# Uber's latest Screw You to drivers



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.










Also, all Uber requires from pax in order to deactivate drivers is that the reports sent in by them are plausible. All a pax has to do is claim that it happened, and if the driver cannot prove himself innocent then he is well on his way to getting terminated.










So, what a great way to incentivize pax to make those reports, whether true or false. 180 days of change, my arse.


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


Get ready for a deluge of false reports.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Get that dash cam running! Pull it off the mount if you have to and make sure to get footage of the animal in the car if it happens to be laying on the floor in the back ( out of dash mounted camera range.) Ask the animal's name and make sure to audibly greet the animal as it enters the car and leaves the car. If the pax won't say, fine, "Hi Doggy! Bye Doggy" will do. That will stand up in court when you sue Uber and lying pax for accusing you of what amounts to a violation of a federal disability law, costing you to lose your means of income.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Lissetti said:


> Get that dash cam running! Pull it off the mount if you have to and make sure to get footage of the animal in the car if it happens to be laying on the floor in the back ( out of dash mounted camera range.) Ask the animal's name and make sure to audibly greet the animal as it enters the car and leaves the car. If the pax won't say, fine, "Hi Doggy! Bye Doggy" will do. That will stand up in court when you sue Uber and lying pax for accusing you of what amounts to a violation of a federal disability law, costing you to lose your means of income.


If pax catch on to this, it could also mean false reports when there was no dog presented curbside for transportation. Driver's guilty until proven innocent, and after two false reports, the driver's done and the pax that made the second report celebrates with the $25 bonus.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

elelegido said:


> If pax catch on to this, it could also mean false reports when there was no dog presented curbside for transportation. Driver's guilty until proven innocent, and after two false reports, the driver's done and the pax that made the second report celebrates with the $25 bonus.


Again dash cam, WITH AUDIO. Since Uber rarely will tell you the date or time of such an alleged offense, send those over paid under qualified Support employees ALL your footage for the entire week and tell them I dare you to find any instance of me refusing an animal. They will not want to go through your entire collection, no more than a penny pinching company like Uber wants to shell out $25.00 to a pax, possibly opening themselves up for a lawsuit by said pax with an admission of guilt on their part. It's sort of like when you get in a car accident. What's the first thing your insurance company tells you. Never say your sorry or admit fault.

I bet with a cheap a$$ company like Uber they will make the pax fight tooth and nail before they release that $25.00 out of their greedy little grip too.


----------



## Yozee (Jun 7, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> Get that dash cam running! Pull it off the mount if you have to and make sure to get footage of the animal in the car if it happens to be laying on the floor in the back ( out of dash mounted camera range.) Ask the animal's name and make sure to audibly greet the animal as it enters the car and leaves the car. If the pax won't say, fine, "Hi Doggy! Bye Doggy" will do. That will stand up in court when you sue Uber and lying pax for accusing you of what amounts to a violation of a federal disability law, costing you to lose your means of income.


I always like your input!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

I doubt they will even look at the video, it is not worth their time. Once you have multiple complaints you are gone no need for them to investigate, and you can take it up in court with the passengers if you believe they are reporting untrue events.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I doubt they will even look at the video, it is not worth their time. Once you have multiple complaints you are gone no need for them to investigate, and you can take it up in court with the passengers if you *believe *they are reporting untrue events.


Believe?
If one _knows _(s)he's innocent of refusing service to a person with a service animal, it's _not _a matter of _belief_. 
Whereas, I don't know if you're simply here to troll, but I do believe that to be the case.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

LA_Native said:


> Believe?
> If one _knows _(s)he's innocent of refusing service to a person with a service animal, it's _not _a matter of _belief_.
> Whereas, I don't know if you're simply here to troll, but I do believe that to be the case.


I said believe, because a driver could have very well canceled on someone with a service animal and not realized it because they were canceling for some other reason and potentially never even saw the service animal that was there. The passenger with the service animal though could very well report such a thing not knowing why the driver choose to cancel.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I said believe, because a driver could have very well canceled on someone with a service animal and not realized it because they were canceling for some other reason and potentially never even saw the service animal that was there. The passenger with the service animal though could very well report such a thing not knowing why the driver choose to cancel.


Again, the driver would _know _why (s)he cancelled.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

LA_Native said:


> Again, the driver would _know _why (s)he cancelled.


Sure the driver would know why he or she canceled but that would do nothing about the person with the service animal that was canceled on and is now complaining.


----------



## Lonie (Mar 19, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest F You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


We tell them fares are too low, but they raise the booking fees. Uber is only worried about their profits.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> Sure the driver would know why he or she canceled


So it's _not _a matter of what the driver believes. It's not at all difficult.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

LA_Native said:


> So it's _not _a matter of what the driver believes. It's not at all difficult.


It is still about what the driver believes, if he or she is not aware that he has just canceled on a passenger with a service animal. In fact he just did cancel on a passenger with a service animal but he or she believes that he or she did not.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Incorrect.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

LA_Native said:


> Incorrect.


yea, he's starting to try too hard to argue against what's in most drivers best interest.

In any case, they would have to get canceled on first to be able to make a false report. I dont see this being a big issue.
Even if they wanted that $25, what if driver doesn't cancel?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> He's starting to try too hard to argue against what's in most drivers best interest.
> 
> In any case, they would have to get canceled on first to be able to make a false report. I dont see this being a big issue.
> Even if they wanted that $25, what if driver doesn't cancel?


If there is no cancel I doubt that there would be much of an issue as they took the ride. They could not very well say they were refused if they took the ride.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> He's starting to try too hard to argue against what's in most drivers best interest.


Correct.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest F You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


It should require that the rider has to upload to Uber a photo of the service animal registry number as proof to get compensated.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

REX HAVOC said:


> It should require that the rider has to upload to Uber a photo of the service animal registry number as proof to get compensated.


There is no registration required for service animals.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> There is no registration required for service animals.


There should be.

https://www.nsarco.com/register-your-animal.html


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

REX HAVOC said:


> There should be.
> 
> https://www.nsarco.com/register-your-animal.html


I agree there should be but currently there is no requirement. Most that have registration certificates are not legit service animals and just pets that people want to bring with them everywhere.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

This is where I don't think I'll have any issues with this new policy. I take all animals anyways. I don't care if it's a Service Spider Monkey. I'll say it again. I'd rather have a dog's bare A$$ on my seats, than those clubbing MallRats with short skirts and no panties. Bring on the Service Pythons, Service Bats, and maybe even those fancy jeweled cockroaches.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

Never had a bounty on my head before. 

Kind of cool....


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> I take all animals anyways. I don't care if it's a Service Spider Monkey.
> View attachment 138890


Well that's because you've never transported a Rakos before 

But, yea, I agree. Plus, the average rider doesn't even know how to update an address in their app. Asking them to be bothered to read and abuse this policy is asking a lot for majority of pax imho. Dash cam footage and gps location when the cancellation takes place should be enough to quickly disprove most frivolous claims. If only there were ramifications for false accusers...


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> There is no registration required for service animals.


Yes there is. The dogs name appears on the card.


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest F You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


Create a log book that documents every animal encounter, service or not. No tos violation for this. If an allegation arises produce your log. A consistently kept log becomes evidence that I would consider presenting.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Lissetti said:


> This is where I don't think I'll have any issues with this new policy. I take all animals anyways. I don't care if it's a Service Spider Monkey. I'll say it again. I'd rather have a dog's bare A$$ on my seats, than those clubbing MallRats with short skirts and no panties. Bring on the Service Pythons, Service Bats, and maybe even those fancy jeweled cockroaches.





LADryver said:


> Create a log book that documents every animal encounter, service or not. No tos violation for this. If an allegation arises produce your log. A consistently kept log becomes evidence that I would consider presenting.


The point I was making was not so much whether individual drivers like / do not like dogs or how to dispute fake reports. Although these are valid comments, my point is that Uber appears to be celebrating each driver deactivation with this $25 bonus for pax. They have made the bonus dependent not on whether or not the pax was denied a ride because of an animal, but on the driver getting fired.


----------



## Jbstevens88 (Dec 22, 2016)

Just telling my mom about this and she thinks people should be able to bring their pets along. Told her I would cancel my pickup with her.


----------



## Gooberlifturwallet (Feb 18, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest F You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


Uber loves you. All hail Big Uber! Report the person next to you. Do it now.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Only dogs qualify as service animals. Your pet snake definitely is not.


----------



## unPat (Jul 20, 2016)

Don't overthink it. What are the odds that you will get a service animal out of 100 rides. If you choose to give them a ride that's okay. If not you are out what's the big deal.


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

dirtylee said:


> Only dogs qualify as service animals. Your pet snake definitely is not.


If I'm not mistaken isn't there also a service category called something like _emotional comfort animals,_ you know, like what the Japanese used captured Chinese women for during WWII?

Oh wait! The designation is emotional _support_ animals. My bad.


----------



## pappan (Jul 8, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> There is no registration required for service animals.


how i know ?


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

elelegido said:


> The point I was making was not so much whether individual drivers like / do not like dogs or how to dispute fake reports. Although these are valid comments, my point is that Uber appears to be celebrating each driver deactivation with this $25 bonus for pax. They have made the bonus dependent not on whether or not the pax was denied a ride because of an animal, but on the driver getting fired.


Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"

My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.

Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

elelegido said:


> If pax catch on to this, it could also mean false reports when there was no dog presented curbside for transportation. Driver's guilty until proven innocent, and after two false reports, the driver's done and the pax that made the second report celebrates with the $25 bonus.


And boasts about it on Twitter



Lissetti said:


> Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"
> 
> My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.
> 
> Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


Well isn't that ironic.

What's with these people? Theyre like "well if I don't get to say it then why should they?". That white guy was offended?


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

Municipalities may define service animals wider than the ADA. Fwiw it is probably the local definitions that would apply.


----------



## TonyForte (Jul 8, 2017)

Gooberlifturwallet said:


> Uber loves you. All hail Big Uber! Report the person next to you. Do it now.


Yes, Uber loves us so much that's its only begotten son Travis quit his job, that whosoever believeth in uber shall not be deactivated but have everlasting $4 rideshare gigs.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Strange Fruit said:


> And boasts about it on Twitter
> 
> Well isn't that ironic.
> 
> What's with these people? Theyre like "well if I don't get to say it then why should they?". That white guy was offended?


Yep. I could see if it was an older black pax. Pre-civil rights era. One who remembers the meaning of the word.


----------



## TonyForte (Jul 8, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"
> 
> My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.
> 
> Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


Never pronounce the R, how does that work in a place like Boston?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

LADryver said:


> Municipalities may define service animals wider than the ADA. Fwiw it is probably the local definitions that would apply.


Fortunately in California, as this publication from the Governor's office shows, emo dogs do not have any legally recognized status in California State Law (CSL) other than in housing law and and air carrier law. But yes, other states may vary.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

For those of you in California, you should call ahead and have the cops meet you at the destination and have them enforce the following on them.

