Uber is at least aware of its responsibilities.

When I drove for Uber, we received email messages every couple of months reminding us of the rules concerning service animals and people who need physical assistance getting in and out of the car.

I seem to recall that if you had the right kind of car you could mark yourself available for wheelchairs and other things. I was forever picking up people with walkers and helping them in and out, though I know some drivers never ever wanted to touch a passenger unless they were dead drunk and had to be dragged out of the car and deposited on the front lawn of the destination address. (Been there, done that.)

Maybe it's regional. Everything about Uber seems to be.

> I seem to recall that if you had the right kind of car you could mark yourself available for wheelchairs and other things. I was forever picking up people with walkers and helping them in and out, though I know some drivers never ever wanted to touch a passenger unless they were dead drunk and had to be dragged out of the car and deposited on the front lawn of the destination address. (Been there, done that.)

Uber had/has WAV (Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles) on request.

Taxis don't have their drivers as employees, and that sort of dispatch mechanism is exactly how they handle it.

There's also a lot of taxi companies who are being sued for misclassification, so I don't really think their actions hold much value as a model for legal compliance.

Right. And I don’t want to continue to engage in the ludicrous bad faith argument that I’m not hiring Uber when I used the app to hire an Uber.

The ADA does not give compliance exemptions to contractors employed by a company.

Uber doesn't want their drivers classified as employees because it would cost them a lot of money in benefits and possibly back-pay.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift.

We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

Employers are not legally required to set hours for their employees.

> And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift.

Some drivers may want this. Others might not. I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

> I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

It's the self-selected group of people who have chosen it. Much different than a random sampling.

Uber drivers have pretty clearly chosen being a contractor, and if you listen to them they say they like the freedom - require it even. You can usually moonlight as a contractor without permission from your primary job.

Other drivers, driving as full-time employees, have obviously made their decision in the other direction and seem happy.

It seems wrong to tell either that they must change.

What is the basis by which you are claiming ADA compliance implies their drivers are employees? Providing usable service for ADA customers can and should be accomplished regardless of Uber/Lyft's driver contracting model.

Employee classification is dependent on the amount of control that a company has over the worker. Uber has consistently argued that they have minimal influence over driver behavior, in attempts to keep their status quo on their workers' current classification, and avoid the costs associated with having employees.

In this case, they again made these claims.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/805/6/8056-Award%20in%20Irv...

The more 'hands-off' that Uber can assert that they are with their drivers, the better for their argument. They want to be 100% a middleman and 0% anything else. Ultimately, I think they'll fail, but for now, that's their strategy.