[HN Gopher] Uber pays millions resolving DOJ lawsuit for overcha...
___________________________________________________________________
Uber pays millions resolving DOJ lawsuit for overcharging disabled
people
Author : vegetablepotpie
Score : 149 points
Date : 2022-07-21 14:52 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.justice.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.justice.gov)
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I'm glad for this finding, I suppose, but the world discriminates
| against disabled people in many more ways than this without any
| obvious recourse. As just a personal example, I'm over 6 ft with
| 10 screws in my spine and _really_ can 't ride in the back seat
| of a standard sedan for more than a few minutes without being in
| quite a bit of pain. Ever since Uber started the "no passengers
| in the front seat" policy thanks to Covid, that means I can only
| take Uber XL, which costs more no matter what. It's even worse
| for air travel, since I can only travel 1st class for anything
| more than a local flight. Airlines are only annoying most people
| when they squeeze us for space to the bare minimum of an average-
| sized, completely healthy person, but for others, they've giving
| us spasms and leaving us hobbled for hours after the flight.
| mjevans wrote:
| Instead of a seat I'd prefer padded roller beds like that
| commercial starship in the 5th Element (movie). Please let me
| relax in an isolated storage pod. Bonus if these are modular
| and can be loaded in the terminal then computer packed into the
| aircraft.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Anyone read what happened to that self driver who killed that
| pedesterian ... Uber threw them under the bus.
|
| Even after Travis they continue to be an Uber disgusting company.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-car-fatal-cras...
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Uber threw them under the bus._
|
| Modern times call for modern idioms: "threw them in front of
| the Uber".
| paul7986 wrote:
| Indeed and of course I am downvoted for pointing out their
| Uber trashy behavior! Which is relevant to the post/the
| article noting their disgusting behavior against the
| disabled.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The driver was watching videos on their phone instead of
| watching the road. They are not a good target for your
| sympathy, independent of whether you also hate Uber.
| sushid wrote:
| Did you read the article? She was allegedly doing her job,
| looking at her work phone from time to time. Her personal
| phone playing a Hulu show was in the passenger seat (which
| she apparently was listening to).
|
| > When Vasquez was looking at that phone for several seconds
| at a time, the defense writes, she was monitoring the company
| Slack, "doing her job." Her personal phone, on the other
| hand, was significantly farther away, on the passenger seat.
| This differs from what Vasquez told the NTSB, but her
| attorneys argue the video is clear, and exculpatory: After
| the crash, the dashcam shows her reaching over to the
| passenger side to grab her personal phone and call 911.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't see why this is exculpatory at all -- she was not
| supposed to be reading Slack messages, she was supposed to
| be watching the road, per the law. Uber did not give her
| permission to break the law when convenient.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| I occasionally lose my eyesight due to a neurological condition.
| Getting either an Uber or a Lyft while visually disabled is a bit
| of a crap-shoot. Half the drivers I've summoned would just give
| up when I asked them to honk their horn or shout so I could hear
| where they were parked.
|
| "Millions" are just a minor inconvenience for either company.
| They'll factor it into their cost of doing business and get the
| next round of investors to fund it. Sadly, this kind of thing is
| going to go on for a while.
| thewebcount wrote:
| I'm glad they got a fine, but I'm concerned that a) they'll go
| right back to discriminating when the 2-year period mentioned is
| up, and b) I'm not sure requiring the user to get a waiver is the
| right approach. It's more PII that Uber now stores and can be
| used to discriminate in other ways that might not be detectable
| from the outside.
| foobiekr wrote:
| It's Uber. Of _course_ they will go right back to doing
| something unethical when the heat is off. It may not even last
| two years.
|
| I really have come to believe that computer science and EE
| programs should include two mandatory semesters in ethics. So
| many of the companies in the space are laughably, comic-book-
| villian-level bad. People defend them because they also pay
| super well.
| hulitu wrote:
| I'm sure that UBER will follow the law as they always did. /s
| viscanti wrote:
| Could it be that they launched a feature to compensate drivers
| for waiting around (not getting paid as the customer only pays
| for on trip time) and they didn't intend to discriminate? I get
| that big tech companies are evil, but is the theory that they
| intentionally wanted to cause harm to disabled people? That
| doesn't seem to be supported by their actions once they were
| notified about the issue so it's weird to see concern about
| them doing it again in two years.