*Code Text*
*Penal Code - PEN*
*PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*

*365.7. *

(a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) As used in this section, "owner" means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> For those of you in California, you should call ahead and have the cops meet you at the destination and have them enforce the following on them.
> 
> *Code Text*
> *Penal Code - PEN*
> ...


Lol; I guess you haven't ever come across SF cops. When a drunk crashed into me and totaled my car, the cops declined to attend the scene when I phoned them to report the accident and to get them there. I lost count of the number of patrol cars that just rolled by the two crashed vehicles, just glancing over to have a look and then cruising on by.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Good thing I don't live in SF. I pulled a good one today and just knew I was gona get a ticket , well why not, it's such a great month may as well add that too. I don't know what posessed him to just give me not one but two warnings, cause there were two infractions. He didn't appear to be in a hurry. Prier to this;

A referal service gave me a follow up call to an Attorney who handles wrongful termination cases. I told them that I dropped the ball because of something else, however do to recent events I will be contacting the attorney over false representation of service animals and wrongful termination as a result. So we shall see if I/ We have a cause of action. Stay tuned.... course, this may take a few years depending...


----------



## TonyForte (Jul 8, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> For those of you in California, you should call ahead and have the cops meet you at the destination and have them enforce the following on them.
> 
> *Code Text*
> *Penal Code - PEN*
> ...


Yep. Do call them to recue a dog from your car.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Good thing I don't live in SF. I pulled a good one today and just knew I was gona get a ticket , I don't know what posessed him to just give me not one but two warnings, cause there were two infractions. He didn't appear to be in a hurry. Prier to this;
> 
> A referal service gave me a follow up call to an Attorney who handles wrongful termination cases. I told them that I dropped the ball because of something else, however do to recent events I will contacting the attorney over false representation of service animals and wrongful termination as a result. So we shall see if I/ We have a cause of action. Stay tuned....


You got canned over a fake service animal / emo dog?


----------



## GT500KR (Jan 30, 2017)

Lissetti said:


> Again dash cam, WITH AUDIO. Since Uber rarely will tell you the date or time of such an alleged offense, send those over paid under qualified Support employees ALL your footage for the entire week and tell them I dare you to find any instance of me refusing an animal. They will not want to go through your entire collection, no more than a penny pinching company like Uber wants to shell out $25.00 to a pax, possibly opening themselves up for a lawsuit by said pax with an admission of guilt on their part. It's sort of like when you get in a car accident. What's the first thing your insurance company tells you. Never say your sorry or admit fault.
> 
> I bet with a cheap a$$ company like Uber they will make the pax fight tooth and nail before they release that $25.00 out of their greedy little grip too.


Operation Graydog: Drive a nondescript earth tone color car with NO Trade Dress. Leave car in drive, ease on up to curb at 4 min mark, but keep moving!( 2 min clock time plus 2 add min. SEE 4 legs, go around block, collect no show fee, AMF, adios MF). I will pets when A, I have a station wagon, and B when I get 25 bucks minimum per pet. The only thing worse than a tight wad X riding millennial, is one with a comfort/lapdog.



Lissetti said:


> Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"
> 
> My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.
> 
> Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


That's one of the 8 Forbidden words.


----------



## Robertk (Jun 8, 2015)

elelegido said:


> If pax catch on to this, it could also mean false reports when there was no dog presented curbside for transportation. Driver's guilty until proven innocent, and *after two false reports, the driver's done* and the pax that made the second report celebrates with the $25 bonus.


I could be wrong, but seems to me the odds of one driver getting hit with two false reports is infinitesimal.

1700 rides and I've had 3 dogs total in my car (1 service, 2 companion)

you guys get lots of of these service dog requests?


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Per ADA law, you can ask the pax 1. Is this a service animal? and 2. what major life task is the animal trained to perform? I've noticed usually when its not a real service animal, they can't manage to answer the 2nd question. If they start saying you can't ask that then boot them - its written right in the law you can ask about the task the animal performs. You cannot, however, ask what disability the person has; only what the dog does. And all service animals are dogs. Other animals may be support animals, but these are not entitled to anything aside from housing and air travel.

Incentivizing this to pax is definitely a bad thing though. Pax will abuse this to get money for one, but for another it actually HURTS the pax - and uber knows this. If a person is compensated by uber for being denied service with a legitimate service animal and they accept compensation then they lose their right to file a lawsuit as the wrong has already been compensated for. This is just more Uber covering its ass by hanging the drivers out to dry.


----------



## RaleighUber440 (Jul 17, 2016)

This rule has already been out. They've deactivated people who've refuse rides for Service Animals in the past. It's nothing new.

The one part that does concern me is what if it's an extremely long ride from North Carolina to Texas? We can't shorten the ride without the risk of permanent deactivation? Doesn't seem fair to me.


----------



## roadman (Nov 14, 2016)

Sorry I was unable to locate the minion, err passenger. I love service animals they are always so well behaved.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

roadman said:


> Sorry I was unable to locate the minion, err passenger. I love service animals they are always so well behaved.


Lol minion. I let all pets ride. My dog sits in that seat when I'm not driving uber, so its no skin off my nose lol


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

I have thought about taking my dog along while doing Uber, not really concerned with the rating hit from people who do not like dogs, just don't want to have to have the dog in my lap if 4 people take a trip even though it is rare.


----------



## GriffBetterPtkfgs (Feb 18, 2016)

This is like some stazi tactics... like wtf.. this is pretty pathetic.


----------



## Harry Seaward (Mar 7, 2017)

One more reason to drive only UberEats....


----------



## UberTrucker (Jan 8, 2016)

Can't wait for that passenger who is allergic to dogs, put in a claim 



Uberfunitis said:


> If there is no cancel I doubt that there would be much of an issue as they took the ride. They could not very well say they were refused if they took the ride.


Yeah but how many ppl have taken rides without pets just to say something negative about driver to get refunded. I'm proof of that. Black lady on pool ride emailed uber saying I seemed intoxicated. Funny part is I don't drink lol. Uber lady that called me said she had already put in 3 other claims, so they were going to monitor her account. Whatever that meant. Another funny part about that was, it was only $3 and change. My point is that any passenger can't say what they want to say. There is always 3 sides to story. Passenger side your side and whatever uber wants to think. Lol


----------



## KellyC (May 8, 2017)

RaleighUber440 said:


> This rule has already been out. They've deactivated people who've refuse rides for Service Animals in the past. It's nothing new.
> 
> The one part that does concern me is what if it's an extremely long ride from North Carolina to Texas? We can't shorten the ride without the risk of permanent deactivation? Doesn't seem fair to me.


The bounty for getting a driver deactivated is new.


----------



## MiamiUberMan (Mar 5, 2017)

I wonder if the bastard that got me deactivated last month got $25 out of it? Funny thing is I cancelled because I realized I forgot my license at home...I never even saw his dog...Uber didn't believe that though.


----------



## Red Leader (Sep 4, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> It is still about what the driver believes, if he or she is not aware that he has just canceled on a passenger with a service animal. In fact he just did cancel on a passenger with a service animal but he or she believes that he or she did not.


Where as you are right, so is LA.

Problem is....perspective. I don't agree with mandatory service animal transportation, but I support it. Some things just have to be done weather we like it or not. And we wouldn't have this issue if it wasn't a problem.

And make no mistake, it is a problem.

I love animals. But I dont want your pet in my car. I will tolerate your service animal, but i will also record it and out.yoi if I think you are losing.

A driver here reported a guy, wearing the t shirt of a dog walking service, who was walking multiple dogs, telling him they were all service dogs. I would have had a field day with that guy...and the service he worked for.



2Cents said:


> Yes there is. The dogs name appears on the card.


Uh...no. there is no federal requirement to register a service dog.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

prop said:


> Lol minion. I let all pets ride. My dog sits in that seat when I'm not driving uber, so its no skin off my nose lol


Ohhhhhhh
Bring your dog on trips & Tell pax it's ur emotional support/service animal. If Uber deactivates, get some of that sweet sweet VC money.

[


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Robertk said:


> I could be wrong, but seems to me the odds of one driver getting hit with two false reports is infinitesimal.
> 
> 1700 rides and I've had 3 dogs total in my car (1 service, 2 companion)
> 
> you guys get lots of of these service dog requests?


Yes, I have had enough false reports against me that I would have been fired several times over if I did not have videos to prove that the alleged service animals were actually emo dogs. For example, I was suspended over the following young lady's false complaint which she submitted the same day I ride denied her on Lyft. As far as I know, Lyft does not celebrate with pax when a driver gets deactivated like Uber does, but their policy is also to deactivate when a driver does not submit video proof of their innocence.






Lyft's little note to me that I'd been suspended while they "investigated":










And their rather less verbose, much lower key response after I told them that the young lady's pet was not a service animal and sent them the video:










[


----------



## Robertk (Jun 8, 2015)

elelegido said:


> . For example, I was suspended over the following young lady's false complaint which she submitted the same day I ride denied her on Lyft.


thanks for the video, that's pretty compelling evidence, I stand corrected.

I'm of the opinion that any driver using their own car should be able to refuse service to anybody, for any reason. Obviously the law does not agree with me. There must be a point somewhere in between ' you must take everybody' and 'you can't deny anybody', I wonder where that line will end up?

The service animal discussion is similar to the transgender discussion and ultimately may get decided this fall by SCOTUS in the cake bakery case.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Red Leader said:


> Where as you are right, so is LA.
> 
> Problem is.... I don't agree with mandatory service animal transportation, but I support it.


Seriously ! smh.... Then you agree.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Robertk said:


> thanks for the video, that's pretty compelling evidence, I stand corrected.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that any driver using their own car should be able to refuse service to anybody, for any reason. Obviously the law does not agree with me. There must be a point somewhere in between ' you must take everybody' and 'you can't deny anybody', I wonder where that line will end up?
> 
> The service animal discussion is similar to the transgender discussion and ultimately may get decided this fall by SCOTUS in the cake bakery case.


I support service animals being able to go wherever their owner wants to go. In any case, that isn't really an issue - in nearly 7,000 rides on Uberlyft I have not once had a genuine service dog presented for transport.

The issues are (1) all the damn pets/emo dogs that these youngsters try to force us to take, and not just us but supermarkets (how many emo/lap/accessory dogs have we all seen while shopping for food?). And (2) Uberlyft's chicken-sh!t terror of being sued and their unfair suspension and firing of drivers who do nothing but exercise their rights to not transport pets in their vehicles.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Robertk said:


> thanks for the video, that's pretty compelling evidence, I stand corrected.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that any driver using their own car should be able to refuse service to anybody, for any reason. Obviously the law does not agree with me. There must be a point somewhere in between ' you must take everybody' and 'you can't deny anybody', I wonder where that line will end up?
> 
> The service animal discussion is similar to the transgender discussion and ultimately may get decided this fall by SCOTUS in the cake bakery case.


