or paratransit - typically involving having your doctor send a letter to the local transit agency. Uber could either replicate such a system, or they could accept documentation from a local transit agency or they could allow people to self-designate and eat the cost of fraud (my guess is that stigma and lack of awareness of the program will prevent a lot of people from fraudulently using it).
> Should all disabilities be treated equally?
> Who decides how much time should be granter per?
Ideally you'd make a decision based on an individual's needs, but if I was a product manager for Uber I'd just just set a high limit for everyone who qualified for the program initially and then figure out later if something more complex is needed based on how much time drivers are actually waiting. If this program helps Uber reduce the number of cancellation/re-bookings/1-star reviews
> Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?
Yes, temporary disabilities are disabilities.
> Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
Yes, for exactly the reason you mentioned
> Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
First, I'm not convinced that Uber having to pay for extra waiting time is against UBER's best interest - see the scenario above. But even if it were on balance a net cost to Uber, society has an interest in ensuring that everyone is able to travel and do all the things that travel enables (any kind of in-person commerce, healthcare, etc).
Being disabled you get to experience the wonders of the free and efficient market every day.
For example when you need to go somewhere, as a rational actor you can choose with your wallet:
* You can choose to go by foot using the sidewalks that aren't accessible.
* You can choose to use public transport which is not accessible.
* You can call a cab and pay an exorbitant amount as long as you don't tell them that you're disabled or they won't come and they might still leave when they see you.
* You can call an Uber which is quite pricy as well as long as you don't tell them you're disabled or they won't come and they might still leave when they see you.
Thankfully after three years of bureaucratic mazes and appeals, the magnanimous state has granted you benefits, although they don't constitute a living wage and don't allow you to pay rent nor food. (The glorious free market has given you a choice of one of twelve accessible dwellings in a radius of a 100km so that you may rationally choose the lowest rent.)
Since you can't pay for rent and food and transportation you'll need to find a job to pay for your lavish lifestyle. Now if it's before 2020 don't expect remote work, disability associations have been asking for it for 10 years for jobs that don't require physical presence but as everyone knows that's entitlement of the highest order. Although if it's after 2020 then it stops being entitlement because the average person needs it and wants it.
Now if you've managed to get yourself an education before hand, despite your health issues, your inability to go outside, and your general standing as a second-class citizen, then you should be able to get a remote job, and even if it stops being remote you should be able to pay to go there using the methods listed above. Although if you make below or up to the median salary, it'll cost your more to go to and from work than what you earn there, also you no longer have your benefits. But at least you get to be part of society as long as it's the only place you go because leisure is entitlement.
This is not fiction, this is how I got my first job, although Uber wasn't a thing back then, and you couldn't be remote. Also I didn't have benefits, I did freelance while I was doing a Masters at a college I couldn't attend because of transportation costs, save for the exams. Then when I got my first job I did pay more than my salary in cab fares using my savings and the rest of my college loans until I could move up and get a higher salary.
If society decides that a sacrifice should be made in favor of a disabled Uber customer, society should incur that cost and compensate the Uber driver the market rate for their time.
Wait fees, in this case, are not being used (in the abstract) to discriminate because there is an time cost inherent in this business model that somebody needs to inur.
Should society also pay grocery stores for lost throughput when someone with a disability takes longer to check out? Where exactly does this line of logic end?
I think people feel differently about Uber's situation because unlike a grocery cashier who must spend extra time assisting a slower customer, an Uber driver isn't getting paid in the meantime.
Uber is a marketplace not an employer. They're like an Ebay but for car rides. Does Ebay owe you money if you wasted your time listing an item that didn't sell?
Good questions. Are they going to lose business because of lower throughput?
Ultimately the nature of codifying altruism in the law is that someone must sacrifice for someone else; the sacrificer and as well as the recipient of the sacrifice are subject to an Overton window.
When a private business has to meet the legal demands set out by laws governing serving disabilities, it is up to the business in question to shoulder those costs, not society.
Don't like it? Close down shop. Someone else's business will replace you, you won't be missed, and life will go on.
It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be bribed so that they follow the law.
It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if certain regulations aren't met. Requiring companies to support certain things doesn't suddenly make them free.
Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.
>> It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be bribed so that they follow the law.
> It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if certain regulations aren't met.
And, to be very clear, this is done constantly. If you leave your home to go anywhere but a nature walk, I guarantee you you pass within close range of at least entity that is getting/generating some sort of rebate or similar for following a regular. Energy rebates alone are everywhere you look.
> Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.
Right. In this case, the question is: should Uber riders as a whole shoulder the cost of accommodations for disabled people (presumably Uber could make the price of every ride slightly more expensive in order to compensate for the added cost for disabled riders), or should society as a whole bear this cost (via taxes and subsidies), including people who don't use Uber?
I think a reasonable argument could be made for either, honestly.
Looking at this uber charged folks with disabilities on the same basis as those without, not differently. So the discrimination claim is that they should have not charged folks with disabilities the waiting fee.
not to pick a side, but doesn't the crux of the lawsuit fail if uber is now waiving wait fees for people who have a disability? or are they also going after drivers who cancel/harass riders who have disabilities, similar to what happened with lyft?
In 2017 had a broken knee, hand, and ribs. Lived on the fourth floor of a building with no elevator. Only left to go to physical therapy, and took me a half hour to scoot down the stairs to the sidewalk. When Uber drivers saw me in my braces and crutches they'd drive off - and it makes you feel like shit when you already can barely move, then something like that happens.
Lyft drivers, as I learned, were trained to help disabled people get into the car and were just so obscenely kinds about the whole ordeal. Getting back up the stairs was about an hour long process. Early on had at least 5 Lyft drivers turn off their pickups and help me get back to my apartment.
When you're in a state of limited mobility and vulnerability like that, that kind of kindness is unimaginably appreciated. But it's a culture thing, even if the drivers are just "gig" workers - whatever Lyft was doing brought about folks that'd help you get laid down and comfortable in the back seat, and sometimes, without request, insist they help you up the stairs even if it took them nearly an hour.
I was cash strapped at the time and gave the most generous tips I could, but most folks refused it. It's just wild that whatever top-level edicts were at Uber versus Lyft, the level of compassion displayed varied so much.
118 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 34.9 ms ] threadI feel bad for the drivers. I have kids and I know it takes me longer to get in the car than just an adult. I wish there was a way to indicate in the app "traveling with kids" so the driver could get a bonus for picking me up, which I'd gladly pay for.
But in this case, Uber should still pay the driver the waiting fee but not charge the rider. It should be on Uber to cover this cost of doing business.
In DC, there's an initial fee (charged for the pickup and first 1/8 mile). Additional wait-time fees start accruing after 5 minutes. Mileage/time fees then get added by the meter as the ride progresses. This formula applies to all taxis - wheelchair or not.
Of course I don't think that the complaint here is only about wheelchairs.
Turns out that there are a lot of financial incentives available from city/state/federal governments for attaching the taxi medallion to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
By trying to be fair to specific groups, you tend to make things unfair for others.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...
Haha
I'd be surprised if it were even 1%. As far as I'm aware, stock passenger vehicles are never wheelchair accessible -- it requires some expensive aftermarket hardware to be installed.
I was thinking about "Worldwide AggreGate" or something like that when i've read your comment.
So it can really range from needing a bit of help to needing a special vehicle.
The same reason we require businesses to install wheelchair ramps.
A business has to follow all laws. If a business can't do that in a cost effective manner that is the business's problem and not the law's.
Laws also aren't always all good or all bad. Sometimes they include both positive and negative consequences. Making it more expensive to do business is a tradeoff that society has decided to accept in the name of making the world more accessible to people with disabilities.
If Uber can't afford to pay for it and/or they lose drivers because drivers refuse to pay for it, those are Uber's problems and not the law's.
It becomes a problem for the citizens when the cost of this policy causes prices to skyrocket due to artificial scarcity.
It's about kindness. These companies want to treat ALL customers as the least expensive user. Don't you realize that this demeans YOU and much s it does the disabled?
ADA exemptions exist for small companies where it would be unreasonable to bear the additional costs.
Fundamentally it's a political question of what kind of society we want, do we want one where cities have to make curb cuts in sidewalks or do we want one in which it is extremely difficult for wheelchair users to use sidewalks. The balance the US has currently settled on is that small business is largely exempt, and larger businesses must accommodate.
It should be noted that this case has not been ruled against Uber yet, and that the suit revolves around wait times, not wheelchair accessible cars.
To be honest once accessibility standards are adopted by society at large they are not very expensive in general. It is however, VERY expensive when accessible goods and services are not provided at scale.
Poor and handicap people will suffer more so from a price hike resulting from your suggestion — disabled people should just pay more because (1)they are taking up more time to service and (2)they receive benefits that everyone else doesn’t to compensate for such scenarios. The way it is currently setup is likely the most optimal configuration for all parties involved.
