The New York Times Ethicist had another gem on ethics. A family called for an Uber and, Surprise! a driver who did not seem to be acquainted with English or the area, showed up as their means of transportation. The drive was struggling with GPS, incorrectly headed to the Holland Tunnel, and the family instructed the driver to pull over illegally. The family wanted out before they headed to New Jersey and wasted time. The police arrived, poised to issue a ticket. The police backed off, but the family wanted to know if they were obligated to pay for the ticket. The Ethicist advised that the driver made the mistake on the GPS, ergo, driver pays.Lip service to “you cowed him into it … you can afford to pay better than an Uber driver….” The main concern of the Ethicist was to make sure the driver got a bad review.
Once again, a key point goes unaddressed. With Uber. Lyft, and any other entrepreneurial ride services, there is assumption of risk. These are not experienced drivers. In too many cases, whatever driver screening occurs has proven to be flawed. The drug testing, who knows? In short, you get what you pay for. If you want a driver who knows the ropes and GPS, hail a cab. Uber is an adventure at best and, at its worst, well, you have seen the headlines. Disruptive business models often disrupt lives, including those of their customers. There are costs associated with transportation. You can reduce screening and reduce costs. You assume that risk. Oh, and a take a gander at the Bay Area and the congestion that has resulted from all those Uber cars on the roads. We are all subsidizing that with our time. And we are not as successful in talking the police out of tickets for illegal turns so that we do not have to sit in traffic.
How about, you’re all wrong!
The family hired an Uber. The family did not hire *this guy* REGARDLESS of what Uber might claim in their TOS. And so the driver is an agent of Uber, so Uber should pay for all mistakes.
Now if Uber wants to warn/train/discipline/fire the driver for pulling over illegally, that’s degrees of acceptable as well from very to well okay.
If it was illegal for the vehicle to pull over prior to entering the tunnel, rotten as it sounds, the family has to head back to New Jersey. We can all empathize.
The ethicist is wrong for insisting (?) the main way of fixing this is via a bad review. Uber’s drivers are uber’s problem. The call center answerer is the call center’s problems. STOP making the public give a*hole companies an out for their firings. Let them objectively measure their own employees on their own objective, quantitative, measurable skill, not the random, uncalibrated feelz of the public who may be righteously irked with the company for many reasons, taking it out on the driver or call center answerer, or who may not at all understand that less than 5 stars is a way of saying, “Uber, fire this guy, but fire him slowly.”
Truth: there is ZERO way in practicality for a driver to improve their ratings or to object to a rating or appeal a rating, or many times even understand what a rating is about. There is no online course, no jubilee, nothing. There is only Uber vs. the driver.
The ethical approach is not to use scummy services with scummy management and untrained drivers to drive around.
Having a little trouble understanding how I am wrong — your conclusion is my conclusion — expect all of this stuff from using a service that does not have proper screening, training, etc. I did not discuss the legal issues of Uber responsibility. The ethical issue, in my view and as I stated, is hiring a cheaper service and then acting surprised when there are costs associated with it.