Will be watching that case with interest, I do not want to discriminate against anyone. However, I hate the notion of being forced to serve someone who I would rather not have in my business for whatever reason, and yes I know that case is very narrow to religious reasons but I still find it interesting.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

elelegido said:


> I support service animals being able to go wherever their owner wants to go. In any case, that isn't really an issue - in nearly 7,000 rides on Uber lyft *I have not once had a genuine service dog presented for transport.*.


+1 ,

and since being deact uber, I haven't been confronted with one dog since on Lyft. Now watch that all change today.


----------



## Gooberlifturwallet (Feb 18, 2017)

dirtylee said:


> Ohhhhhhh
> Bring your dog on trips & Tell pax it's ur emotional support/service animal. If Uber deactivates, get some of that sweet sweet VC money.
> 
> They have always been here. Just think they recently infiltrated the mods. No way the admin of this site or moderators aren't known to Kalanick's team. If they aren't on the payroll already. I'll say, lots of new mods lately.
> ...


Uber is nothing but a test bed for constant surveillance of the human race. The artificial intelligence learns exponentially and it probably already knows more than the idiots at the NSA who think they control it.


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

Robertk said:


> I could be wrong, but seems to me the odds of one driver getting hit with two false reports is infinitesimal.
> 
> 1700 rides and I've had 3 dogs total in my car (1 service, 2 companion)
> 
> you guys get lots of of these service dog requests?


13,000 rides and only about 3 dogs. I don't even ask what they're for. They just sit in riders' lap, not a big deal. Some forum folk are detached from reality. Seems like the typical person with a dog in SF knows how to own a dog responsibly.
An SF driver was deactivated for rejecting a service dog. But he didn't even stop. He saw luggage, drove on by and canceled, cuz we don't like leaving the city we work in to go to the airport. Permanently deactivated.


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

Why even offer any cash? I don't get the point. It only incentivizes false claims and reports. The biggest "SCREW" to drivers is the recent change to Quest bonus to "QuestZone" which reduces it from 24 hours in a certain number of days to just 8 hours a day during rush hour. Total BS.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

WaveRunner1 said:


> Why even offer any cash? I don't get the point. It only incentivizes false claims and reports. The biggest "SCREW" to drivers is the recent change to Quest bonus to "QuestZone" which reduces it from 24 hours in a certain number of days to just 8 hours a day during rush hour. Total BS.


Its because if uber compensates a pax, the pax then can't sue uber under an ADA claim because the "wrong" of being denied service was already compensated for. It's a legal tactic for uber to cover its ass so they can't get sued.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Strange Fruit said:


> Some forum folk are detached from reality.


I don't know about that. My reality is no pet dogs in my car at any time for any reason.


> Seems like the typical person with a dog in SF knows how to own a dog responsibly.


Maybe, maybe not; I wouldn't know if SF dog owners are more responsible than dog owners in other cities.


> An SF driver was deactivated for rejecting a service dog. But he didn't even stop. He saw luggage, drove on by and canceled, cuz we don't like leaving the city we work in to go to the airport. Permanently deactivated.


Yeah, it seems Uber is eager to terminate drivers over this, as evidenced by their offer of the reward to pax for each deactivation.



prop said:


> Its because if uber compensates a pax, the pax then can't sue uber under an ADA claim because the "wrong" of being denied service was already compensated for. It's a legal tactic for uber to cover its ass so they can't get sued.


This is not compensation; instead it is specifically worded to reward pax for getting the driver deactivated. Consider this:

A driver denies an rider with an emo dog. The pax is made to wait 10 more minutes for another driver to arrive. The pax later complains. Because it is the driver's first complaint, he is not deactivated. No $25 bonus is therefore given to the pax.

On the same day, a different driver denies a different rider with an emo dog. As above, the pax is made to wait 10 more minutes for another driver to arrive. The pax also later complains. But because it is this driver's second complaint, he is deactivated. The $25 bonus is given to this pax.

Both pax were ride denied, both were made to wait the same extra 10 minutes and both felt that they had been inconvenienced. Exactly the same experience for each pax, yet the first pax did not receive the $25 bonus and the second one did. The bonus is therefore conclusively not compensation for the experience of being ride denied.

In any case, even if the deactivation reward was changed so that the bonus was indeed compensation for being denied, pax would still be free to sue Uber, given that Uber does not require them to sign a waiver to further compensation as a condition of receiving the bonus.



WaveRunner1 said:


> Why even offer any cash? I don't get the point. It only incentivizes false claims and reports. The biggest "SCREW" to drivers is the recent change to Quest bonus to "QuestZone" which reduces it from 24 hours in a certain number of days to just 8 hours a day during rush hour. Total BS.


The reduction in Quest/Boost/Surge etc is just due to supply and demand. Oversupply of drivers means that Uberlyft can decrease the incentives they have to offer to get people to drive. Sometimes supply and demand works in the drivers' favour, as seen with Lyft having to raise rates on Lyft Line in order to entice drivers to do those rides. Last summer's bidding war between the two for drivers is another example; we drivers benefitted greatly from it.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

elelegido said:


> This is not compensation; instead it is specifically worded to reward pax for getting the driver deactivated. Consider this:
> 
> A driver denies an rider with an emo dog. The pax is made to wait 10 more minutes for another driver to arrive. The pax later complains. Because it is the driver's first complaint, he is not deactivated. No $25 bonus is therefore given to the pax.
> 
> ...


Them not giving it right away is probably their version of "being nice" to us (even though its not). But the fact is if you compensate someone for a wrong and they accept it, they lose their right to sue and uber knows that. Its more CYA for them then anything, cause they don't care about us or the pax, they care about $$$ for themselves.


----------



## Reversoul (Feb 8, 2016)

So in other words, it doesn't matter if a driver has a cam or not. Even a rider without a dog can submit a false report. 

Screw this company.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Reversoul said:


> So in other words, it doesn't matter if a driver has a cam or not. Even a rider without a dog can submit a false report.
> 
> Screw this company.


Of course anyone can submit a false report. 
This has been happening before this dog thing. 
Why wouldn't a camera help you?


----------



## Reversoul (Feb 8, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Of course anyone can submit a false report.
> This has been happening before this dog thing.
> Why wouldn't a camera help you?


The difference now smart guy is that they are offering a reward for these reports.

Riders have an incentive now which they didn't have in the past. Do u understand?

And having a camera isn't going to help if a random rider submits a false report. Uber isn't going to release customer info so if you have no idea who filed the report, good luck figuring out who it was.

The only way a camera will help is if the rider actually had a dog and decided to lie just to get the money.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Reversoul said:


> And having a camera isn't going to help if a random rider submits a false report. Uber isn't going to release customer info so if you have no idea who filed the report, good luck figuring out who it was.


Let me explain to you why a camera will help, smart guy. 
The false report HAS to be from a ride you canceled. If you only have 2 canceled rides, then you just narrowed it down to two.

Now do you understand?


----------



## Reversoul (Feb 8, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Let me explain to you why a camera will help, smart guy.
> The false report HAS to be from a ride you canceled. If you only have 2 canceled rides, then you just narrowed it down to two.
> 
> Now do you understand?


If a driver cancels a ride and the customer wants to say it was because he or she denied a service dog, you would need to prove via cam that it was cancelled for another reason.

When I cancel a ride there isn't a pax in the vehicle and it's usually for a no show.

So I send video footage of what? Me sitting in a car by myself with time stamps proving that no such conversation took place LOL

Good luck with that, sport


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Reversoul said:


> If a driver cancels a ride and the customer wants to say it was because he or she denied a service dog, you would need to prove via cam that it was cancelled for another reason.
> 
> When I cancel a ride there isn't a pax in the vehicle and it's usually for a no show.
> 
> ...


Yes. Time stamps.

You actually described the exact thing that would prove your innocence and you still don't get it.

Most likely the false accusation would come out of retaliation if you denied them a ride for a different reason, like open alcohol, too many pax, etc.
Camera would prove the truth.
But even if it came after a no show. You parked for 5 minutes without making contact with anyone would also prove you didn't cancel because of dog.
Not sure why you can't comprehend this.

Don't be so paranoid. Pax aren't out to get you. And if they are, you'll win with a cam.



Reversoul said:


> So I send video footage of what? Me sitting in a car by myself with time stamps proving that no such conversation took place LOL
> 
> Good luck with that, sport


And what is your alternative to this? So you get falsely accused and are deactivated.
You accept defeat put your head down and walk away?
That's the type of sucker you are?


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

elelegido said:


> ...And their rather less verbose, much lower key response after I told them that the young lady's pet was not a service animal and sent them the video:


Gotta love it -- they "elected" to reactivate your account. That makes it seem like they could just as easily have said they would _not_ reactivate your account because they "didn't feel like it."


----------



## darkshy77 (Sep 28, 2015)

KellyC said:


> Get ready for a deluge of false reports.


Pay me pay me pay me..... Min fare trips and get that money.....


----------



## Reversoul (Feb 8, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Yes. Time stamps.
> 
> You actually described the exact thing that would prove your innocence and you still don't get it.
> 
> ...


First off no need to resort to childish name calling, slugger.

I'm not a sucker, I just don't care enough about this gig to go through the hassle. I have a good job with benefits. I'm just using this as extra income until I finish my degree.

And I couldn't care less about getting deactivated because my livelihood doesn't depend on this. Only a "sucker" would try to make this a career and use this as anything more than supplemental income.

But you keep chasing that carrot, big guy.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Seriously ! smh.... Then you agree.


Ok...now I've seen everything....

You have soil in your name...

Soil is another name for poo...

As in I've soiled myself again...8)

Rakos


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Reversoul said:


> First off no need to resort to childish name calling, slugger.
> 
> I'm not a sucker, I just don't care enough about this gig to go through the hassle. I have a good job with benefits. I'm just using this as extra income until I finish my degree.
> 
> ...


Lol. Wow now your completely dodging the issue, hoping no one will notice.
if you don't care about being deactivated, why would you post this about this very subject?


Reversoul said:


> So in other words, it doesn't matter if a driver has a cam or not. Even a rider without a dog can submit a false report.
> 
> Screw this company.


You do care. You just choose to be negative and not accept the logical solutions I presented.

Now your giving me that " I don't care about this gig I make good money they can deactivate me blah blah blah". That's pretty funny.

Like getting dumped and saying " I'm glad I'm better off without her"
If that was the case you would have dumped her, or in this case you would quit now, not when you're falsely accused.

And you would be a sucker if you were falsely accused and didn't defend yourself, just complained about "this company sucks. Screw Uber"

Not buying what you're selling, compadre.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

That reminds me what they used to do...

In the military when a girl dumps her guy...

You collect a number of pictures...

Of your compadres girls...

Put them together in a package...

Send it to your ex girl...And tell her...

I'm sorry to see you go...Now please...

Pick your picture out...

And send it back to me...

So I can remember which one you are...8O

Rakos


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Rakos said:


> That reminds me what they used to do...
> 
> In the military when a girl dumps her guy...
> 
> ...