|
| For customers who aren't disabled, should they be able to make
| drivers wait around for a long time or should they pay? If they
| should pay, how else would they give exemptions to disabled
| people? If they shouldn't pay, then why would drivers sit
| around not making money? It seems like it's fair to compensate
| those drivers for their time (most jobs work like that) and if
| people don't have a good reason for that, they should be paying
| for the time they're making that driver wait.
| pineaux wrote:
| Are you saying disabled people should pay more?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Why shouldn't they? They use more of service in this case
| time. So of course they should pay for it.
| wolpoli wrote:
| They shouldn't because the government is mandating
| equity, not equality.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Isn't paying same for same work(in this case time spend
| servicing them) exactly equity? And not being forced to
| pay is not equity?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| No. You don't pay Uber for someone's time, you pay Uber
| for rides.
|
| You're confusing equity and equality.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Aren't you paying for person to provide you a time slot
| in their vehicle plus distance travelled? So equity would
| be to pay for both for same rate as anyone else.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Google "equity vs equality". There are people out there
| explaining the difference you're missing better than I
| could.
| frumper wrote:
| No, you're paying Uber to go from point A to B. Uber
| decides what to pay drivers.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Which is billed by time and distance. Thus having to pay
| the same for both is equity.
| frumper wrote:
| The customer doesn't set any of that. That is between
| Uber and their drivers. Uber has a legal obligation to
| not charge different prices with reasonable
| accommodations to someone because they're disabled. They
| can of course pay the driver more, but that is between
| the driver and Uber.
| [deleted]
| dimensi0nal wrote:
| > Why shouldn't they?
|
| Reasonable accommodations.
| pxeboot wrote:
| Is it still reasonable if it makes a contractor earn
| below minimum wage?
| dimensi0nal wrote:
| Is it still reasonable if it makes a small business spend
| thousands of dollars on a ramp?
| frumper wrote:
| As a society we said that is a reasonable cost of doing
| business in the US. Reasonable accommodations, it is the
| law of the land.
| collegeburner wrote:
| "the law of the land" is a really shitty argument for
| supporting something when its questioned. its an unfair
| burden on small businesses. large enough ones probably
| get enough business it makes sense to install.
| frumper wrote:
| Society had this debate in 1990 and it was more than a
| super majority that supported ADA. You're welcome to go
| look up about that debate that made it the law of the
| land, many people on this board are old enough to
| remember it. I promise you that people brought up the
| burden on small businesses back then too. It's not even a
| hard calculus to make if you're starting a new business.
| Is it worth it for me to open my business while paying
| the costs to ensure that everyone has reasonable access
| to my services. If you choose to put in steps, or have an
| old building with steps then you can decide the
| tradeoffs. If you're renting you can probably negotiate
| those costs with your landlord as the improvements will
| continue beyond your lease. These aren't surprise costs,
| they can be made ahead of time to decide if you have a
| viable business.
| Aerroon wrote:
| I've always wondered about stances like this: if the US
| economy ever falters will you consider whether these
| extra costs could have an impact on it? If enough people
| run the calculus that the business isn't worth opening
| then you end up with communities that don't have
| businesses serving them.
|
| Villages in my country are losing their _only_ stores
| because the stores don 't get enough business to make it
| worth the cost. These are usually villages with a high
| average age. What happens to the residents? Many of the
| elderly don't have a car. They can't exactly go over to
| the next town and buy a week's worth of groceries if they
| can't carry these.
|
| The store closing essentially kills off the village over
| time. Heavy additional costs to doing business can mean
| that a community just goes without any service at all. It
| might not be a common issue now, but if it ever does
| appear then it's not like you can turn the economy back
| on like you would flip a switch.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Yes.
| sterlind wrote:
| how you answer that question depends on whether you're
| the one who needs the ramp.
|
| my mom renovated a hotel. she kicked up such a fuss about
| having to put in an expensive elevator. a couple years
| later, I became a wheelchair user. without the elevator,
| I couldn't stay with her. she hasn't complained about the
| elevator requirement since, for some reason.
| slg wrote:
| But that is not the disabled person's fault. It is Uber's
| fault due to how they pay their contractors. If the
| contractor waiting around is actually "working" then they
| should be paid by Uber for that time.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Let the government subsidize them then. It seems insane
| to make poor people in this case to lose their
| livelihood. That is exactly slavery.
