I don't use a guide dog, but I do ask taxi/ Uber drivers to get out of the car and provide door to door service especially if I'm going between less familiar areas.
Oftentimes they will hide for five minutes then leave and claim a fee for a no-show.
The forum dwellers on uberpeople.net call this a 'shuffle'.
While I've had more good experiences than bad, I'm glad to see that Uber looking the other way on this stuff isn't being tolerated anymore.
Awesome! I don't have a guide dog but this is a great win!
I've gotten several drivers removed from the app because of this. It happens about once every couple months for me.
Annoying since I need to use it to get to and from work.
#5 (edited by bashue 2021-04-04 00:23:01)
I don't like that people must be bullied into doing the right thing. It's common sense for people with guidedogs are allowed into any vehicle that is considered to be a taxy. Uber isn't the only company guilty of discrimination; I say the company but I really mean the people who work for uber and other taxy companies. I myself would not have done anything punitive because I don't believe that we need to fight fire with fire. Better to reason than to bully, even if such courses of action results in people being forced to do that which is right, decent, propper and good. I'm sorry but I cannot support/condone/endorse/agree with any kind of arbitration, litigation or any process whereby someone is impoverished as a punishment while the injured party benefits from the misfortune of the one or ones being punished. The only thing I can and do agree with is the fact that the uber drivers are being trained so that they do not discriminate. Also, I wouldn't remove drivers but train them to not discriminate. If they refuse to comply then they should be free to walk out and find other jobs with other companies whereby they don't have to work with too many people.
Kind regards, Amin Abdullah.
@5 the ada exists for a reason. It's not being used at its full potential. Short and simple.
That's simply not how the world works.
It's very easy, if you see a topic about BGT, simply don't reply to it.
If you're thinking about creating a topic about BGT, just don't.
Doing these things will cause all such topics to sink to oblivion.
@5 Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you, but in this case, it was justified. My reasoning is simple. She had already tried the reasoning with them up to this point. It got to the point where she lost her job, which is an entire kettle of fish on its own, but I digress. Considering the difficulties of a blind person getting work, and the high living costs of the city, I'd say that's probably about what the damages are worth. Maybe less, but as the video states, arbetrators can do whatever they feel like. In this case, it worked out real well for her. Besides, arbitrators are like a jury of your peers on the bench rather than just a jury, so I don't feel to bad for Uber here. For once, anyways.
Yeah I mean, sure, try the carrot first but by all accounts Uber drivers are bad about disabilities anywhere that's generally bad about disabilities, if that makes sense, and all the alternatives are you wait 3 hours for your disability shuttle window, or you pay too much money to be able to travel regularly. Being nice isn't always an option. "I can never support litigation" is a really naive stance, and if you're in a situation where you're able to maintain that stance then you're very lucky to have never encountered a major blindness problem like this.
I doubt this will do much though. People keep litigating this, but the fact of the matter is that unless Uber starts classifying drivers as employees and implements a ton of monitoring stuff that they don't have, the most they can do is offer training and kick drivers off if you complain, both of which it's my understanding they already do as it is. This is going to just keep happening forever. Uber can only take symbolic action here unless they're willing to run themselves out of business or charge as much as normal taxis. Maybe they'll surprise me and there's something they can change that's not symbolic, but what are you going to do? Stick an Uber employee in every car? Something silly like disability quotas? Ask us all to disclose that we're blind in the app, a strategy which is bound to work amazingly anywhere where this is already a problem because showing that to a driver who would ditch you ahead of time is sure to make them super happy to be your driver and not at all passive aggressive?
#10 (edited by bashue 2021-04-04 14:17:19)
I would willingly state that I am totally blind on the app if such an option presents itself, even if that results in most drivers not picking me up. I'd rather be as honest as possible even if doing so causes me to be disadvantaged. The reason for this isn't because I'm a glutton for punishment but because I believe in the golden rule; treat others as you would like to be treated even if they do not do the same to you. How then do I treat those drivers who have refused to pick me up for the past 5 years because I told them that I'm totally blind? Quite simply, I did not complain to uber and I asked for another driver. I tend to request rides at least half an hour to an hour in advance so that I don't have to worry about being late. I then right reviews, rate 5 star and tip any drivers that are helpful and who do not discriminate. I also don't just go for the cheapest options available for example the uber pool where you have to share a ride with another. I did try the luxury option because it was only £4 more than the regular uber X. To sum up, those who are reprehensible are skipped, don't get rated, reviewed or tipped while those who are helpful and friendly get glowing reviews, ratings and tips. Having said all that, I do acknowledge that the attitudes of the uber drivers who are reprehensible must change and they cannot get away with it. I know for a fact however that no matter how long it takes, said drivers will have to answer to someone in authority; in other words, they'll get theirs. Each and every one of us must improve a little or be damned.
10, the problem is in some areas, you might have to wait more than half an hour for a car. Second, you might not be able to find one or not have that long to wait. Its hilarious how the company wouldn't let her take it to court and used arbitration instead, and she still won damages.