Hahahahaha


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Yes. Time stamps.
> 
> Don't be so paranoid. Pax aren't out to get you. And if they are, you'll win with a cam.
> 
> ...


Cam won't help in real crises.
Not a smart sucker, just risk avoidance after learning that Eliza was not using Lxft but Uber, I let Lxft deactivate my account. No thank you, but they surely told in the last email Do not fight the deactivation, no mention where is my sign-on bonus though.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

ntcindetroit said:


> Cam won't help in real crises.
> Not a smart sucker, just risk avoidance after learning that Eliza was not using Lxft but Uber, I let Lxft deactivate my account. No thank you, but they surely told in the last email Do not fight the deactivation, no mention where is my sign-on bonus though.


What?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

AllGold said:


> Gotta love it -- they "elected" to reactivate your account. That makes it seem like they could just as easily have said they would _not_ reactivate your account because they "didn't feel like it."


Yes... Clearly Lyft treats its drivers just as bad as Uber does. Same "high and mighty" attitude, same BS.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Rakos said:


> Ok...now I've seen everything....
> 
> You have soil in your name...
> 
> ...


Ya Grand dad use to be a worm framer, hence s-oil.


----------



## LuisEnrikee (Mar 31, 2016)

Not a problem. I'll take the dog. Your junkie ass on the other hand can feel free to gtfo my car!
Dogs allowed, junkies are not!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

I just don't understand how the idiots at the top could possibly give the ok to the most ridiculous ideas. Time and time again.

And they wonder why everyone hates them.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I just don't understand how the idiots at the top could possibly give the ok the most ridiculous ideas. Time and time again.
> 
> And they wonder why everyone hates them.


They do know that drivers hate them because they are corporate , hence their desperate bid to try to gloss over the cracks and make it seem like they are changing their ways. Obviously though, the gloss peels back very easily and everything is still exactly as it was underneath.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

File a false Police report and see where that lands you. In jail.

I think it is high time we land a some CRS' in jail for accepting false reports. 

Plus Uber is now insiting pax to do so. God these idiots have failed law school so badly , why are they not all homeless.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> File a false Police report and see where that lands you. In jail.
> 
> I think it is high time we land a some CRS' in jail for accepting false reports.


I have asked Uberlyft to tell me what action they will take against the pax who have made false reports against me. They then quote a "privacy policy" which allegedly prevents them from sharing that information. When I asked Lyft to tell me what action they had taken against a false reporting pax, they sent this:










However, this is nonsense - they make it clear that when the shoe is on the other foot and they deactivate a driver over this, they pax is given full access to all information about the actions taken against the driver:

Uber:










Lyft:


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

And that is why I believe one's only course of action is to file suit. There by opening Discovery proceedings to obtain the pax's personal info. And of course uber / lyft will stonewall your attorney all the way.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> And that is why I believe one's only course of action is to file suit. There by opening Discovery proceedings to obtain the pax's personal info. And of course uber / lyft will stonewall your attorney all the way.


If I were you, I would try going to the police to report service animal fraud. Go prepared to quote them the section of the penal code that covers it. They probably won't be interested at first or even be aware that the service dog fraud law exists, but I'd keep insisting. If the cops investigate then they would contact Uber and try to get the pax' details as well as the original email report from the pax or the CSR's notes if the pax made a report via phone. The advantage of trying this is that it would cost you no money.


----------



## sharknado523 (Mar 14, 2017)

KellyC said:


> Get ready for a deluge of false reports.


You pull up to a house. Five people try to get in your UberX car. You say sorry, I can't take five people. They refuse to call another Uber so you cancel and drive away.

Passengers files a report that they have a service animal and you refused to pick them up.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

sharknado523 said:


> You pull up to a house. Five people try to get in your UberX car. You say sorry, I can't take five people. They refuse to call another Uber so you cancel and drive away.
> 
> Passengers files a report that they have a service animal and you refused to pick them up.


I really think you guys are making something out of nothing.
I might have to eat my words if someone shows that a pax did this. 
But I don't think this is going to happen.

Yes, I know pax are entitled and think they can get what they want. When they don't, some try to retaliate. And yes I am aware of false reports in the past, saying driver was drunk, rude, whatever.

But 99% of the uber pax population is not going to know about this service dog thing. It's not a thing for them so why would they? 
They're more likely to say the driver refused to take them because they were (insert race or color here), because they were gay, or something that people are aware of. Dogs, not so much.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

The cam would prove nothing really because you could simply see the service animal approaching cancel before any conversation took place, the camera shows nothing of the service animal approaching as you drive off.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

REX HAVOC said:


> There should be.
> 
> https://www.nsarco.com/register-your-animal.html


No there shouldn't. There can't be a registry.


----------



## LoveTheBlues (Jun 2, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> This is where I don't think I'll have any issues with this new policy. I take all animals anyways. I don't care if it's a Service Spider Monkey. I'll say it again. I'd rather have a dog's bare A$$ on my seats, than those clubbing MallRats with short skirts and no panties. Bring on the Service Pythons, Service Bats, and maybe even those fancy jeweled cockroaches.
> View attachment 138890


The irony of this idiotic policy is that you can accept every animal (canine, feline, even human cockroaches, etc...) and this accusation can still be lodged against you as there is no clear burden of proof. I can go out next week, order an uber, walk up to the car with an open beer (no service animal), and you refuse service because I'm drunk and refuse to give up my open container. After you cancel, I file a claim saying you refused my service animal (because I'm an ass and want to try and make a quick $25. You have no way to defend yourself if it is true that they won't even tell you what ride it was as in many other accusations. I hope this doesn't become a big problem but it is not thought out and if it is, we will be the victims.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

2Cents said:


> Yes there is. The dogs name appears on the card.


There is no official registry of service animals


----------



## himynameis (Feb 9, 2016)

Making real money with uber is all a dream. ITS TIME TO WAKE UP! Its a joke now!


----------



## sharknado523 (Mar 14, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> I really think you guys are making something out of nothing.
> I might have to eat my words if someone shows that a pax did this.
> But I don't think this is going to happen.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's likely but it's something that could happen and even if it only takes two days to clear up do that to me on a Thursday and it costs me like $350-450.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

LoveTheBlues said:


> The irony of this idiotic policy is that you can accept every animal (canine, feline, even human cockroaches, etc...) and this accusation can still be lodged against you as there is no clear burden of proof. I can go out next week, order an uber, walk up to the car with an open beer (no service animal), and you refuse service because I'm drunk and refuse to give up my open container. After you cancel, I file a claim saying you refused my service animal (because I'm an ass and want to try and make a quick $25. You have no way to defend yourself if it is true that they won't even tell you what ride it was as in many other accusations. I hope this doesn't become a big problem but it is not thought out and if it is, we will be the victims.


The thing is, even though Uber won't tell you what ride it was, THEY know what ride it is. An dash cam with audio would save your a$$.  You saying no open container does not sound like no animals in my car.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Service dogs are such a rare issue, it's really not worth getting worked up over. In my 5100 lifetime rides, I've had less than 10 animals in my car. I don't believe any were service dogs. In every instance, the animal was either caged (cat, etc) or on a leash. None of the dogs I have transported have done anything but sit quietly on the back seat next to their owner. Yes, the fur does fly, and it is annoying to stop and clean it before the next ride, but it's really not a big deal. 

Actual service dogs have either a harness or an orange collar and leash. Maybe they have a service dog tag as well. The real thing is that you aren't allowed to ask why the person has a service dog. Asking about their disability violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. But you can ask if the dog is a service dog. I can't imagine a person with a real service dog giving anyone a problem about it.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Lissetti said:


> Get that dash cam running! Pull it off the mount if you have to and make sure to get footage of the animal in the car if it happens to be laying on the floor in the back ( out of dash mounted camera range.) Ask the animal's name and make sure to audibly greet the animal as it enters the car and leaves the car. If the pax won't say, fine, "Hi Doggy! Bye Doggy" will do. That will stand up in court when you sue Uber and lying pax for accusing you of what amounts to a violation of a federal disability law, costing you to lose your means of income.


They can't win a complaint when you gave the ride. No point in filming animals. Uber seeing that you gave the ride is proof enough.



Uberfunitis said:


> I said believe, because a driver could have very well canceled on someone with a service animal and not realized it because they were canceling for some other reason and potentially never even saw the service animal that was there. The passenger with the service animal though could very well report such a thing not knowing why the driver choose to cancel.


You can't get in trouble if you weren't informed there was a dog. You could only get in trouble if you made up a reason after seeing/finding out about the dog.



Blatherskite said:


> If I'm not mistaken isn't there also a service category called something like _emotional comfort animals,_ you know, like what the Japanese used captured Chinese women for during WWII?
> 
> Oh wait! The designation is emotional _support_ animals. My bad.


 You aren't required to transport emo animals.



Lissetti said:


> Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"
> 
> My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.
> 
> Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


It's prejudice to allow black drivers to say ***** if other races can't say it.



RaleighUber440 said:


> This rule has already been out. They've deactivated people who've refuse rides for Service Animals in the past. It's nothing new.
> 
> The one part that does concern me is what if it's an extremely long ride from North Carolina to Texas? We can't shorten the ride without the risk of permanent deactivation? Doesn't seem fair to me.


 If you're cancelling because it's too long of a ride, you aren't refusing a service animal.



Harry Seaward said:


> One more reason to drive only UberEats....


. There is no reason to drive UberEats, ever.


----------



## garyk (Jan 22, 2016)

Atom guy said:


> Service dogs are such a rare issue, it's really not worth getting worked up over. In my 5100 lifetime rides, I've had less than 10 animals in my car. I don't believe any were service dogs. In every instance, the animal was either caged (cat, etc) or on a leash. None of the dogs I have transported have done anything but sit quietly on the back seat next to their owner. Yes, the fur does fly, and it is annoying to stop and clean it before the next ride, but it's really not a big deal.
> 
> Actual service dogs have either a harness or an orange collar and leash. Maybe they have a service dog tag as well. The real thing is that you aren't allowed to ask why the person has a service dog. Asking about their disability violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. But you can ask if the dog is a service dog. I can't imagine a person with a real service dog giving anyone a problem about it.





Atom guy said:


> Service dogs are such a rare issue, it's really not worth getting worked up over. In my 5100 lifetime rides, I've had less than 10 animals in my car. I don't believe any were service dogs. In every instance, the animal was either caged (cat, etc) or on a leash. None of the dogs I have transported have done anything but sit quietly on the back seat next to their owner. Yes, the fur does fly, and it is annoying to stop and clean it before the next ride, but it's really not a big deal.
> 
> Actual service dogs have either a harness or an orange collar and leash. Maybe they have a service dog tag as well. The real thing is that you aren't allowed to ask why the person has a service dog. Asking about their disability violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. But you can ask if the dog is a service dog. I can't imagine a person with a real service dog giving anyone a problem about it.