If we used your plan, there would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive. This isn't really any different than any other similar legislation/regulation (ADA, etc).
This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.
There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people.
And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause".
It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases".
And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
Existing legislation doesn't require all vehicles, or even all commercial vehicles to be handicap accessible. Hell they don't even require that vehicles be made such that they can be converted to handicap accessible. Current legislation requires that accommodations are available, not that they are ubiquitous. We put wheelchair ramps on buildings because without them there is no way for a wheelchair bound person to get in, but it's fine if there are stairs as well.
Currently, in most cities, a certain number/% of taxis are required to be wheelchair-accessible. It's a bare minimum, usually with wait time well in excess of what the rest of us would consider reasonable (DC states it averages 45 minutes, but I can call a cab in 10-15 minutes notice or hail one on the street in less time than that).
If there was a market for equivalent service for wheelchair-bound customers, it would exist already. The market simply doesn't exist, at least not in any way that makes financial sense. So we have regulations to force it.
Having a blind family member who encounters similar issues on a daily basis, I'm totally fine with socializing the cost of her accommodations. To do otherwise would just be greedy and mean.
If you are waiting longer for a specialty service, you are in essence paying a premium for it (your time has value). If people were willing to pay more for the service, more cars would voluntarily provide the service, and they would get served faster.
I'm also fine with socializing the costs. Put a tax in place to pay for this public service. Commanding Uber to do it on their own is essentially just a regressive tax on uber customers.
You are right, they should pay, but we certainly should not rely on their goodwill or initiative to do so.
I don't know if you comment a crazy amount, or I just agree with everything you say, but it's literally happened 30-40 times.
Uber is displacing taxi and should be held to the same standards.
If they knew they were getting extra money they'd be less likely to penalize me for it.
There was another incident which was caused by a very poor UI decision by Uber (or maybe just a bug). She scheduled a ride in advance from her work to a doctor's office. Then when she went to get a ride home (this time in real time, not scheduling in advance), the origin was set by default to the last place she scheduled a ride from - her workplace, NOT her current location at the doctor's office. She didn't realize that Uber wasn't doing its usual thing of setting the origin to your current location, so the driver showed up at her workplace. She ended up paying the driver cash to come to the doctor's office and pick her up from there.
> The lawsuit seeks relief from the court, including ordering Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the department asks the court to order Uber to modify its wait time fee policy to comply with the ADA; train its staff and drivers on the ADA; pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees; and pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.
It makes sense that disability accommodations should be part of Uber's normal service standard and supported by their technology.
- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
- Should all disabilities be treated equally?
- Who decides how much time should be granter per?
- Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?
- Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
- Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
You are relying on "ethical" principles that I would say are alien to the vast majority of people.
There is no reason why Pareto efficiency should be ethically prioritized if the alternative is welfare enhancing in the aggregate.
edit: I'm new to the concept of pareto efficiency, so hopefully this reads more as a sincere question rather than a challenge to your opinion
Imagine a situation with two people and a state-like actor.
One person has all of the food in the entire world minus one loaf of bread. The other person has one loaf of bread. After they eat that loaf, they will probably die of starvation in the next 30 days.
This is a Pareto efficient distribution.
If the state-like actor intervened and re-distributed some of the food to the other person (with coercion), I would argue that aggregate welfare would be improved.
Your point makes sense to me now though, so thanks
Doesn't really play out that way in actual real life (people still starve every day and both you and i probably have the resources to stop at least one of those starvation deaths), so didn't think of including this altruism in my toy model
It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency, it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto efficient distribution, and not the most welfare enhancing one.
What if neither person can make bread and the other just happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is burdening who?
And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth distributions are really derived from consensual interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively violent takings?
I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.
None. However, part of the role of government (I would likely say it's entire role) is to make society as a whole better. It does this by imposing rules (obligations) on members of that society (taxes, a force to enforce the concept of private property, etc).
In the toy case described above, it is likely to the benefit of society to have both members survive and one member be unhappy; rather than have one member survive, but be happier. Hence, the government enforces an obligation on the first person to share their food.
Pareto efficiency is defined to be an economic state where resources cannot be reallocated to make one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. If a redistribution can make things better, it is not an efficient state.
Okay, with work, let's say they are given the bare minimum to survive and they will get their work done (no rational reason to offer a higher wage). It would still be welfare enhancing to re-distribute.