| CPLX wrote:
| Asking a multi-billion dollar company to make reasonable
| accommodations so Americans who suffer from disabilities
| can still use their products and services is probably not
| something you can reasonably compare to slavery.
| alistairSH wrote:
| The cost should fall on Uber. Or the government. Not the
| employee or the disabled customer.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Exactly. There should be some sort of governmental
| department where the disabled could file claims for
| reimbursement with appropriate paper work. Then these
| claims could be verified and support given in due time.
| Kinda like insurance work. Even further maybe there could
| be system of prior authorizations where eligible people
| can request decisions before using services.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Or, just give them a monthly stipend to cover any/all
| costs. They file once, get thee stupid, maybe re-up
| annually or every few years. It's not like their costs
| are going to go away - being disabled is just more
| costly.
|
| Italy has(had?) a similar program for residents with
| celiac disease (requires a gluten-free diet). It's a max
| 140 euro/month stipend to cover the higher costs of
| groceries.
| pkaye wrote:
| Maybe Uber can pay those workers better.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Why shouldn 't they?_
|
| Because we are all citizens and all human beings, even
| the one with disabilities.
|
| This is something that we, as a nation and a society,
| decided years ago, and we shouldn't throw out our ideals
| because they're inconvenient for tech companies.
| syrrim wrote:
| They're saying the opposite.
| collegeburner wrote:
| yes if they use more resources. they should pay more.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I am saying disabled people should pay more, and the state
| should give them free money to cover the higher costs they
| incur for day to day services.
|
| Trying to get every business to charge all customers
| equally, even when some customers are far more costly to
| serve is a bad model. Better to just let the business
| charge whatever the real cost of providing the service is,
| and directly subsidize the disabled person to cover that
| increased cost.
|
| /Unpopular opinion
| foobiekr wrote:
| Why should the state subsidize Uber?
| alistairSH wrote:
| That's the wrong view. The state is subsidizing the
| disabled residents, so they can live their lives without
| undue burden. Those subsidizes might be used with Uber or
| a regular cab or some other transit provider.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| If you reimburse Uber use, they'll nonzero amount of
| times choose Uber, keeping them in business.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular
| fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to
| individually apply each trip for the compensation? Both
| seem problematic/inefficient to me, compared to having
| Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset their
| reportable taxable income to compensate for the cost of
| providing services to disabled customers.
| Spivak wrote:
| No, rides should be the same cost at point of sale (i.e.
| rider pays the same rate whether they're disabled or not)
| and then Uber/Taxi company bills the gov't for
| compensation for each trip.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Sounds equivalent to my suggestion (except it works for
| better for companies currently paying no corporate tax).
| Just waiting for someone to come along and argue we
| shouldn't be providing incentives for people to become
| disabled...
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Both seem problematic /inefficient to me, compared to
| having Uber being able to, for instance, reduce/offset
| their reportable taxable income to compensate for the
| cost of providing services to disabled customers._
|
| And this is why the US tax code is a mile long with
| loopholes upon loopholes. It seems far more inefficient
| to me to get companies to play creative accounting than
| to give individuals some sum of money.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Possibly, but there are surely fewer companies eligible
| for making such a claim than there are individuals.
| Depends how automated you can make it I guess. And while
| I'm not one to get overly upset if certain compensation
| schemes are slightly vulnerable to fraud, you still need
| to maintain public trust in such a system for it to have
| long term viability, and individual- based schemes are
| surely more expensive to police/regulate.
| FrenchDevRemote wrote:
| >Are you suggesting disabled people receive a regular
| fixed sum from the government, or that they'd have to
| individually apply each trip for the compensation?
|
| In France you get both.
|
| A fixed sum for your handicap+a bit more money if you
| have rent to pay, which amount to +/- minimum wage(which
| is very livable in most cities besides Paris) And you get
| free cabs/transportation, my neighbor's kid get a cab
| every day of the week without having to pay a cent, same
| for a lot of kids in special ed, cancer patients, any
| serious disease even temporary mean you can get free
| cabs.
| Tepix wrote:
| I've stayed away from Uber ever since their first scandal, and it
| keeps getting "better". How fucked up can it get? They already
| killed someone with their shitty "self-driving" car... now this.