Service animals are not required to have a harness or an orange jacket or anything because there are no requirements for service animals. and here is a link to ADA to prove that. And for those of you who are wondering whether or not you are allowed to ask the two questions of whether or not it's a service animal and what task is trained to perform please take a look at Section 5 part a https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Real service animals aka trained dogs are crazy expensive. Like a couple grand easily. Not many actually have them. I still take dogs as long as it's clean & nice. 

Lying pathetic pieces of shit pax, dime a dozen everywhere you go.


----------



## Harry Seaward (Mar 7, 2017)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> There is no reason to drive UberEats, ever.


Perhaps, but there are even fewer reasons to drive UberX.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> The cam would prove nothing really because you could simply see the service animal approaching cancel before any conversation took place, the camera shows nothing of the service animal approaching as you drive off.


Footage of you sitting looking around for 5 minutes, and driving off only after the 5 minutes are up says a lot. Shows there was a reason for the cancel -no show. 
But most likely a false accusation would claim there was contact, as they wouldn't know driver had a cam. 
Easy. Innocence proved.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> I said believe, because a driver could have very well canceled on someone with a service animal and not realized it because they were canceling for some other reason and potentially never even saw the service animal that was there. The passenger with the service animal though could very well report such a thing not knowing why the driver choose to cancel.


I ignore or cancel most pings that come my way that i actually accept, though

Whats next, unskippable ping doggie accounts????


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Footage of you sitting looking around for 5 minutes, and driving off only after the 5 minutes are up says a lot. Shows there was a reason for the cancel -no show.
> But most likely a false accusation would claim there was contact, as they wouldn't know driver had a cam.
> Easy. Innocence proved.


You are assuming Uber really cares enough to watch the footage I am sure that some are bored and actually do, others think..... I don't have time for this stuff and just hits suspend.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The more I think about this the more I think it's a blackmail to drivers from Uber to get drivers to not cancel at all under fear riders might try to pull this.

It really makes no sense for Uber to try to pull this other than for there to be a sneaky motive.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> You are assuming Uber really cares enough to watch the footage I am sure that some are bored and actually do, others think..... I don't have time for this stuff and just hits suspend.


I'm not saying you won't yet suspended initially. 
All I'm saying is at that point do you put your head down and walk away knowing you did nothing wrong? Or if you have footage do you walk into a hub and deman they watch video that shows you telling pax they have too many riders, or whatever the case maybe.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> I'm not saying you won't yet suspended initially.
> All I'm saying is at that point do you put your head down and walk away knowing you did nothing wrong? Or if you have footage do you walk into a hub and deman they watch video that shows you telling pax they have too many riders, or whatever the case maybe.


I get what you are saying I just think after multiple complaints that they will more then likely blow you off and say next, not that its correct for them to do I just don't trust Ubers CS to do the correct thing.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I get what you are saying I just think after multiple complaints that they will more then likely blow you off and say next, not that its correct for them to do I just don't trust Ubers CS to do the correct thing.


If someone has multiple complaints I would do the same. Too many can't be bad luck.

But this thing with the dog isn't multiples. Just takes one. Could be the best driver ever.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> If someone has multiple complaints I would do the same. Too many can't be bad luck.
> 
> But this thing with the dog isn't multiples. Just takes one. Could be the best driver ever.


From the OP on this thread it states that if plausible reports are received on more than one occasion.... that would be multiple complaints.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> From the OP on this thread it states that if plausible reports are received on more than one occasion.... that would be multiple complaints.


We all received communication directly from Uber that one time and we're out.


----------



## DeplorableDonald (Feb 16, 2017)

garyk said:


> Service animals are not required to have a harness or an orange jacket or anything because there are no requirements for service animals. and here is a link to ADA to prove that. And for those of you who are wondering whether or not you are allowed to ask the two questions of whether or not it's a service animal and what task is trained to perform please take a look at Section 5 part a https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet


This settles whether you can get a cleaning fee for dog hair from the service animal:

"If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal."


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

DeplorableDonald said:


> This settles whether you can get a cleaning fee for dog hair from the service animal:
> 
> "If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal."


Yeah, you can't unless the amount of hair is excessive. "may not ask an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge,* even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees*. Entities cannot require anything of people with service animals that they do not require of individuals in general, with or without pets." is right before it and all combined it means you can't charge a cleaning fee for the animal unless it causes damage (like chewing on a seat or if the animal gets motion sick and vomits), you can't charge one for it just being present in the vehicle and claim it's hair; it would take a lot of hair to get you a cleaning fee. But if its a long hair dog shedding like crazy, then you can get one, but the majority of service dogs are short hair ones that don't shed much so you can try it but uber will side with the pax and deny it most likely.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

prop said:


> Yeah, you can't unless the amount of hair is excessive. "may not ask an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge,* even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees*. Entities cannot require anything of people with service animals that they do not require of individuals in general, with or without pets." is right before it and all combined it means you can't charge a cleaning fee for the animal unless it causes damage (like chewing on a seat or if the animal gets motion sick and vomits), you can't charge one for it just being present in the vehicle and claim it's hair; it would take a lot of hair to get you a cleaning fee. But if its a long hair dog shedding like crazy, then you can get one, but the majority of service dogs are short hair ones that don't shed much so you can try it but uber will side with the pax and deny it most likely.


I had one ride with two visually impaired passengers and their associated service dogs along with a person who was traveling with them as an aid. Took them to the capital where they were supposedly testifying about vets with disabilities or something or another. They left hair everywhere one was in the front seat and one in the back seat. I can guarantee you that they were just hoping that I would have canceled or send in a cleaning fee request. All and all they were very nice but it was a PITA to get the hair out.


----------



## corniilius (Jan 27, 2017)

Dashcam FTW!


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I had one ride with two visually impaired passengers and their associated service dogs along with a person who was traveling with them as an aid. Took them to the capital where they were supposedly testifying about vets with disabilities or something or another. They left hair everywhere one was in the front seat and one in the back seat. I can guarantee you that they were just hoping that I would have canceled or send in a cleaning fee request. All and all they were very nice but it was a PITA to get the hair out.


sounds like an excessive amount of hair worthy of a cleaning fee to me!


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


What, if any, consideration is made if a driver is allergic to pet dander?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> What, if any, consideration is made if a driver is allergic to pet dander?


None


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Seems like it could be an interesting legal argument. You can't discriminate, so you have to risk anaphylactic shock...


----------



## tallnfla (Oct 13, 2014)

*Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals*

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.


----------



## Cjris (Dec 11, 2015)

Most so called "service animals" are dogs. Keep a cat in your car Problem solved.


----------



## Shrimpy (Dec 19, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...





elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

When your number is up, your number is up. I take animals with no hesitation.

A driver on here was deactivated yesterday because a passenger lied that they had gotten into an accident during the trip. Why? Who knows.

Cancel on any passenger for any reason, even if that passenger does not have an animal with them, and they can contact Uber and say it was because they had a Service Animal with them and the Driver refused to take them. And, there are a few nasty passengers (from what I have read on here) that will do that, simply for revenge.



Lissetti said:


> Oh I know, I was just playing.  But seriously it doesn't take a service animal complaint for Uber to celebrate deactivating drivers. That's just the latest. My friend who drives told me about the time he got deactivated for 3 days, because a pax complained that he used the N word. The pax, was an upper middle class, middle aged White male. My friend, ( the *racist) is a dark skinned young Black male. He was telling the pax a story about how another pax tried to get one over on him about something. My friend had said exactly this: " Dis ***** aint no foo!"
> 
> My friend, after 3 days of back and forth with support, finally went down to the Greenlight Hub and just hovered over them staring at them. " Really??" They looked at him, looked at the complaint that he had used the N word. And told him never mind. He's back to driving.
> 
> Uber has his profile pic. They knew he was Black. The longstanding debate over the use of the word by Blacks themselves will never be settled, nor will they stop using it. It's a grey area. I, were I Uber, wouldn't have touched it. Also, he said it with an "A" on the end of the word. Not "R."


Yeah, it's kinda like~


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Seems like it could be an interesting legal argument. You can't discriminate, so you have to risk anaphylactic shock...


It wouldn't be. How does a person THAT allergic ever leave the house?


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Cjris said:


> Most so called "service animals" are dogs. Keep a cat in your car Problem solved.


All service animals are dogs. ADA only allows dogs. If its not a dog, it's fake. And real ones will only acknowledge the cat if the cat comes at them or pesters them.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

prop said:


> All service animals are dogs. ADA only allows dogs. If its not a dog, it's fake. And real ones will only acknowledge the cat if the cat comes at them or pesters them.


*Miniature Horses*
A public entity or private business must allow a person with a disability to bring a miniature horse on the premises as long as it has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability, as long as the facility can accommodate the miniature horse's type, size, and weight. The rules that apply to service dogs, outlined below, also apply to miniature horses.

https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Apparently when the ADA was passed there were 5 service miniature horses in the United States.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Apparently when the ADA was passed there were 5 service miniature horses in the United States.


I did not know that, it seemed like an odd thing to throw in.


----------



## Ravedancer (Apr 22, 2017)

All I did was ask her to put the dog on the floor. I was polite.I've picked up about 20 dogs before and love dogs. She said no the dogs stays on my lap, I asked her again she said no and cancelled the ride. No yelling or bad blood it seemed. I couldn't even fathom why I got deactivated at first until uber told me. Two days later I talked to an uber investigator and explained everything , he apologized for my incovience and said he was going to get back online as soon as he could. I believed him too he was a very nice guy but in the end his hands were tied I guess.
If I had a dash cam I would have been exonerated.
Be careful boys.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Ravedancer said:


> View attachment 140429
> View attachment 140430
> 
> All I did was ask her to put the dog on the floor. I was polite.I've picked up about 20 dogs before and love dogs. She said no the dogs stays on my lap, I asked her again she said no and cancelled the ride. No yelling or bad blood it seemed. I couldn't even fathom why I got deactivated at first until uber told me. Two days later I talked to an uber investigator and explained everything , he apologized for my incovience and said he was going to get back online as soon as he could. I believed him too he was a very nice guy but in the end his hands were tied I guess.
> ...


Sorry this happened to you.

This is exactly why things said on here are not always accurate. E.g. requesting passenger has dog lay on the floor. If it is the type of dog that senses 'low blood' sugar it is needed on passenger's lap.

I take any and all dogs for this reason.

Good luck!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Ravedancer said:


> View attachment 140429
> View attachment 140430
> 
> All I did was ask her to put the dog on the floor. I was polite.I've picked up about 20 dogs before and love dogs. She said no the dogs stays on my lap, I asked her again she said no and cancelled the ride. No yelling or bad blood it seemed. I couldn't even fathom why I got deactivated at first until uber told me. Two days later I talked to an uber investigator and explained everything , he apologized for my incovience and said he was going to get back online as soon as he could. I believed him too he was a very nice guy but in the end his hands were tied I guess.
> ...


It could have been a service animal, but because the pax said it was a lap dog I'd say it was very probably an emo dog.

