Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Examining Disability Access For Uber, Lyft
An anonymous reader writes: Uber and Lyft have been dealing with a host of legal and regulatory issues, and the Massachusetts attorney general's office is adding one more: disability access. No formal action has been taken, but the office has contacted the companies to see how they handle equal access. Uber says it often speaks with advocates about accessibility, and less than a week ago they introduced uberASSIST, which connects riders with drivers who are specifically trained to assist those with disabilities. Still, the inquiry seems to have been spurred by questions from disabilities rights groups, not to mention ongoing lawsuits. "[T]he National Federation of the Blind of California accused Uber in a lawsuit last year of discrimination by refusing to transport guide dogs. A San Francisco federal judge has said the case can proceed. ... In Texas, Jennifer McPhail sued Lyft last year, accusing the company of not having a wheelchair accessible vehicle operating in Austin."
If Uber drivers are truly independent contractors, do they have to abide by the ADA?
Yes me me me me me and fuck the disabled, because the almighty dollar should rule everything. Uber/Lyft are examples of he worst of the free market system. Just bully your competition into having crap labour laws and screw anyone who falls outside of fit, high rate, low risk riders. Uber/Lyft are going to fire all their drivers as soon as driverless cars come in and they're trying to build monopoly empires right now. Americans are so gullible they'll fall for convenience for most at the expense of everyone else.
Deaf Dumb and Blind get all the breaks. Me, I just get free gin. By the bathtub full.
Right.
And all the 4 door sedans that are used as taxis have a wheel chair lift and 20 sq ft of space to secure the rider.
Most Taxis are not Handicapped friendly. They are just Grandma Cars that stink.
This is nothing more than cronyism.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
they can and do refuse service dogs (against their religion) with no statuary legal repercussions
https://www.google.com/search?... dogs
>
Most Taxis are not Handicapped friendly. .
Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve. Taxi companies have handicap friendly vehicles that are dispatched to those customers, and they keep enough available to handle those requests. It would make no sense to outfit every vehicle, I am surprised you didn't think that through.
Deny access to everyone because Uber isn't ADA compliant?
Not every disabled person is born that way. Sometimes people receive injuries later in life so that many more don't. Should we throw those people to the wolves as well?
You mean like UberASSIST?
But the Government won't let that prevent them from shutting them down. Especially MA Government which is the closet thing the the USSR you will find in the US.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... to protect entrenched special interests from competition/audit/legal action/defunding/etc... using "health", "safety", and/or "the children" as the reason monopolies, cronycapitalism, campaign donors, and other shill like behavior has to be protected from... literally anything that would clean house.
Name anything broken in government or the economy and I shit you not... every last bit of it is armored in babies.
Baby armor.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfro...
And why does this work? Because voters/readers are lazy and don't look past the surface. They just see the baby armor and the guy taking shots at it. they don't look closely enough to see the babies are mostly plastic, and there is some cynical shit giggle in the middle of the babies that have been tied to his body while he's getting away with pretty much whatever he wants because after all... baby armor.
I'd cite specific issues outside of the fucking taxi companies but then I'd endure endless comments from fuckwits that don't realize they're enabling systemic corruption/dysfunction because... baby armor.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government, and not forced upon private enterprises. Towns and cities themselves should operate transport for the disabled. Government should also foot the bill for wheelchair access and the like. I'm not against accessibility, just against forcing business owners to pay for it in cases other than necessities.
The government DOES provide it. They do so through legislation that requires hire car businesses to have a certain percentage of vehicles on the roads at all times that are accessible, the cost is then passed on through higher average fees across all vehicles. In essence this is one of the taxi industries complaints (and a justified one at that), Uber by ignoring the regulations avoids costs that legitimate businesses pay and hence can undercut the market.
Does anybody really think the state of Massachusetts actually gives a flying fuck about disabled access to Uber and Lyft? This is about shutting down the competition and maintaining the giant fees associated with "legitimate" taxi services. All presented in a way of protecting the poor helpless disabled, because what kind of monster would be against helping people who really need it?
TLDR: protect profits while maintaining political image
Right. And then people like you begin to cry when the government raises taxes to pay for stuff like this.
Oh, you mean slavery.
nobody is forcing anybody to be in business
if you want to do business, you play by the rules
No, if our society wants to preserve those people, then our society should pay the costs, and not people who are just trying to operate a business.
Our society IS paying the costs. We ARE paying more to accomodate these people.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government...