| rdxm wrote:
| [deleted]
| bernf wrote:
| Not sure how I feel about this. I see a similar issue in what I
| consider mistreatment of delivery workers. There have been
| delivery services and transport services for disabled/elderly for
| a while now. People have been replacing them with gig workers and
| I'm not exactly sure who to blame or feel sorry for.
|
| A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining
| about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like
| multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs. The
| amount of inconsiderate abuse people have towards them (making
| them wait, navigate buildings) is a poor allocation of resources.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _poor allocation of resources_
|
| Computers are resources. Iron ore is a resource. People aren't
| resources. They're people. The problem is the tech industry
| trying to treat people like resources.
|
| If the delivery people are paid fairly by the delivery
| companies, then they will be more willing to do a good and
| thorough job, which includes navigating buildings.
|
| I've been an Uber driver, and yeah, some people are awful.
|
| But I'm also tired of getting calls from Favor delivery people
| telling me I have to meet them in a parking lot three miles
| away to collect my groceries because they're running late going
| to the club, and this is only a "side hustle" they do on Friday
| nights. If I'm paying a delivery fee, plus a tip, I expect them
| to complete their jobs.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The key thing here is that the optimization model for
| "deciding if an employee is doing a good job" has to be more
| complicated than "time to deliver," or it's simply anti-
| human.
| viscanti wrote:
| > The problem is the tech industry trying to treat people
| like resources.
|
| Isn't that true for most types of jobs? There's a role called
| "Human Resources" in most medium and large sized companies.
| Are factory jobs leaning in to embrace the humanity of
| workers and not thinking of them and calling them resources?
| Would we find things substantially better in most fast food
| restaurants? Gig companies are at least letting people decide
| when they want to work and when they want to do something
| else with a degree of flexibility that seems unmatched
| everywhere outside of the gig economy.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _There 's a role called "Human Resources" in most medium
| and large sized companies_
|
| A title change which reflects the shift in business from
| treating people like people and turning them into
| "resources."
|
| The role used to be called "Personnel," back when people
| were expected to be treated as persons.
| zardo wrote:
| When was it when workers could expect to be treated well
| by their bosses?
| petre wrote:
| When you want to get stuff done as opposed to having
| strikes, walkouts and other annoyances. People first and
| foremost want to be treated with respect, not like iron
| or coal or other stuff you'd dig up from the ground.
| viscanti wrote:
| > The role used to be called "Personnel," back when
| people were expected to be treated as persons.
|
| Was that before the 8 hour work day became standard? Was
| that before businesses were forced to stop exploiting
| child labor? It seems like a lot of progress has been
| made where things are much more humane now than they were
| historically. I think a more compelling argument here is
| that a large number of employers throughout history have
| been thinking of employees as cogs in a machine. I don't
| know that there was ever some worker utopia where they
| were treated like real people en masse.
| vivegi wrote:
| Even before that it used to be called Industrial
| Relations (I am referring to the practice in India
| pre-1980s).
| googlryas wrote:
| Personnel has origins within the military...is that
| really what you want for some random employee?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The labor we workers offer for sale on the labor market is a
| resource though.
| googlryas wrote:
| You can be both a resource for planning purposes and a human.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >"A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining
| about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like
| multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs. The
| amount of inconsiderate abuse people have towards them (making
| them wait, navigate buildings) is a poor allocation of
| resources."
|
| That's literally the "work" part of the delivery job and the
| reason people pay for the service and tip. As someone who held
| many many different delivery jobs before smart phones and turn
| by turn GPS, you used to also have to figure out how to
| "navigate streets" to actually get to the person's house too.
| That was actually the thinking part of the job, the rest of it
| was just mechanical. The idea that an expectancy to have
| delivery people "navigate buildings" is "inconsiderate abuse"
| is pretty absurd. It's equally amusing to consider the act of
| waiting somehow being abusive as it's a reciprocal component of
| any delivery experience.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| > A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining
| about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like
| multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs.
|
| I would say that many of those who are unable to get to the
| store to buy cat litter are also unable to walk up three
| flights of stairs to pick it up.
|
| Recently, I was recovering from surgery and was not allowed to
| get out of bed. The exception I made was to slowly crawl to the
| front door to pick up the food the dasher had left there.