Video would have exonerated you if you had asked the "tasks" question and the pax failed it. Otherwise, if it was a service dog and you asked for it to be moved then they still would have canned you.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

elelegido said:


> It could have been a service animal, but because the pax said it was a lap dog I'd say it was very probably an emo dog.


Probably. A real problem here is that Uber is _defining _ADA Regulations based on fear. Notice the CSR listed 'allergy and/or fear of dogs?' Driver requested that the dog lie on the floor, as it is supposed to if it is a Service Animal. Passenger refused probably because it was emo dog, if it were a Service Animal she would have complied or explained that she needs it in her lap to perform it's 'service.'


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

UberLaLa said:


> Probably. A real problem here is that Uber is _defining _ADA Regulations based on fear. Notice the CSR listed 'allergy and/or fear of dogs?' Driver requested that the dog lie on the floor, as it is supposed to if it is a Service Animal. Passenger refused probably because it was emo dog, if it were a Service Animal she would have complied or explained that she needs it in her lap to perform it's 'service.'


La la comes thru again.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

UberLaLa said:


> Probably. A real problem here is that Uber is _defining _ADA Regulations based on fear. Notice the CSR listed 'allergy and/or fear of dogs?' Driver requested that the dog lie on the floor, as it is supposed to if it is a Service Animal. Passenger refused probably because it was emo dog, if it were a Service Animal she would have complied or explained that she needs it in her lap to perform it's 'service.'


And that pax is now celebrating having this driver fired with the $25 account bonus...


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

UberLaLa said:


> Probably. A real problem here is that Uber is _defining _ADA Regulations based on fear. Notice the CSR listed 'allergy and/or fear of dogs?' Driver requested that the dog lie on the floor, as it is supposed to if it is a Service Animal. Passenger refused probably because it was emo dog, if it were a Service Animal she would have complied or explained that she needs it in her lap to perform it's 'service.'


I don't blame Uber for being overly cautious when it comes to ADA. In the end of the day they have to at least meet the minimums of the ADA they can always require more if they so choose. Uber could say that all EMO dogs must be transported or you will be deactivated, they would more than likely be smart in doing so as it is easier and less costly for them to go that route than to face lawsuits for misunderstandings.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> Uber could say that all EMO dogs must be transported or you will be deactivated, they would more than likely be smart in doing so as it is easier and less costly for them to go that route than to face lawsuits for misunderstandings.


Uber's "Critical Incident Team" has indeed already told me that they expect me to take emo dogs. I told the support drone on the other end of the phone that the day Uber makes me an employee _and_ provides me with a fully expensed company vehicle in which to transport their pax and their pets, _that_ is the day I will start taking non-service animals for them. I added that until that day arrives, I am an independent contractor operating my own vehicle and I will continue to refuse all emo dogs and other pets at my discretion. The drone then backed down and thanked me for providing service on the Uber platform.

Where you go wrong in your analysis is that Uber cannot officially try to act in a supervisory / labour controlling capacity to drivers and require us to take pets, while at the same time maintaining the façade of independent contractor status for drivers. They do, however want to have their cake and eat it so, as above, they will try it on with individual drivers and see if it sticks. But when you call them out on it they acquiesce.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Uber's "Critical Incident Team" has indeed already told me that they expect me to take emo dogs. I told the support drone on the other end of the phone that the day Uber makes me an employee _and_ provides me with a fully expensed company vehicle in which to transport their pax and their pets, _that_ is the day I will start taking non-service animals for them. I added that until that day arrives, I am an independent contractor operating my own vehicle and I will continue to refuse all emo dogs and other pets at my discretion. The drone then backed down and thanked me for providing service on the Uber platform.
> 
> Where you go wrong in your analysis is that Uber cannot officially try to act in a supervisory / labour controlling capacity to drivers and require us to take pets, while at the same time maintaining the façade of independent contractor status for drivers. They do, however want to have their cake and eat it so, as above, they will try it on with individual drivers and see if it sticks. But when you call them out on it they acquiesce.


That one did, you may not be so lucky with the next. It is a risk, a risk I am not willing to take! I allow pets anyways so for me it is a non issue.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> That one did, you may not be so lucky with the next.


I don't consider exercising the rights I enjoy as an independent contractor to be luck. The supervisors at Uber do generally know not to deactivate drivers when the driver proves his innocence. I should know; they've suspended me enough times over false complaints and they have reinstated my account every time.

Yes, there is a small risk that an overzealous drone could try to deactivate me permanently over a false report. But I am unable to compromise my principles and I will stand up for my rights. Some others may prefer to be bullied around and avoid the risk and, if that's their way, then that's fine.


----------



## Gander36 (Apr 6, 2017)

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be charged extra fees, isolated from other patrons, or treated less favorably than other patrons. However, if a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

There are not many service dog rides where I drive, but whenever I do one from now on, I will request a cleanup fee through Uber for any pet hair, pet urine, pet feces, pet saliva, or pet odor I have to clean up after the ride. Just like I would if a passenger created a mess that had to be cleaned up.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Gander36 said:


> People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be charged extra fees, isolated from other patrons, or treated less favorably than other patrons. However, if a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
> 
> There are not many service dog rides where I drive, but whenever I do one from now on, I will request a cleanup fee through Uber for any pet hair, pet urine, pet feces, pet saliva, or pet odor I have to clean up after the ride. Just like I would if a passenger created a mess that had to cleaned up.


Cleanup of hair and dander cannot legally be charged for. "Damage" can be, but the ADA doesn't define what damage is. I'd say that shit, piss and puke would be considered damage. Snot smeared on the windows possibly, but smell probably not. I did once get a human pax with outrageous BO but Uber refused to pay out for it.


----------



## Gander36 (Apr 6, 2017)

elelegido said:


> I don't consider exercising the rights I enjoy as an independent contractor to be luck.


Independent contractors do not have "the right" to choose whether or not to adhere to the ADA. While I don't approve of Uber's tactic of paying people to proactively complain, Uber certainly is on sound legal footing and may even be obligated to bar drivers from their platform that won't comply with it.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> Uber could say that all EMO dogs must be transported or you will be deactivated, they would more than likely be smart in doing so as it is easier and less costly for them to go that route than to face lawsuits for misunderstandings.


Don't give them ideas!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Gander36 said:


> Independent contractors do not have "the right" to choose whether or not to adhere to the ADA. While I don't approve of Uber's tactic of paying people to proactively complain, Uber certainly is on sound legal footing and may even be obligated to bar drivers from their platform that won't comply with it.


 Try to keep up - I was referring to my right to refuse pets in my car. Have another read.


----------



## Gander36 (Apr 6, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Try to keep up - I was referring to my right to refuse pets in my car. Have another read.


Exactly what I was referring to. When you are driving for Uber or for fares, even as an "independent contractor", you have NO right, according to the ADA, to refuse service animals in your vehicle.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Gander36 said:


> Exactly what I was referring to. When you are driving for Uber or for fares, even as an "independent contractor", you have NO right, according to the ADA, to refuse service animals in your vehicle.


Wow. Really? Lol.

Ok; I'll try to simplify this. In the post you quoted me on, I was referring to denying service to *pets*. Have a read of this quote from the DOJ:

_*Service animals* are working *animals*,*not pets*. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do *not* qualify as *service animals* under the ADA._

Let's read the first sentence. Service animals are not pets. By the same token, pets are not service animals. In the same way that a banana is not an ostrich. And an ostrich is not a banana. Do you see?

If you still don't get it, please ask someone else to explain it to you.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Wow. Really? Lol.
> 
> Ok; I'll try to simplify this. In the post you quoted me on, I was referring to denying service to *pets*. Have a read of this quote from the DOJ:
> 
> ...


To be fair you were referring to emotional support animals that you consider to be pets but others, perhaps not the ADA, do consider as service animals.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> To be fair you were referring to emotional support animals that you consider to be pets but others, perhaps not the ADA, do consider as service animals.


People can consider their red-lipped batfish a service animal if they so choose - makes no odds to me.


----------



## Albanypaul (Jul 19, 2017)

No animals in my car PERIOD! I am not concerned with the rules, it's my vehicle!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

elelegido said:


> People can consider their red-lipped batfish a service animal if they so choose - makes no odds to me.


It does matter to you what Uber classifies as a service animal as they can make the definition broader.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> It does matter to you what Uber classifies as a service animal as they can make the definition broader.


Now you're just being argumentative. As mentioned above, Uber has already told me it wants me to take emo dogs and pets. I told them no and they backed down.

Could they start to deactivate drivers for not following orders and taking emo dogs and pets? Yes, of course, but that really goes without saying.


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

Just got the agreement in the app (have to ok to go online).

WTF is this bovine excrement in the agreement on cleaning fees?:

_A rider will not be charged for the first or second reported mess involving a service animal's bodily fluids._


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

AllGold said:


> WTF is this bovine excrement in the agreement on cleaning fees?:
> 
> _A rider will not be charged for the first or second reported mess involving a service animal's bodily fluids._


Yeah, this is a new development. Even though the ADA allows businesses to charge service dog owners for damage, Uber policy is now that service dogs get to take two free craps, pisses and/or pukes in your vehicle.

This free pass policy isn't a problem for drivers who only take (genuine) service animals. They are exceedingly rare (in 7,000 rides I have not come across one) and they are house trained anyway. However, as we know, pax believe that their emo dogs and pets are service animals and describe them to Uber as such. And emo dogs are very common. If an emo dog fouls a car then the owner is simply going to lie and tell Uber that it is a service animal and there's a good chance the driver's going to get no compensation for the cleanup.

I already had a rule of absolutely no emo dogs or pets, for any reason at any time. This new idea of two free passes for dogs to mess in my car is laughable and it cements my rule even more firmly in place.

The silver lining to this cloud, though, is that hopefully this will convince a lot of other drivers to deny service to the emo dog and pet owners - Uber may inadvertently help us stamp out service dog fraud.


----------



## surlywynch (Jun 22, 2017)

tallnfla said:


> *Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals*
> 
> When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.


This is a no-win situation. I am not qualified to ascertain the validity of the animal's status. Sure the first question is an easy yes/no deal breaker, but the answer to the second question could be anything, and I would have no clue what is legit or not. Someone upthread mentioned that a blood-sugar dog would indeed need to stay on the lap, how should I know that? I'm a rideshare driver, not a physician.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

surlywynch said:


> I am not qualified to ascertain the validity of the animal's status.


Don't sell yourself short - no qualifications are required to be able to spot a fake service dog. Pax actually do make it very easy to spot when they are trying to pass an emo dog or a pet off as a service animal. When you ask them the "tasks" question, the vast majority will admit that the dog is an emotional support animal. If that happens then the game's up - you deny the service and explain that under the ADA, emo dogs do not qualify as service animals.

Other dog owners will try to answer the tasks question but, because they do not know the ADA, they fail the question miserably. Here are some actual answers owners have given me to the tasks question, and my explanations to them as to why I declined them service based on their answer. In response to my question, "What task has your animal been trained to do?":

- "to say hello"... In my 45 years on this planet I have seen many unusual things. A talking dog, however, is not one of them. I replied to this pax that I did not believe that her dog had been trained to say hello. Ride denied.

