Alice, I agree the competition will benefit both employees and consumers alike.
Frank
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for violating ada
I hear you. But I can't agree that the business model of Uber and the others is
any worse than the taxi industry's business model and its stranglehold on
everyone, employees and passengers alike. In fact, Isuccumbing to the lesser of
two evils crap once again, which we seem unable to escape, I think Uber and the
rest are a slight improvement, if only for the reason that they are challenging
that stranglehold and presenting a glimmer of a chance that the whole apple
cart might be upset and bring further improvements.
Alice
On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I think that when we talk about Uber and all the other supposedly sharing
arrangements which are actually based on tech start ups that make their
money from stock holders, we need to separate out the issues. It is
certainly true that traditional taxi companies have also discriminated
against blind people. It's happened to me when I had a guide dog and I've
seen it happen to other people. I've also seen my paratransit company do it,
at least specific drivers do it. It's also true that employees have cab
companies can have bad deals. But I think that the point of the spate of
articles about Uber, Lift, that home sharing company and others, is a
criticism of a new form of economic exploitation of people which pretends to
be a simple sharing arrangement but is in fact, a way to take advantage of
labor with no built in safeguards and huge profits for shareholders. There
are now many articles being written about what being a contract worker
really means. Both Carl and I have succumbed to this kind of arrangement in
our own fields in different ways because that is what is now, more and more,
the prevailing system. But even if you like getting your rides from Uber or
work for them, it should be possible to step back and look objectively at
what Uber and its kind of company represents, and to judge that it is a
symptom of the increasing dispossession of the majority of us, of economic
rights.
Miriam
________________________________
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 3:21 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for violating ada
Hi Alice,
I'm with you all the way here. Agreed on all counts.
Obviously, there are some issues here with Uber, especially in the state of
California where it seems many of the problems are occurring. I did recall
one series of bad behavior by Uber here in the Boston area in which a
paraplegic woman who is also an experienced traveler was refused service by
two drivers and then referred to as an invalid by a third. But goodness
knows that the taxi industries slate is far from clean on this issue.
Bob Hachey
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 2:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: uber fined in cal partially for violating ada
I know I'm in the minority here, but I still think there is another way of
looking at this. I've used Uber quite a bit, and only once did the bastard
driver see the dog and pull away, leaving me and my 91 year old mother
standing on the street. I had told my mother what kind and color car to
expect, and she saw such a car pull up, slow down, then speed off.
I complained to Uber, the driver was reprimanded, suspended, fired, not sure
exactly what, and I was given a refund for the trip.
Do ou have any idea how many times I've been refused by standard cabs? Too
numerous to count.
Now, I see all this flap over Uber and the rest as an attempt by the taxi
industry to eliminate competition. IMO, it is the taxi industry that is
trying every which way but loose to convince everybody of every political
and socio-economic persuasion that Uber and the rest are evil, and only the
taxi industry should prevail. Why do you think there is even any question as
to whether or not Uber can operate at the airports? Of course, they already
can drop off passengers who take Uber to the airport, but they are frozen
out from picking up arrivals by the taxi industry. And again, how many times
has a taxi driver refused to take me and the dog? Theoretically, such
drivers are supposed to be pulled out of the queue and sent to the end of
the line of waiting taxis, but that almost never happens.
Aware of how many like-minded people on many other issues see this one
differently from me, I ask every Uber driver how long they've been driving
for Uber and how they like it. They all say they love it. Usually the same
story: they can make their own hours, they can drive at 2 AM if they like
and sleep all day. They are like all free-lancers and self-employed and
"independent" contractors or consultants: they get no benefits, they have to
pay their own contributions to medical insurance, Social Security, etc. .
So I don't know who is right or if there's a little right on both sides.
But it certainly is true that Uber and Lyft and the others will force the
taxi industry to clean up its own house if the taxi industry does not
succeed in squelching the competition.
Just like cabs, some will be able to accommodate wheel chairs, some not.
So we'll see where this all ends, and if the critics that see Uber as an
exploitative big business end up being right, I"ll be the first to concede
my error. For me, the jury is still out.
Alice
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Carl Jarvis
<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
HI Joe,
Thanks for an early chuckle on a warm but windy day here on the Great
Olympic Peninsula.
Trade Secret, is it? Poor Uber. Surely they must know that their so
called Trade Secret is the age old, worn out exploitation of hard
working men and women. Contract Labor is the favorite method of our
Out-of-control Corporate Capitalism to suck up some more of our hard
earned money.
What a win/win deal for the boss!
All risk, all expenses, and all responsibility is placed squarely on
the backs of those doing all the labor. I've heard the Uber ads
proclaiming that if you have a car, you can make a thousand dollars a
week. How many out of work, desperate people will jump at such an
offer? Back when I was young it was the door to door vacuum cleaner
companies and other companies such as encyclopedias and magazines,
sweet talking unemployed, desperate people into the false hope of
earning a living. But as long as Labor Unions continued to be strong
and support their members, such slimy methods of exploitation were
kept to a minimum. Today's world has been swamped by the "Right to
Work", mentality. Unions have become labeled as Evil. "Pull yourself
up by your own boot straps. Rags to riches. The Self-made
man/woman". Meanwhile Corporate Barons such as the upstart Uber, roam
the land like giant predators. Why do we keep buying into the belief
that we need some bloated corporate head in order to have a job?
Can't the Uber approach work as well if it were owned and operated by
the drivers and those support workers?
We need to begin working together. Forget the bad name socialism has
been given by Corporate Capitalism, United Workers means a dignified
living. It's time we kicked the drones out of the bee hive. Or
cleared the Foxes out of our Hen Houses.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/17/15, joe harcz Comcast
<joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Judge Says Uber Should Be Fined and Suspended for Failure to Turn Over
Rideshare Data
Posted By
Jeremy Lybarger
on Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:24 AM
JOONAS TIKKANEN/FLICKR
List of 1 items
. Joonas Tikkanen/Flickr
list end
Yesterday was a tough one for Uber. The California Public Utilities
Commission
ruled
that the rideshare giant should be fined $7.3 million and suspended from
operating in California for failure to demonstrate compliance with the
American
with Disabilities Act, as well as failure to release data indicating how
well the company serves diverse neighborhoods.
According to CPUC judge Karen V. Clopton, Uber has never turned over
information pertaining to its "efforts to date for accommodating visually
impaired,
persons with service animals, and persons requiring a wheelchair accessible
vehicle." When CPUC requested data about passengers with disabilities, "no
actual data was provided" by Uber, according to the ruling.
Nor did the company provide data about which zip codes it serves or its
driver safety numbers. This isn't surprising given Uber's
general secrecy
about how it operates - a reticence the company claims is a trade secret.
The CPUC doesn't buy that. "A trade secret claim cannot be used as a shield
to
deny access to the very regulatory agency that has ordered the information's
creation and compilation," the ruling reads.
According to the
Los Angeles Times,
the CPUC's ruling won't go into effect for 30 days, and Uber will have a
chance to appeal. A $7.3 million fine is less than one percent of the $5.9
billion
in venture capital that Uber has raised.
In related news, officials at LAX will determine today whether rideshare
companies will be allowed to
operate at the airport.
If approved, L.A. would become the largest city in America to grant such
permission.
Source:
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07/16/judge-says-uber-should-be-fined
-and-suspended-for-failure-to-turn-over-rideshare-data