| Often, even though the setting was set to "deliver to me", they
| would leave the food downstairs.
|
| My only option then was to leave the food there to rot and hope
| someone steals it. This was particularly frustrating during the
| lockdown when restaurants would close early. By the time the
| bad delivery happened all restaurants in my area were closed.
|
| Often, I was left without any options. I did cook food
| beforehand but sometimes even thawing food can be too much
| while you are recovering.
|
| Getting the entire order reimbursed would mean that the
| delivery person won't get paid for the delivery at all. I did
| feel bad about it at first, but they could have kept their
| promise and brought it to me.
|
| One option would be to allow Dashers to filter between "leave
| on front door" and "deliver to client". But no, I don't believe
| that I should feel bad for someone who lied about being able to
| fulfil the company's promise. Especially once it became a
| pattern.
|
| I ended up ordering a lot of pizzas during that time, even if I
| don't particularly enjoy them. Old-school pizza delivery
| persons would not only deliver to my apartment's door but some
| would even offer to bring trash or recyclables downstairs for
| me.
| ev1 wrote:
| Both PJ and Dominos now outsource deliveries to whitelabel
| "doordash enterprise" :(
|
| I have not gotten a direct store driver in over 2 years.
| wongarsu wrote:
| > A post a while ago on reddit was someone who was complaining
| about a doordasher who didn't want to wait and bring like
| multiple bags of cat litter like up 3 flights of stairs. The
| amount of inconsiderate abuse people have towards them (making
| them wait, navigate buildings) is a poor allocation of
| resources.
|
| This sounds like simple miscommunication what the provided
| service actually is. When I order a package off Amazon, it gets
| delivered to my doorstep. When I ordered a fridge from an
| online retailer, it got delivered to the exact room where I
| wanted it, and the delivery people helped me lift it out of the
| styrofoam packaging. Superficially both are package deliveries,
| even from the same delivery company, but they are conducted and
| paid very differently. But which of these two can/should I
| expect if I order cat food from doordash?
| dijonman2 wrote:
| You should expect service to your door. The main reason why I
| pay for delivery is to avoid the 1000' walk to the street. Of
| course no delivery drivers want to do this.. which is why I
| hire my own and pay outside an app.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The implementation of the ADA may need to be modified for
| modern businesses, but the underlying principle of the ADA is
| "humans aren't interchangeable parts." Any efficiency gains
| that disproportionately marginalize the disabled are anti-
| human, and the cost should fall on neither the customer nor the
| gig employee but on the business and the government.
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Any efficiency gains that disproportionately marginalize
| the disabled are anti-human, and the cost should fall on
| neither the customer nor the gig employee but on the business
| and the government._
|
| But the gig employee _is_ the business. They 're the ones
| that are actually rendering the delivery service. The cost
| naturally falls onto them, because it takes them longer to
| fulfill this order.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Many years ago I worked at RadioShack. We changed watch
| batteries all the time. Zero training, just expectations.
|
| Guy brought a watch in. I was getting ready to change it
| when he informed me that it was a $25,000 watch. I probably
| handed it back to him and said sorry, not taking
| responsibility for that. I was not qualified.
|
| I can't imagine forcing untrained people to deal with
| significant medical issues and be financially responsible
| for a fall etc.
|
| I've had some severe disabilities at times, so I've been on
| both ends.
| msbarnett wrote:
| > But the gig employee is the business.
|
| Rather, the gig employee (note that word even you used,
| "employee"?) is a thinly veiled fiction the actual business
| uses to offload risks and avoid having to pay benefits.
|
| If the gig employee was a real business they could set
| prices, choose how to go about doing the job (routes to
| take to destination, etc), market themselves instead of
| acting as an interchangeable cog in the real businesses'
| app, etc, etc, etc, etc
| wanderr wrote:
| I was recently in a wheelchair for a few weeks. Uber's ADA issues
| go beyond the scope of this lawsuit. Uber would consistently lie
| about the availability of a WAV vehicle, showing one as being
| nearby with low wait. Then when I would order it, either nothing
| was available or the wait time was completely insane. I never
| successfully hailed one.