- "to sit on my lap"... The ADA states that the dog must be *trained* to perform a specific task related to a disability. All dogs have the ability to sit on a lap with no training required. Ride denied

- "anything I tell it to"... The ADA states that the dog must be trained to perform a *specific task* related to a disability. "Anything I tell it to" is not a specific task. Ride denied. This Uber pax did file a service dog complaint against me. Uber suspended me but when they saw the video they reinstated my account straight away.

- "emotional support"... The ADA states that the dog must be trained to perform a *specific task* related to a disability. "Emotional support" is not a specific task, and dogs whose only function is to provide general emotional support are not service animals.

If, however, a pax responds to the tasks question with an answer that is not nonsense, such as "the dog reminds me to take medication", or "the dog detects glucose levels" or any other _specific task _that is_ related to a disability_ that the pax claims the dog has been_ trained to do_, then you will take them. I have not had such a pax present yet with a genuine service dog. But if that ever happens, they are welcome to ride in my car with their animal.

The American Humane Society estimates that there are up to 78 million dogs in the United States, and that only 20,000 of them are service animals. Only 20,000 service dogs in the entire country, that is 0.0003% of dogs. Or, put another way, when a dog is presented curbside for a ride, there is a 99.9997% chance that it is _not_ a service dog. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it really is not difficult to spot the fakes - most pax will volunteer that it is an emo dog, and those who try to answer the question give answers that make it undisputable that the dog is a fake.


----------



## surlywynch (Jun 22, 2017)

I say "no win" because it puts the onus of responsibility on the driver, and we always get the shafted by (illegitimate) customer complaints. You got DA for a couple of days... we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I don't suspect you got any compensation from Uber for the days you were not able to drive. But this situation is another reason I run a dash cam. So far I have not had the pleasure of dealing with a service animal.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

surlywynch said:


> So far I have not had the pleasure of dealing with a service animal.


Neither have I.


> I say "no win" because it puts the onus of responsibility on the driver, and we always get the shafted by (illegitimate) customer complaints.


I'd consider what I do to be a partial win, in that the young ladies with pets/emos do not bully me around, they do not get a ride from me and I don't have their animal in my car or have to clean up after it. Total win for me would be the all of the above plus no suspension from Uberlyft. No win for me would be getting deactivated or worse, actually feeling obligated to give rides to the scammers and capitulating.


----------



## 68350 (May 24, 2017)

I'm just happy I do not have to be concerned whether or not it is really a service animal. I love dogs, have had my own for 20+ years, and have no issue transporting a pax with a dog. I keep a blanket in the trunk when needed just for this purpose. However, the dog must be under control (leashed) and the owner must actually keep the dog restrained. I don't need a 90 lb beast slobbering up the back of my head when I'm driving, or distracting me with his movements. 

But I DO UNDERSTAND those of you who simply would rather never take an animal in your car, really.


----------



## bedouin (Dec 22, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> What, if any, consideration is made if a driver is allergic to pet dander?


Also, what if you are on a pool / line trip and the first pax is allergic and pax #2 has the dog (a genuine service dog). What should I do then? I'm not booting the first pax. And I don't want to refuse pax #2 and risk deactivation.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

bedouin said:


> Also, what if you are on a pool / line trip and the first pax is allergic and pax #2 has the dog (a genuine service dog). What should I do then? I'm not booting the first pax. And I don't want to refuse pax #2 and risk deactivation.


This would be an extremely unlikely series of events. Service animals are very, very rarely encountered. I've done 7,000 rides and haven't come across one yet. Then for the service dog to be on a Pool ride and have the other passenger allergic further reduces an already tiny probability. But if that ever did happen then you would take the service dog; it would be up to the other pax if he/she chose to continue with his/her ride or get out of the car.


----------



## Terysmit (Jun 17, 2017)

I love when they get in and you know dam well it's not a service animal. But the pax is a well informed creature who will screw a driver for a buck.


----------



## ganerbangla (Mar 4, 2017)

With service dog we should just get $2 or $5 dollar extra. Then lot of people willing to take the dog.


----------



## UberMensch3000 (Jun 10, 2017)

elelegido said:


> If pax catch on to this, it could also mean false reports when there was no dog presented curbside for transportation. Driver's guilty until proven innocent, and after two false reports, the driver's done and the pax that made the second report celebrates with the $25 bonus.


dashcam still remedies this. how you don't understand that is questionable


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

UberMensch3000 said:


> dashcam still remedies this. how you don't understand that is questionable


I see no evidence in my post that I don't know what a dashcam is for. The vast majority of drivers do not have daschcams so, as I point out, if awareness of this becomes widespread among certain pax elements then it could mean false reports.

I know you're a self-styled clever know-it-all, but when you try to score points off comments which are, in fact, correct, you just come across as kind of a dck. Just saying, you know, for your own benefit.


----------



## UberMensch3000 (Jun 10, 2017)

elelegido said:


> I see no evidence in my post that I don't know what a dashcam is for. The vast majority of drivers do not have daschcams so, as I point out, if awareness of this becomes widespread among certain pax elements then it could mean false reports.
> 
> I know you're a self-styled clever know-it-all, but when you try to score points off comments which are, in fact, correct, you just come across as kind of a dck. Just saying, you know, for your own benefit.


I see no evidence in my comment that stated that you "didn't know what a dashcam was for". If, and I stress IF, one feels this is going to be an issue then one can and should go get a dashcam.....Problem solved. 
PS; Now GFYM....How's that for being a dck ?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

ganerbangla said:


> With service dog we should just get $2 or $5 dollar extra. Then lot of people willing to take the dog.


Incredibly illegal.


----------



## ganerbangla (Mar 4, 2017)

Demon said:


> Incredibly illegal.


For uber anything is legal.

Is Uber legal itself in lot of city nooo. So anything can posible.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

ganerbangla said:


> For uber anything is legal.


Go tell uber's lawyers that have now lost dozens of court cases that


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

I have a blind son. That's how I found out about Uber long ago. Now I'm a fledgling Uber driver.

We live in a state where many people we know in the blind community were denied access to rides with their guide dogs. It's not as common as it used to be.

The goal for Uber should be training on service animals and policies regarding said animals
NOT financial penalties. Most people are just uneducated on the rules regarding service animals.

Uber has created the wrong solution to a problem to be abused by people without legitimate complaints. IMHO.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

MHR said:


> Uber has created the wrong solution to a problem to be abused by people without legitimate complaints. IMHO.


Exactly. People with service animals are just as irate about service animal fraud as service providers are.

This is another case of some geeks in an office trying to solve a problem with no understanding whatsoever of the nature of that problem. "Hey, let's throw some derisory amount of money at these folks to keep them happy. It works with our drivers!". Whereas in reality, as you state, the people unfairly affected by service dog denial want the problem solved, not a $25 account credit.


----------



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

Demon said:


> Incredibly illegal.


Trust me when I say that charging would be highly illegal and Uber knows that and wouldn't dare. My son is a member of an org. that works closely with Uber regarding situations such as this. I don't know if they're behind this [email protected]$$ed solution (I can find out) but if they are they will be hearing my opinion as an Uber driver.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Also, all Uber requires from pax in order to deactivate drivers is that the reports sent in by them are plausible. All a pax has to do is claim that it happened, and if the driver cannot prove himself innocent then he is well on his way to getting terminated.

View attachment 139284


So, what a great way to incentivize pax to make those reports, whether true or false. 180 days of change, my arse.[/QUOTE]
Not only should Uber require a driver's license (and use the pic for the rider) to prove a rider is of legal age, there should be a requirement much like a license for a legitimate service animal and not some airy fairy internet-churned document.

I have no problem with people bringing their dogs, actually. My first was a pit bull and based upon the owner I started to worry the dog might have fleas, then what would happen? Ugh. But owners who obviously take great care of their pets and they're small enough to hold them, I have no problem. If the dogs are large, they can sit on the floor. But they sure better look clean.



elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


It would seem to me that if it got to that point, we could say how can Uber prove the passenger actually HAD a dog at the stop? Unless Uber adds a "service animal" notation where we can expect one to be part of the pickup... This should actually fall under the Uber Aid or whatever it's called for x-sakes.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

melusine3 said:


> Not only should Uber require a driver's license (and use the pic for the rider) to prove a rider is of legal age, there should be a requirement much like a license for a legitimate service animal and not some airy fairy internet-churned document.
> 
> I have no problem with people bringing their dogs, actually. My first was a pit bull and based upon the owner I started to worry the dog might have fleas, then what would happen? Ugh. But owners who obviously take great care of their pets and they're small enough to hold them, I have no problem. If the dogs are large, they can sit on the floor. But they sure better look clean.
> 
> It would seem to me that if it got to that point, we could say how can Uber prove the passenger actually HAD a dog at the stop? Unless Uber adds a "service animal" notation where we can expect one to be part of the pickup... This should actually fall under the Uber Aid or whatever it's called for x-sakes.


It would be incredibly illegal to require some type of certification for a service animal.


----------



## rman954 (May 31, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Yeah, this is a new development. Even though the ADA allows businesses to charge service dog owners for damage, Uber policy is now that service dogs get to take two free craps, pisses and/or pukes in your vehicle.
> 
> This free pass policy isn't a problem for drivers who only take (genuine) service animals. They are exceedingly rare (in 7,000 rides I have not come across one) and they are house trained anyway. However, as we know, pax believe that their emo dogs and pets are service animals and describe them to Uber as such. And emo dogs are very common. If an emo dog fouls a car then the owner is simply going to lie and tell Uber that it is a service animal and there's a good chance the driver's going to get no compensation for the cleanup.
> 
> ...


 Wonder if it would be worth small claims court for a car detailing, disinfection, and lost wages. Tired of this politically correct bullshit having to bend over backwards for some special snowflake, doesn't help that Uber tells us to grab our ankles instead of just bend over either. As if anyone has a right to my services. And having an allergy that can impair your ability to perform your job, you're told to get a different job, the disconnect is unreal. I've also noticed more often than not plenty of people trying to purposefully cause a scene for publicity or lawsuit material involving service animals.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

rman954 said:


> Wonder if it would be worth small claims court for a car detailing, disinfection, and lost wages. Tired of this politically correct bullshit having to bend over backwards for some special snowflake, doesn't help that Uber tells us to grab our ankles instead of just bend over either. As if anyone has a right to my services. And having an allergy that can impair your ability to perform your job, you're told to get a different job, the disconnect is unreal. I've also noticed more often than not plenty of people trying to purposefully cause a scene for publicity or lawsuit material involving service animals.


Perhaps you're in the wrong business.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Demon said:


> Perhaps you're in the wrong business.


Which of us is in the right business?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Which of us is in the right business?


Those who don't hate the service/hospitality industry.


----------



## rman954 (May 31, 2016)

Demon said:


> Those who don't hate the service/hospitality industry.