Aren't all services "a service that is needed by people"?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I have to say, I'm really shocked about insensivity towards the disabled seen in this thread. This further entrenches my opinion that the people defending Uber care nothing for others, and do nothing to appreciate the situation that others find themselves in. We don't have much of a society if we turn our backs on the weakest among us.
You are not the center of the frigging universe, as difficult as that may be for some of you to comprehend.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
....Handicapped people want to be considered equals....except when it comes to access. Parking spots at the front....ramps everywhere...more big bathroom stalls...
Some of those I get (ramps). Some I don't (parking at the front).
However, if they want a service that caters to them, perhaps one of them should start Uberhandi. Or Handilyft. And give rides only to handicapped people.
If I have a handicapped friend, and I invite them to go somewhere with me, they better be able to utilize my vehicle or arrange their own. It's not my responsibilty to accommodate them. Why should the rest of the world give in to everything?
yeah by that argument the government should sell food and build houses
That's because when the government forces the cost on private businesses, that hides the source of the increased costs. When the government actually has to raise taxes to pay for it, people can figure out that it's too expensive. If the company raises its prices because of government mandates, people just say "greedy companies" rather than blaming the government. Making the government pay for these things directly is an important part of having checks and balances on the government because people notice taxes.
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
In the Boston area, Massachusetts also has a fleet of cab-sized and small-bus sized vehicles that it uses to transport disabled and elderly persons (The Ride) which seems to be directly competing with disablity-accomodating taxi services already.
Yeah, but when you call a cab, you call a company that provides the cab. In their whole fleet, they have a few capable cars. Uber on the other hand, has a lot of "contractors". Unless they have a few drivers that cater to that specific side of the market, they're going to fail this little test. Badly.
"If"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
The likely outcome of leaving a mostly able-bodied populace to decide whether providing transportation to the disabled is "worth it" is precisely why such matters are and should be handled by the government which, ostensibly, promotes the common good.
blog
You mean like UberASSIST?
Yes, if Uber assist is making cars available for those that need them, that is, there is enough of them to serve that market adequately, then that would bring them in to compliance. But I sense that UberASSIST availability is severely limited, hence the complaints.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government, and not forced upon private enterprises. Towns and cities themselves should operate transport for the disabled. Government should also foot the bill for wheelchair access and the like. I'm not against accessibility, just against forcing business owners to pay for it in cases other than necessities.
Have you ever complained about this before, or did this just become an issue for you now that it affects your beloved Uber? Its been common practice for a very long time.
"If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government"
You do know this is about Uber operating in Massachusetts, right?
It's popular to think "it should be provided by government", and wrong. Indeed, one of the most damaging changes in our nation is this concept that the 'government' should be providing.
By this example, the 'government' should:
- Operate supermarkets and other stores that sell food.
- Build and manage housing of all kinds.
- Produce and distribute clothing for all.
Uber should be left alone on this if they disclaim availability of transportation for those who require significant accommodations. The alternatives are readily available, and cost is not a criteria.
The ADA has been used to punish businesses enough. Time to at least once challenge the government expansion of control. At least in this instance..
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"Most parking space are not handicapped spaces. You only need enough to serve."
Actually, you only need enough to satisfy the requirements of the law. Whether that is enough to serve the need is not even the point.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
No.
If you drive a car in the U.S., you probably need to have auto insurance. You avoid insurance by not driving a car. You avoid driving a car by living and working where alternative transport is available. Yes, this means most of North Dakota is not a place to try and go without a car, while Manhattan or inner city Boston is a great place to go without a car, though Boston will challenge you with more hills and snow.
If you lived in America more than about 6 years ago, you could go without health insurance, paying as you go for care if needed. I didn't see a doctor or need any care for more than 7 years at a time twice in my life, punctuated by a broken leg (soccer) and shoulder pain (occupational), during which time I had employer subsidized insurance for only a few years. The broken leg I paid for. Now in America you 'need' health insurance, because the government has decided you do. Lots of people disagree.
Need. You may be using that word incorrectly.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pay for everything.
There you go again...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Logic alone cannot determine how much private misfortune should be offset at public expense. That's why these conversations drift toward ideological cant. But the suggestion that the costs should be transparent (e.g., funded by explicit government subsidy) has merit.
Sadly, it don't think it's as much about people defending Uber (though Slashdot is populated with the self absorbed and self centered) as much as it Slashdot's demographic slants heavily towards ignorant self entitled assholes. (Read any article on diversity or women in tech, etc... for existence proof.)