> If a redistribution can make things better, it is not an efficient state.
This is just straight-up false, no other comment. Not what Pareto efficiency. The redistribution makes the person taken from worse off.
Again, that is the definition of pareto efficiency.
With only two people, the most efficient thing to do is to trade it for the bare minimum the other person needs to survive. Beyond that is not Pareto efficient.
So long as you have surplus, and that surplus has value, it makes sense to trade it, rather than have it sit idle.
It does not become Pareto efficient until person A is worse off by trading bread, by which point they no longer have enough to completely satisfy their needs.
Arguing that this policy would render some consensual exchanges illicit is irrelevant, because I don't think the most ethical outcome is axiomatically realized by solely consensual exchange without any coercion.
Are these sorts of things considered "disabilities" though, from the perspective of ADA and other disability-related laws? A bunch of years ago I broke my foot and was on crutches for 8 weeks. I don't recall it being that difficult to get to my Ubers in time (they may have been more lax with wait time back in 2014). It didn't occur to me to even think I should be entitled to extra time.
> - Should all disabilities be treated equally?
I would assume not? IIRC the key phrase in disability cases is "reasonable accommodation". I think it's reasonable to grant someone extra time if they have a mobility issue, but perhaps not if they have something like diabetes?
- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
That might not matter? From what I understand, the ADA (and similar laws) are worded and interpreted to give the person claiming a disability the benefit of the doubt. I would guess that Uber is expected to eat the cost of fraud here, unless they can prove in specific instances fraud occurred. In general, though, the opposite case is much worse: denying an accommodation because you (erroneously) believe no accommodation is needed can get you in big trouble.
> - Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
Personally I would say yes, definitely. I know this isn't how Uber works from the driver perspective, but the "meter" should start running as soon as the driver gets to the pickup spot. Uber eats (or builds in) the cost of a reasonable "grace period" for riders, which is Uber's decision. Ignoring the disability question, if Uber drivers were truly independent contractors and had full autonomy, they could certainly decide to give riders zero time: either be at the pickup location already when the driver arrives, or you miss your ride. (Not saying this is a good policy, but in theory this could be something that's allowed; pre-Uber taxis in San Francisco would sometimes do this, and it sucked.)
Not sure if Uber should specifically note "this person is disabled so you'll be getting a little more money as compensation for waiting longer"; probably not? Though I guess after they accept the ride and arrive at the pickup point, they'll see their required pickup wait time be 8 minutes instead of 4 (or whatever), so they'll at least know at that point.
> - Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver?
Because, despite Uber's insistence that drivers are independent contractors and are not employees, Uber still sets ride pricing and does not give drivers all that much flexibility in what fares they are willing to take (that is, they don't give drivers much information up-front about fare details, to avoid discrimination).
Ultimately, though, the cost will more likely fall on riders (all riders, that is), not drivers; the rational response here from Uber will be to raise the cost of every ride slightly, in order to cover the added cost to transport people with disabilities.
And ironically, one of the reasons a lot of people like Uber is because it's cheaper than cabs... because it ignores regulations. Complying with regulations has a cost.
A user with a disability books an Uber. They are unable to get to the Uber within the allotted time. The driver leaves. The customer then books another Uber, and this time successfully makes the trip. The customer calls Uber to refund the cancellation fee, which Uber does. Uber is then out the time the first driver took to reach the destination, the driving time, and the cost of the customer service contact (which can be quite expensive). They also have to deal with reputational and regulatory risk. This isn't an invented scenario - I've seen this happen.
Wouldn't it be less costly for Uber for the driver to just wait an extra 5 minutes?
> How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?
There are already systems for allowing people with disabilities to qualify for reduced fares or paratransit - typically involving having your doctor send a letter to the local transit agency. Uber could either replicate such a system, or they could accept documentation from a local transit agency or they could allow people to self-designate and eat the cost of fraud (my guess is that stigma and lack of awareness of the program will prevent a lot of people from fraudulently using it).
> Should all disabilities be treated equally? > Who decides how much time should be granter per?
Ideally you'd make a decision based on an individual's needs, but if I was a product manager for Uber I'd just just set a high limit for everyone who qualified for the program initially and then figure out later if something more complex is needed based on how much time drivers are actually waiting. If this program helps Uber reduce the number of cancellation/re-bookings/1-star reviews
> Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?
Yes, temporary disabilities are disabilities.
> Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?
Yes, for exactly the reason you mentioned
> Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?
