I think you're missing Uber's actual concerns.

Uber has built its business skirting the laws on taxis and other transportation companies-- exploiting a loophole.

If the ADA law gets applied to them, it'll be a legal precedent for treating them like every other transportation company. So now they have to fight it- not because they care about people with wheelchairs, but because it's an existential threat to the foundation of their business.

What makes the situation interesting is that Uber could have avoided this whole fiasco by being ethical in the beginning, and making "you have to help people with disabilities" a part of their new-driver training. Then this would never have become a legal issue, and they wouldn't have the public shame of fighting against people with disabilities, or the threat to the core of their business.

Engaging in litigation claiming you don't have to follow the ADA simply because you don't want to deal with the tax implications of doing so is unbelievably low.

> if they start telling them what the can and cannot do during their time then they start to look more and more like employees (something they absolutely do not want)

Uber may not want it, but their drivers are undeniably employees, not contractors.

Whenever I see this discussed, people bring up that Uber satisfies some of the criteria for being employees but not others. However, that's not the way the IRS works. To the IRS, those criteria are all sufficient, not necessary - Uber doesn't need to satisfy all of them in order for the IRS to consider them to be employees.

It's low in the same way that if a non-profit starts to use your IP or trademarks you must go after them for doing so.

If you don't then you weaken your position of ownership of those properties for the rest of time.

In this case if they did not fight it they would weaken themselves on any future case about the drivers being contractors vs. employees.

View this from the position of a business with investors they're beholden to, not from an emotional standpoint.

> It's low in the same way that if a non-profit starts to use your IP or trademarks you must go after them for doing so.

Incidentally, this is common legal advice on Internet forums, but is not really true, as lawyers like DannyBee have explained more than once in other threads. It's a misconception that litigating companies tacitly condone, because it paints them in a more sympathetic light, but it's not actually "required" by any stretch of imagination.

If your mark is actually at risk of losing secondary meaning, then there is a risk to not doing so, but it takes a long time to get to that point. It's like saying that every time you have a beer, you're slowly developing cirrhosis - unless you're already drinking heavily and have been for a while, a single drink has literally no impact[0].

Also, since you say "IP or trademarks", not just trademarks, you're applying this principle to copyright and patents, which is also not true at all. Failure to enforce copyright rights is not tantamount to a free, irrevocable license.

> View this from the position of a business with investors they're beholden to, not from an emotional standpoint.

I'm viewing it with the exactly the same line of thinking that got us these antidiscrimination and labor protection laws in the first place.

[0] The liver is capable of regeneration, and cirrhosis only happens if you repeatedly subject it to levels of alcohol that it can't regenerate from faster than your intake. Likewise, losing secondary meaning isn't going to happen because you failed to go after a small non-profit that was using your mark in a way that wasn't really intended to confuse customers with your mark in the first place.

Thanks for clarifying aspects of this. It was an ip lawyer that first introduced me to this concept, though not the nuances of it.

If you have IP that you know a non profit is using without an explicit licence, you do not have to "go after them" - you own the IP and if you feel they're a worthy cause worth supporting, offer them "support" in the form of a no cost licence for your IP.

> View this from the position of a business with investors they're beholden to

I'm pretty sure even the most vindictive of VC investors can't compel a startup to break the law "because profits".

I suspect you've not seen a copy of the Terms for Uber drivers. They provide a lot of instructions, on a lot of issues, most of them far less legally crucial than the ADA. Down to what to say to passengers.

There will always be excuses, but "we'll look like an employer, therefore disabled people can go fish" is pretty ignoble.

Where I'm located existing taxi drivers are also independent contractors (freelancers) running under taxi brands. Those taxis are still regulated by authorities to make sure they comply with laws and charge standard price bands - they do spot checks and the licenses are revoked if problems occur. Technology companies shouldn't be given a free ticket just because they're the next big thing.

I believe Uber's implicit argument is that the individual drivers should be fined for not complying. If that actually happens, and drivers stop signing up, I would expect Uber to come up with some kind of program to limit driver liability.

That happened in four cities in Australia - Uber just paid the fines on behalf of them.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/uber-pled...

http://www.brw.com.au/p/entrepreneurs/uber_deep_pockets_thwa...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/uber-dodges-fines...

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/rideshare-...

Surely I can tell a web developer contractor they can't build insecure/shitty code without turning them into an employee? They tell their drivers all sorts of instructions already - turn down tips, offer water, be courteous, etc.

You certainly can advise your contractors. You can stipulate in your contract that the work must be completed in a certain way. As this relates to uber I'm sure that they tell all their drivers to not break the law (covers speeding, running red lights, and also discrimination).

The onus in this case is on the users to out the drivers to Uber through the review system. Maybe they need a submit button on the review page that says 'my driver broke the law'.

Don't ask HN, look up the actual difference between an employee and a contractor if you are not sure and are employing contractors.

I don't. It's a hypothetical. Why can't Uber say "you must comply with the ADA" to their drivers if I'm able to say to a web developer contractor "website must be accessible to the visually impaired".

If governments cannot crack down on Uber for this issue, then presumably they could start going after the individual contractors who don't comply with the regulations? I can't imagine this going well for Uber either way without some sort of change in their policy for obtaining contractors.

Imagine the overhead (taxes and all) for managing all of their drivers as employees not contractors.

I imagine it, and I don’t care. Uber is trying to play it both ways (regulating their drivers heavily while not having to obey regulations that everyone else has to follow) and I have no sympathy for them at all.

So, fuck the disabled - we gots to get paid?