Right. Why should Uber or Lyft be forced to provide services for the undesireables? Blacks, gays, Hispanics and the handicapped should start their own illegally operating taxi company if they want to get rides.
right - so have some handicapped person start up a service specifically for handicapped people.
The government does both of those things.
I reference for your viewing pleasure the show "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver whose expose on the practice of chicken farming is enlightening and pertinent to this conversation. Uber's only innovation is a scheduling application for taxis. The rest of the business model is "hiring" a bunch of "contractors" to be unregulated taxi drivers in violation of most local laws and regulations while collecting fees for taxi rides that Uber doesn't actually deliver - but are delivered by a bunch of rubes who have been convinced that if they take their family sedan and act like a taxi driver they'll make a lot of money. Push all of the things that cost money onto the "cab driver" and keep all of the things that make money for Uber. Just like the big chicken companies. As time progresses, the requirements on those "cab drivers" will increase and their costs will go up while Uber will continue to make their nice piece of the pie regardless of the costs on the "cab driver." There will be a turn over that comes into existence - much like the one that exists for Amway Distributors wherein a few people do well enough to encourage more suckers to sign up and keep Uber making money while they put themselves out of a car and violate the local laws. Uber is a nasty business that has wrapped itself in the banner of innovation while practicing the worst of capitalism an claiming to be an innovative underdog.
So the USSR has a history of electing Republican leadership? You know, the majority of the past 26 or so MA governors have all been Republicans.
Shit, recently, a bill requiring companies to provide earned sick leave passed a popular vote without much of a majority.
This state isn't some crazy liberal bastion or socialist/communist republic that people think it is. So get the fuck out with your small-minded jabs about things you know little to nothing about.
Oh, sure. Because when we create yet another government agency, that will be sooo much cheaper.
I could agree on giving them tax breaks or something if they buy disabled-fit cars due to regulations.
But if the infrastructure already exists and only needs to be added upon, why create yet another totally unneeded agency? Don't forget, the government wouldn't just have to buy such cars. They'd also need drivers, they'd need callcenter agents, dispatchers, managers, IT,...
Right.
And all the 4 door sedans that are used as taxis have a wheel chair lift and 20 sq ft of space to secure the rider.
Most Taxis are not Handicapped friendly. They are just Grandma Cars that stink.
This is nothing more than cronyism.
I live in New York City. I have neighbors who are in their 80s and 90s, and I occasionally help them to get to medical appointments. We take a cab. One guy uses a 4-wheel walker. We hail a cab on the street, the cab pulls up to the curb, we put the walker in the trunk, and get into the cab. No problem. People who use wheelchairs do the same thing.
There are some mini-cabs, which aren't allowed in New York City, which are difficult for handicapped users. I was at the physical therapy department of a hospital, and they had an automobile frame set up to help people with broken legs, arthritis and stuff learn how to get into a car. If the car doesn't have enough leg room, they might not be able to sit in it.
Then let the government buy shuttles and deal with the problem directly.
Right. And then people like you begin to cry when the government raises taxes to pay for stuff like this.
I just wrote the IRS a check for $4,500. In a strange way, I was glad to pay it. I compared what I was paying to the government with what I was getting from the government, and it was a great deal.
I'd rather pay more in taxes to have the government provide the services I need.
I sent my niece $4,000 to help her pay for college. When Bernie Sanders went to Brooklyn College, it was free (in return for our taxes).
I pay over $400 a month for health insurance. In Canada it would be free (in return for our taxes).
In a well-run country http://www.sanders.senate.gov/... , taxes, in exchange for government services, are the best deal you can get.
In the U.S., unfortunately, the Republicans and centerist Democrats come into office, and say, "Hey, here's all this money in the government treasury. Let's loot it and pass it out to our corporate campaign contributors." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07... http://www.propublica.org/arti...
Then they say, "Government can't do anything. Let's cut taxes."
So, you want to the government to establish a taxi service when there already are several existing. Good to know.
So you don't believe in the market place providing such services for those that truly need it?
Great plan, until you're hit by an Uber car!
They're actually liars and hypocrites:
If government starts their own taxi services, one that will undercut everyone else, namely "private enterprise", they will complain about that and shoot that down too.
We're seeing this in TV-space right now. Just too bad smart customers moved over to TCP/IP many years ago.
Towns and cities, those that have public transportation, already have accessible transport for the disabled. Why should the private companies that serve the public be allowed to pick and choose those who they want to serve?