| c3534l wrote:
| They do that about everything. There are consistently a dozen
| nearby "available" drivers in the downtown area where I live
| within a 5 minute drive and I don't think I've ever actually
| gotten one of those drivers. I also frequently need rides early
| in the morning/late at night because of a weird work schedule.
| They also prominently advertise a discount for reserving a car
| two hours in advance and then proceed to charge me $15 dollars
| more than what it costs to get a ride at the time of night
| normally. It is worth it, so that I know I will have a ride at
| that time and that they will be there when I get out of work
| and I don't want to wait around for 30 minutes at 4am just to
| go home. But don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining.
| shagie wrote:
| In a regular taxi service for an area, the taxis are required
| to have ADA availability (and licensing for them needs to be
| available). For example
| https://www.understandingtheada.com/blog/2012/01/24/licensin...
|
| > Therefore the court ordered that the Commission to propose a
| comprehensive plan that provides meaningful access to taxi
| services for passengers using wheelchairs. The plan must
| include targeted goals and standards as well as anticipated
| measurable results. Furthermore, until such a plan was proposed
| and approved by the court, all new taxi medallions sold or new
| street hail livery licenses or permits issued by the Commission
| must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles.
|
| Some additional information -
| https://drhandicap.com/insights/can-taxis-refuse-service-bas...
|
| While this is more expensive for the taxi company to have ADA
| vehicles, that cost is spread out across the entirety of the
| customer base.
|
| The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed and
| displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading out
| the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share
| drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is
| compared to the requirement for licensed taxis.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> The difficulty comes with ride share that aren't licensed
| and displace taxi services resulting in difficulty spreading
| out the cost across all taxi rides... and that the ride share
| drivers (and companies) don't provide sufficient coverage is
| compared to the requirement for licensed taxis.
|
| Wouldnt it make sense for Uber to subsidize the ADA compliant
| drivers for their extra costs (or reduced yield) and then for
| Uber to spread that cost across their entire service?
| shagie wrote:
| I was referring to the existing taxi services.
|
| With Uber offering poor service for wheelchairs and
| similar, individuals needing those services remain using
| traditional taxis. Meanwhile, the regular riders (the bulk
| of the profits for a company) switch to Uber for whatever
| reason. This results in that the additional costs for
| handling riders that need the extra assistance are not
| borne by the unlicensed companies that are not providing
| the ADA services that the licensed companies are required
| to.
|
| If one was to go with a "{A} should subsidize {B} for ADA
| rides" this would be "Uber should subsidize taxi companies"
| for the increased proportion of wheelchair accessible vans
| and similar that the taxi companies are required to
| maintain.
|
| As it is, Uber isn't spreading _any_ of the cost of ADA
| rides amongst their customers or drivers because (A) Uber
| doesn 't have a sufficient set of vehicles available to
| address ADA and (B) Uber drivers are discriminating and
| _not_ picking up passengers that have needs covered under
| the ADA.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Sitting in a hospital with discharge set for a few hours from
| now and expecting to use Uber WAV to get home with a broken
| leg... this is a little worrying.
| wanderr wrote:
| Good luck! But I would start calling friends to see if
| someone can pick you up. My hospital explicitly said they
| would not discharge me to Uber, too
| shagie wrote:
| Uber's attempt at Uber Health - https://www.uber.com/en-
| US/blog/hospital-uses/
|
| American Medical Resource Institute guidance on discharges
| - https://www.aclsonline.us/blog/what-to-do-when-theres-no-
| one...
|
| > You did your part and got your patient through surgery
| with flying colors. But, uh-oh, the ride your patient was
| expecting to get home is a no-show. What should your ASC
| do?
|
| > Well, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
| Services, your ASC has a legal obligation to only discharge
| patients to a responsible adult when they have been under
| the influence of sedation.
|
| > Unfortunately, now that Uber and Lyft are such convenient
| options for transportation, many patients think they can
| simply hop in a rideshare vehicle and that's the same thing
| as being discharged to a caring family member or friend.
|
| > However, the law in many states is still unclear on
| whether a rideshare driver counts as a "responsible adult"
| who is actually taking responsibility for the patient's
| care just by stepping into the vehicle. In fact, in a
| recent Outpatient Surgery Magazine poll, 69 percent of
| surgical facilities said they never discharge an
| unaccompanied patient to take an Uber, Lyft or taxi home.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Are you saying that you legally can't leave a hospital
| until somebody else promises to take care of you? That
| sounds a little unsettling. What do they do if somebody
| just walks out?