First, I'm not convinced that Uber having to pay for extra waiting time is against UBER's best interest - see the scenario above. But even if it were on balance a net cost to Uber, society has an interest in ensuring that everyone is able to travel and do all the things that travel enables (any kind of in-person commerce, healthcare, etc).
For example when you need to go somewhere, as a rational actor you can choose with your wallet:
* You can choose to go by foot using the sidewalks that aren't accessible.
* You can choose to use public transport which is not accessible.
* You can call a cab and pay an exorbitant amount as long as you don't tell them that you're disabled or they won't come and they might still leave when they see you.
* You can call an Uber which is quite pricy as well as long as you don't tell them you're disabled or they won't come and they might still leave when they see you.
Thankfully after three years of bureaucratic mazes and appeals, the magnanimous state has granted you benefits, although they don't constitute a living wage and don't allow you to pay rent nor food. (The glorious free market has given you a choice of one of twelve accessible dwellings in a radius of a 100km so that you may rationally choose the lowest rent.)
Since you can't pay for rent and food and transportation you'll need to find a job to pay for your lavish lifestyle. Now if it's before 2020 don't expect remote work, disability associations have been asking for it for 10 years for jobs that don't require physical presence but as everyone knows that's entitlement of the highest order. Although if it's after 2020 then it stops being entitlement because the average person needs it and wants it.
Now if you've managed to get yourself an education before hand, despite your health issues, your inability to go outside, and your general standing as a second-class citizen, then you should be able to get a remote job, and even if it stops being remote you should be able to pay to go there using the methods listed above. Although if you make below or up to the median salary, it'll cost your more to go to and from work than what you earn there, also you no longer have your benefits. But at least you get to be part of society as long as it's the only place you go because leisure is entitlement.
This is not fiction, this is how I got my first job, although Uber wasn't a thing back then, and you couldn't be remote. Also I didn't have benefits, I did freelance while I was doing a Masters at a college I couldn't attend because of transportation costs, save for the exams. Then when I got my first job I did pay more than my salary in cab fares using my savings and the rest of my college loans until I could move up and get a higher salary.
If society decides that a sacrifice should be made in favor of a disabled Uber customer, society should incur that cost and compensate the Uber driver the market rate for their time.
Wait fees, in this case, are not being used (in the abstract) to discriminate because there is an time cost inherent in this business model that somebody needs to inur.
Ultimately the nature of codifying altruism in the law is that someone must sacrifice for someone else; the sacrificer and as well as the recipient of the sacrifice are subject to an Overton window.
Don't like it? Close down shop. Someone else's business will replace you, you won't be missed, and life will go on.
It's outrageous to suggest that private businesses have to be bribed so that they follow the law.
Either way, society eventually shoulders the costs. It just comes down to which members shoulder it more.
> It's not about "bribing". It's about using positive incentive-based economic policy instead of outright bans if certain regulations aren't met.
And, to be very clear, this is done constantly. If you leave your home to go anywhere but a nature walk, I guarantee you you pass within close range of at least entity that is getting/generating some sort of rebate or similar for following a regular. Energy rebates alone are everywhere you look.
Right. In this case, the question is: should Uber riders as a whole shoulder the cost of accommodations for disabled people (presumably Uber could make the price of every ride slightly more expensive in order to compensate for the added cost for disabled riders), or should society as a whole bear this cost (via taxes and subsidies), including people who don't use Uber?
I think a reasonable argument could be made for either, honestly.
Does the government keep it or does the government distribute it to all who were impacted?
not to pick a side, but doesn't the crux of the lawsuit fail if uber is now waiving wait fees for people who have a disability? or are they also going after drivers who cancel/harass riders who have disabilities, similar to what happened with lyft?
Lyft drivers, as I learned, were trained to help disabled people get into the car and were just so obscenely kinds about the whole ordeal. Getting back up the stairs was about an hour long process. Early on had at least 5 Lyft drivers turn off their pickups and help me get back to my apartment.
When you're in a state of limited mobility and vulnerability like that, that kind of kindness is unimaginably appreciated. But it's a culture thing, even if the drivers are just "gig" workers - whatever Lyft was doing brought about folks that'd help you get laid down and comfortable in the back seat, and sometimes, without request, insist they help you up the stairs even if it took them nearly an hour.
I was cash strapped at the time and gave the most generous tips I could, but most folks refused it. It's just wild that whatever top-level edicts were at Uber versus Lyft, the level of compassion displayed varied so much.