I fully agree with reasonable accommodation. Having someone's mutt damage my personal property and not be held liable is ridiculous.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

rman954 said:


> I fully agree with reasonable accommodation. Having someone's mutt damage my personal property and not be held liable is ridiculous.


Don't drive your car if you're worried about that.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

rman954 said:


> I fully agree with reasonable accommodation. Having someone's mutt damage my personal property and not be held liable is ridiculous.


How often does a pet damage an uber drivers car though. I have taken many pets / service animals and the worst that I have every encountered is excessive hair. While annoying to clean up it was by no means damage.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> How often does a pet damage an uber drivers car though. I have taken many pets / service animals and the worst that I have every encountered is excessive hair. While annoying to clean up it was by no means damage.


If it's a real service animal it WON'T damage the car, or shit or piss in it; it's a very highly trained working animal that has been trained by professional trainers to do a job. That's the real problem here, it's not the legitimate ones, its the fake service animals that are the problem. Real ones shed and leave a little hair and that's it. And if it is more than a little hair you CAN charge them for it just like a normal pax.


----------



## burgerflipper (Jun 23, 2017)

elelegido said:


> The point I was making was not so much whether individual drivers like / do not like dogs or how to dispute fake reports. Although these are valid comments, my point is that Uber appears to be celebrating each driver deactivation with this $25 bonus for pax. They have made the bonus dependent not on whether or not the pax was denied a ride because of an animal, but on the driver getting fired.


maybe uber designed the policy that way to protect the drivers. "you get a $25 bonus for causing a driver to lose his job!" is much more off-putting to a pax thinking of filing a bogus complaint than "you get $25 as compensation for being denied a ride."

think about it. the deactivation policy seems very wrong to me, but it couldn't have been worded better


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

prop said:


> If it's a real service animal it WON'T damage the car, or shit or piss in it; it's a very highly trained working animal that has been trained by professional trainers to do a job. That's the real problem here, it's not the legitimate ones, its the fake service animals that are the problem. Real ones shed and leave a little hair and that's it. And if it is more than a little hair you CAN charge them for it just like a normal pax.


DOGS HAVE JOBS.

UBER DRIVERS DONT . . . .

NO WONDER THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS !


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Demon said:


> Those who don't hate the service/hospitality industry.


I don't see any complaints about the service/hospitality industry here.



Demon said:


> Don't drive your car if you're worried about that.


Taking the easy option and quitting whenever one encounters a difficulty in a job or occupation is, by definition, the quitter's option. That may be your way, but I believe that the majority don't share your views. Sometimes it's worth persevering and trying to correct what's wrong rather than just giving up.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

elelegido said:


> I don't see any complaints about the service/hospitality industry here.


Hookers are in the " Service/ Hospitality" industry arent they ?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> Hookers are in tge " Servicd/ Hospitality" industry arent they ?


Haven't seen any complaints about hookers on here though


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Haven't seen any complaints about hookers on here though


They get more Respect than Drivers.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> Sure the driver would know why he or she canceled but that would do nothing about the person with the service animal that was canceled on and is now complaining.


Well then
This system is Obviously Flawed from Inception.
So Glad you pointed this out.
Intent must Always be proven.
Proof is the Burden of the Accuser.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Well then
> This system is Obviously Flawed from Inception.
> So Glad you pointed this out.
> Intent must Always be proven.
> Proof is the Burden of the Accuser.


Uber does not operate a court of law with such requirements. They operate a business and can deactivate anyone for almost anything as long as they don't discriminate against a protected class.


----------



## UberMensch3000 (Jun 10, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> That one did, you may not be so lucky with the next. It is a risk, a risk I am not willing to take! I allow pets anyways so for me it is a non issue.


I just had to check off several items on an agreement which stated more or less that, even if I am deathly allergic, I MUST take pets. Not sure if this is a purely regional item, or if everyone will be seeing it soon as well.


----------



## NoDay (Jul 25, 2017)

MiamiUberMan said:


> I wonder if the bastard that got me deactivated last month got $25 out of it? Funny thing is I cancelled because I realized I forgot my license at home...I never even saw his dog...Uber didn't believe that though.


Did you cancel before you were within sight of the customer? If so, maybe you could ask them to view the GPS data stream and your point of cancellation as proof.

As for no DL, doesn't waybill show you DL number on it?


----------



## ServiceDogHandler (Sep 3, 2017)

2Cents said:


> Yes there is. The dogs name appears on the card.

















There's no such thing as a Service Dog ID and you can't ask for one by law.


----------



## over & done (Jun 25, 2017)

Never had this issue & hope I don't . I feel there should be some sort of service animal ID , so to speak . Too many people walking around with dogs in their pocketbook . 
Over


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

over & done said:


> Never had this issue & hope I don't . I feel there should be some sort of service animal ID , so to speak . Too many people walking around with dogs in their pocketbook .
> Over


There can't be a service animal ID.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

ServiceDogHandler said:


> View attachment 165805
> View attachment 165807
> There's no such thing as a Service Dog ID and you can't ask for one by law.


So it seems to me that if someone offers such an ID without being asked, you then know for sure that their dog is bogus.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


What if your state/city requires restraints for animals? Surely as a driver your not required to provide a harness seat belt for every size animal that exists.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

2Cents said:


> Yes there is. The dogs name appears on the card.


No. There is no card



Grahamcracker said:


> What if your state/city requires restraints for animals? Surely as a driver your not required to provide a harness seat belt for every size animal that exists.
> View attachment 165859


No state requires restraints. You guys are rediculous.



Fargle said:


> So it seems to me that if someone offers such an ID without being asked, you then know for sure that their dog is bogus.


No


----------



## over & done (Jun 25, 2017)

Can't see why it's not just put on the dog license . But I have no clue about service dogs & if they require a license . Just seems so simple .
Over


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Rat said:


> No state requires restraints. You guys are rediculous.


Are you sure? Where did you study law? Because a 2 minute Google search shows otherwise.
http://www.orvis.com/news/dogs/does-your-state-require-dogs-be-harnessed-in-the-car/


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

*California Penal Code - PEN*
*PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
_ ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )_ 
*TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]*
_ ( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )_ 
*CHAPTER 12. Other Injuries to Persons [346 - 367g]*
_ ( Chapter 12 enacted 1872. )_ *365.7. *
(a) *Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice*, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, *shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonme*nt.

(b) As used in this section, "owner" means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog.

_(Added by Stats. 1994, Ch. 1257, Sec. 12. Effective January 1, 1995.)_


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

elelegido said:


> Just when it seemed Uber was running out of ways to abuse its drivers, wait; there's more! This latest Screw You to drivers involves incentivizing pax with bonuses of $25 to submit claims against drivers for allegedly not taking service animals, when that claim results in a driver deactivation. Note that the bonus is not for any alleged inconvenience suffered by pax; it is specifically payable as a celebratory bonus credit when a driver is deactivated.
> 
> View attachment 138596
> 
> ...


Omfg are you KIDDING ME??!!

This is getting more and more pathetic and infuriating. I can't deal with this much longer. Time to really focus on getting a job, **** Uber and it's atrocious business practices and attitude towards its "partners"

Jesus Christ, it's like a joke - how much worse can Uber make it for drivers? They've basically thought of everything possible to favor pax, and taken away all pro-driver rules and regulations. Forced Multiple stops? No more re-rating pax? Incentives for pax to get drivers deactivated? DF from 6 to 2? The ability to keep up to 60% of drivers' fares? Establishing and erroneously claiming a "no tipping necessary" and "tips are included " culture that pax have clung to desperately? Always taking pax's side of the story as the truth and ACTING on pax's [usually false] claims before even communicating with "driver partners"? Deactivating drivers or taking away our earnings based on solely the word of pax when pax wants a free ride or is upset about surging? Refusing to tell drivers what pax's claims consist of and making it literally impossible for drivers to defend themselves or explain the truth of the situation? Deactivating drivers below 4.6 and allowing pax to stay active regardless of their rating? Allowing pax to stay active AFTER PAX BREAKS THE LAW? Allowing pax to start over as a 5-star rating if pax has a low rating and complains to Uber about it, yet refusing to even consider removing a poor rating from pax if it was an obvious revenge rating intended to lower driver's rating?

There are probably dozens more that I've missed, but you get the idea. I'm actually going to send this comment to Uber today and encourage other drivers to do the same; ask Uber how and why these things are fair and why we'd be inclined to drive for Uber when we have an option of driving for Lyft. Ask how we are considered "partners " when Uber heavily (100% of the time) favors pax over drivers.....

This whole thing is so disgusting- they are such a vile and heinous organization.


----------



## prop (Jul 10, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> Are you sure? Where did you study law? Because a 2 minute Google search shows otherwise.
> http://www.orvis.com/news/dogs/does-your-state-require-dogs-be-harnessed-in-the-car/


Checked source, Only 1 state actually has an explicit law requiring dogs wear seat belt and that is NJ. All other states (and many others listed as No or Ambiguous) only have laws regarding pets in the lap OF THE DRIVER under distracted driving laws or obstructing vision laws, not pet safety belt laws. The others prohibit unrestrained pets in the open bed of a pickup truck - not inside of the passenger compartment. In all states except NJ, simply the pax holding the animal or their leash is deemed to be properly restrained or under a passengers physical control. Beyond that, these "pet safety belts" have not been fully and strenuously tested by IIHS, UL, or other accredited testing centers to verify their safety and reliability in protecting dogs in a crash - in fact some vets I've talked to have even advised against them because the way a dog would need to be restrained in a crash is physiologically different than a human and these devices can do more harm than good (One watchdog organization has even found that 25/29 belts tested FAIL TESTING and may do more harm than good Source: https://www.today.com/pets/pet-owner-alert-most-restraints-pets-cars-fail-crash-tests-t59271 ).


----------



## over & done (Jun 25, 2017)

Thinking , if I were to start a rival company to Lyft & Uber , would put Julescase in charge of customer complaints department !
Over


----------



## Bpr2 (Feb 21, 2017)

over & done said:


> Thinking , if I were to start a rival company to Lyft & Uber , would put @Julescase in charge of customer complaints department !
> Over


Julescase would be perfect!!!!


----------



## Harry Seaward (Mar 7, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> *California Penal Code - PEN*
> *PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
> _ ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )_
> *TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]*
> ...


The ADA makes this a worthless statute.

"Despite apparently being willing to provide Casey [police officer] with these intimate details, Hurley did not at that time refer him to the information on the dog's vest or the registration documentation, or point out to him that the dog had a California license - nor was she required to do so.
...
Having carefully considered the sequence of events, and the conduct of the various parties, the Court finds that Casey violated the law by inquiring about documentation for Hurley's service dog."​_Hurley v. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER_, Dist. Court, CD California 2014


----------



## Twinflower (Oct 31, 2017)

I doubt they will even look at the video, it is not worth their time. Once you have multiple complaints you are gone no need for them to investigate, and you can take it up in court with the passengers if you believe they are reporting untrue events.


----------