Indeed. Proper preperation is always a good idea. I don't think 10 meant those numbers specifically for every case. I think the point was put in some preperations for rejection in your timeline. For some, though, that still may not be possible. Really, though, this should make further unpleasantries more unnecessary. I think with Uber losing in the best possible venue for them, might make some improvements around the app if only to avoid another award like that from happening. I suppose they could only make such a thing available to those in california, but that sounds like more work than its worth. Really, though, I'm surprised Uber hasn't packed it up from california. Ah well. Like I said, @10, hopefully this case makes further ones completely unnecessary. I am with you on how distasteful it is to do litigation, but sometimes, it becomes unavoidable if you don't want this to keep happening to you or others. Plus, again, the damages she specifically incurred, she earned that judgement, I think.
Thanks guys; your arguments are well reasoned and I do sincerely hope that uber never discriminates again. Also, my asking for an uber for half an hour to an hour in advance is only a general time frame and it's true that I do prefer to either schedual in advance or book well before I actually need to set out. Indeed there are cases where such preparations are not possible however and in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to do this.
the point here is If you as an uber driver do not want a dog in your car, then don't be an uber driver. it's simple. Because there's always that chance that a blind person will have a guide dog and that you as a driver will get that blind person as a potential customer.
I've always thought it prudent for rideshare companies to include a button in the rider's profile to address service dogs. You don't even have to let them know you're blind, for example, just that you have one and it must accompany you. In some cases there are people with a dog allergy, and I think they should still be able to do this, but they should have the option to farely object the service dog as soon as the ride pops up rather than well... what we have now; where basically they can pull up, see it, and ride off when technically doing nothing wrong. We can't really fault them for being blindsided with an animal they weren't expecting / may not be able to have, rather it's the company's fault for not having a reliable way of making that clear right at the start apart from the rider messaging.
Have a nice day!
Being averse to litigation when other methods aren't working is just naïve. I'm sorry.
I agree, however, that the easiest fix for this problem is to add an option so that people with service animals can declare the animal when requesting the trip. This would let those with allergies or whatnot simply not take the ride, instead of taking it and then rejecting it. My baseline stance here is that both sides have a responsibility toward one another. Since Uber drivers are using their own vehicles, they should have the right to refuse a service animal if they wish. I am firm on this. But at the same time, service animal users should be required to disclose the animal when requesting a ride. As far as I'm concerned, if a user discloses an animal, and a driver who took the ride with this knowledge rejects them, the driver should face consequences. But I'll flip it over, too; a user who does not declare an animal and who gets a driver who ultimately rejects them/drives off due to the presence of said animal should not be able to press for consequences. Responsibility on both sides.
Hmm. That's a rather... un-Jayde like post. I generally agree with the post, though. My only "issue" is the first part, but even then, I agree with it. Naive it might be, but humans do a lot of naive things. Indeed, living in the US where litigation is all but a national passtime, I think it shows some restraint to use such a last resort with a sober outlook. Litigation is not supposed to be something that doesn't give you pause. I can see why someone would be adverse to it, even in the end, they may have no choice.
Actually, no. If you think about it, it's not unlike me at all. Here's why.
People have been facing access issues off and on pretty much forever. Sometimes you can just ask for better, and you'll get it. Where feasible, this is the best choice. But it's often been made clear that doing t his is not enough. Sometimes, using more force is necessary...and yeah, sometimes that does mean litigation. If all your other options fail, then refusing to litigate just because you don't want to be mean essentially implies that you're going to get walked on, and you're okay with that. And, as I said, there comes a point where progress is necessary.
If I'm representing a client in an advocacy situation, I would usually start by writing a letter which basically says, "Hi, I'm representing so-and-so. This is the situation. I'd like to speak to you about a solution, and my solution looks like x. Please get in touch by this date. If we can't come to terms, I will be reaching out to other sources". So it's pressure from the start, mixed with a willingness to play ball. And that's the stance I'd take right up till I either got what I was after, had it proven beyond all doubt that the advocacy was asked for in bad faith, or found out that more aggressive tactics were necessary. Playing nice, unfortunately, gets you only so far.
Oh no. While I don't see you as the type to wake up in the morning, and twirl your mustache thinking about who you were going to sue that day, you strike me as a guy with no problems getting the court involved when necessary. What I'm refering to is:
Since Uber drivers are using their own vehicles, they should have the right to refuse a service animal if they wish. I am firm on this.
I agree and understand your reasoning behind this comment, just didn't expect you to write these sentences down, let alone make the surrounding argument.
Uber drivers are voluntarily using their own vehicles, which means they get to deal with animals leaving hair and dander and heaven knows what else in said vehicles. So apart from all the wear and tear and stuff, they're also being asked to carry animals. Now, don't get me wrong; I think if you want to drive for Uber, you should strongly consider right up front your stance on animals in your car, and if you can't do it, you should double-check and see if this is still what you want to do for a job. But I also recognize that people can't always choose their best job, and that Uber isn't exactly a thing most people are clamouring to do. As such, sometimes people are in a bad place and still want the autonomy to decide that no, they do not in fact want someone's service animal in their car.
That said, a refusal for any reason, or unreasonable wait times because nobody will take your ride, are both ridiculous and they both make me angry. Drivers who know there's a service animal involved, take the ride and then refuse it when they see the animal should absolutely face discipline. This isn't carte blanche for people to abuse service animal handlers, not by any stretch. I just think some consideration has to be given to drivers like this.
Less so for taxis, however, since even when a cab driver owns their vehicle, it is not their personal transportation. Also, the laws which protect and support taxi drivers also hold them to higher standards than do those involving Uber drivers. A taxi should never, under any circumstances, reject a service animal; that's against the law, as it should be.