Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:48PM
(#36699817)
My bad! Didn't see that before submitting. (For anyone reading this comment, the article is from March 2020). This is my first submission & I don't see age in the submissions guide; is there a specific way I should indicate its age?
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by LinuxBender on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:01PM
(#36698943)
Uber already have different options for vehicles bigger, ability to haul equipment, luxury, etc... so how about embrace this issue by having a class of armored vehicle for rough neighborhoods? Call it the "Presidential Service". Or pay former bouncers and ex gang members extra to service these areas. If there is a policy against this make an exception for this category and add disclaimers. Probably not a wonderful idea but someone could probably build upon it.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:04PM
(#36699000)
I think the trouble is the overlap of high-crime and high-diversity areas. Say you're sending an armored vehicle into a high-crime area and it's reasonable protection. Someone writes a news article about having expensive & specially trained drivers required in the poorest minority communities and it's a major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by LinuxBender on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:06PM
(#36699037)
major PR issue. Depends on who gets control of the narrative
Agreed, even as I was typing it I can see all the negative optics. It's probably a bad idea but there is probably some derivation that could work and could even give more job opportunities to people that are otherwise between a rock and a hard place. I'm thinking along the lines of private military contractors but with less formal training.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:03PM
(#36700861)
The actual cause of the overlap is probably due to [generational] poverty; diversity itself doesn't cause crime. I have no idea where you even read that in my comment.
I'm only pointing out that it is beneficial to some groups to frame it as only-crime (if trying to defend treating the area differently), and beneficial to other groups to treat it as only-diversity (if trying to punish those who treat the area differently).
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by TrackerFF on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:30PM
(#36699491)
When certain "no-go" areas are so dangerous that neither police, ambulance, or fire fighters will go there (alone), I certainly don't expect Uber drivers to go there either - even if the corporate overlords are are insisting on it.
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by YellOh on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:45PM
(#36699763)
Can you add a source for this? I've been able to find plenty of resources about dangerous SF areas, but not a news article on restricted public services there. Would be super interested in learning more
Re:Uber warns drivers against avoiding 'disadvantaged' areas
by tbihl on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @02:15PM
(#36699209)
The article particularly mentions California. It seems that Uber had to give up some of the tools that they use to police the ecosystem in order to show CA regulators that the drivers are contractors: the article mentions penalties for skipping too many fares in other locales and Uber letting CA drivers see destinations of ride requests.
CA drivers have predictably used thise tools to optimize for their own profit/enjoyment/safety(?)
Agreed, even as I was typing it I can see all the negative optics. It's probably a bad idea but there is probably some derivation that could work and could even give more job opportunities to people that are otherwise between a rock and a hard place. I'm thinking along the lines of private military contractors but with less formal training.
I'm only pointing out that it is beneficial to some groups to frame it as only-crime (if trying to defend treating the area differently), and beneficial to other groups to treat it as only-diversity (if trying to punish those who treat the area differently).
CA drivers have predictably used thise tools to optimize for their own profit/enjoyment/safety(?)
Discussed by Zvi: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2023/07/12/housing-and-transit-...
"A worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work is ordinarily an employee."
Sure seems like you are correct.