| shagie wrote:
| If you have been sedated, many states have a law that say
| that you can only be discharged to the care of a
| responsible adult.
|
| This has been an issue for me in the past when I was
| sedated for a root canal. I had my brother's girlfriend's
| father pick me up from the dentist.
|
| As to walking out? I was in absolutely no shape to walk
| out.
|
| If someone is still insistent on leaving:
|
| > If you discover that your patient doesn't have a
| responsible adult to take them home until after the
| procedure is complete and they're dressed and insisting
| to go home on their own, your best option is to document
| as much as possible. Insist that the patient sign an AMA
| (against medical advice) form. Then write up the details
| of the patient's non-compliance in an incident report in
| their medical record. Also, let their surgeon know.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I think you're taking an uncharitable view of things.
|
| The effect of the above is: "They're not allowed to
| forcibly eject you if doing so would make you unsafe"
|
| For example, I was allowed to stay an extra night because
| I live alone and needed to coordinate a helper to safely
| go up my stairs.
|
| There's a very specific set of reasons why they can hold
| you defined separately from this.
|
| tl;dr if they do eject you into an unsafe envious they
| face liability, but not so much liability that they need
| to imprison you...
| [deleted]
| vivegi wrote:
| Wow! I remember an exploratory conversation I had with the
| CEO of a large health insurance company's individual plan
| subsidiary and this was several years ago, a time when
| ridesharing was gaining traction. They were talking about
| partnering with rideshare companies for alternative patient
| transport (for non-emergencies). I guess that never took
| off.
| mhuffman wrote:
| >Uber would consistently lie about the availability of a WAV
| vehicle
|
| Uber lies about the availability of all vehicles, I think! I
| live in a town where there are no Uber drivers, but if you open
| up the app it will show 3 available with times and prices and
| even let you book one! Of course it doesn't exist and they will
| never show up. I am not sure why they do this other then to
| look like they have coverage to shareholders or something.
| mbostleman wrote:
| Agreed, I also live in a location with effectively no drivers
| and I have the same experience. I'd say based on that, the
| claim that it is specific to WAV is not the case.
| lbhdc wrote:
| That bit me the other day. Had an emergency and needed to
| grab a ride, and uber listed a few cars with ~10-15min wait.
| 2hrs later nothing.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Not defending the practice (which feels so dishonest) but
| it's a chicken and the egg thing of their on demand drivers
| system.
|
| I know there are drivers who basically sit at home and check
| the current rates and when it's "worth it" to them they walk
| out and jump in the car and do a few rides.
|
| That wouldn't happen if people were looking in the app seeing
| no drivers and not putting in that they needed a ride.
| mhuffman wrote:
| On the other hand, actually having at least one real driver
| would a) allow that driver to make bank by being basically
| a monopoly, until b) other real drivers saw this and
| entered the market making everything kosher.
| faddypaddy34 wrote:
| No because Uber's reimbursement for their drivers is so
| low that most lose money once expenses get factored in.
| This is because I er looks at drivers as an expense and
| have consistently cut rates over time.
| mhuffman wrote:
| That is a good point, I was under the impression that the
| drivers had some input into what they would be willing to
| drive for and competition would do the rest. But if Uber
| has internal caps, that would make some small towns just
| untenable.
| capitalsigma wrote:
| A monopoly with a TAM of $0 doesn't seem terribly
| interesting to me
| mhuffman wrote:
| I was under the impression that the drivers had some
| input into what they would be willing to drive for and
| competition would do the rest. But if Uber has internal
| caps, that would make critical mass impossible in smaller
| towns.
| techmba wrote:
| I stopped using Uber because their drivers kept ditching my
| pregnant friends. The second they see them, they cancel and bail.
| Lyft was far more supportive.
| saddlerustle wrote:
| Uber stopped being able to punish drivers for cancelling due to
| the employee status lawsuits.
| hourago wrote:
| It seems that the taxi industry had all this figured out and
| we are just going back to square one.
| dgaaaaaaaaaa wrote:
| Might be a stupid question. What was the reason for ditching?
| paulpauper wrote:
| Between this and Coinbase, the DOJ is firing on all pistons.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-21 23:02 UTC)