Re:Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides
by Rule35 on Monday April 05, 2021 @08:57PM
(#26706752)
It's society's attitude. That we can fix a problem by making it someone else's problem. In the end it costs all of us more because we're still stuck fixing it but also dealing with the consequences of bad and badly enforced laws.
We want a minimum wage so we go after the only person paying someone, the boss, and demand that they pay more. If instead we paid a (temporary) UBI to bring up the compensation it wouldn't all fall on the business owner and we wouldn't have to force them to do it.
We want morbidly obese people to be welcome on airplanes but we forbid the airline from charging them for all the seats they consume.
If we want people to pick up the disabled, and not shirk the task, then we shouldn't stick them with the cost.
We should act like adults and pay (directly) for what we want, what we feel is right - trip subsidies for medical reasons.
Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I simply described the legal reality.
The point is that the driver may not 'ditch these fares', and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the cost of doing business.
They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied speedy passenger, and an able-bodied passenger who 'takes too long' for unforeseeable reasons, so it is just what it is (the 'forseeable' as the 'unforseeable').