The "government" (the feds) simply legislated that businesses cannot discriminate against the disabled, then issued guidelines on how to do that to hopefully reduce the number of lawsuits about it. And local & state governments do have to abide by those guidelines, too, not just the private sector.
While I think that some interpretations of the guidelines can be unreasonable as applied (e.g. adding elevators can be really expensive in existing buildings) most are good for everyone, including the business, and relatively inexpensive.
In order those would be:
RideZ, rYdes, Rods, and OUBDPHOUDH{DOJJC:SJKBPIB
I am sorry. Really...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The government DOES provide it. They do so through legislation that requires hire car businesses to have a certain percentage of vehicles on the roads
Oh, you mean slavery.
So first you whine that the government isn't doing anything, now you whine because it is pointed out they are doing something and doing it in probably the most tax efficient manner.
But I sense that UberASSIST availability is severely limited...
And we sense bullshit. You know why and how we sense it? Because you are using "sense" as an fucking argument for your Statist Fascist belief system.
"His name was James Damore."
So the USSR has a history of electing Republican leadership? You know, the majority of the past 26 or so MA governors have all been Republicans.
You misspelled "Progressives".
It matters not whether there's an (R) or (D) by their name. Progressives believe there is no area of the private sector that could not use more government involvement and control.
Progressives are the reason the US is in the sorry state it is and why individual liberty and private property rights are going the way of the Dodo bird in "the land of the free, home of the brave".
Here's the darling of the Progressive movement, George Bernard Shaw. What he espouses in this video is one of the core beliefs of their ideology. They will deny it as it shows them for who they really are, but this way of thinking is one of the principles at the heart of Progressivism. Progressives cheered for the Nazis and the Italian fascists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The problem with that kind of reasoning is that most services in society actually are provided by private businesses, and rightfully so, as that kind of an arrangement comes with various benefits that you are certainly aware of. Not only is access inclusive, it will, in the long term cause the services to actually improve according to just who happens to do things better. We can of course discuss what the actual market mechanism is that is used to send the appropriate signals -- it does not need to be as ludicrously heavy-handed as some slashdot posters would like to make it sound like.
I fail to see how some separate government arrangement is, in the modern world, any different from shoving disabled people back into bureaucratic institutions -- and at that point it is all too easy to start reducing the so-called "necessary" tax amount to maintain even that.
At least over here in Europe I mostly do not see this kind of concern from businesses or business-minded individuals. The attitude mostly is that this is just something that is taken out of competition by just agreeing to take care of it, if by some kind of agreed upon standards if needed, and that's it.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
I am not sure if, if one really seeks a solution that inclusively works in the real world, you can break up these kinds of costs into separate components that you could then just tax people with. They just need to be a part of the big picture in a way that you can't just constantly "re-evaluate" in terms of whether they in particular have now become "too expensive".
Integration into the services on the overall market is just simply more efficient. Certainly the cost is passed on to the consumer, but the providers will just keep on improving how they do whatever they do... this improves the entire service, accessibility included.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Not necessarily. If the majority of people agree that, say, accessibility is desirable, be it whether they pay through taxes or some "hidden" cost, then it remains to decide what is the best way to implement the goal.
If it is then agreed that the best way to get disabled people included in the world is to make sure that competition does not mean accessibility is sacrificed, then they might not be interested in getting this "tax signal" at all.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
I also sense you cannot come up with a rational response for a world that does not fit your desires, so you come up with an emotional one.
Exactly what is my belief system? Seem like you are working with insufficient information on that as well.
There is a logic to it.
- Pure market solution would not provide for this
- Market solution with "guidance" is wrong as it interferes with the pure market solution
- Government solution is wrong because it taxes people, but at least people see how they are being manhandled by government. It is also a worse solution, so we still prefer it because it is.... worse.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
What would you have done in case of catastrophic illness, or was that just a risk you were willing to take?
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
If you lived in America more than about 6 years ago
What would you have done in case of catastrophic illness, or was that just a risk you were willing to take?
Wasn't that the time of Theodoric of York, medieval barber? In case of catastrophic illness, break out the leeches.
Acceptable risk. At 25 you're immortal.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Thanks for the link. Will try to give it a watch later.
It was the reactionaries like you who cheered for the Nazis and it was the big business who funded Hitler because of his anticommunist platform. And the first thing Hitler did after he rose to power, was to arrest all progressives (SPD and KPD members).
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It was the reactionaries like you who cheered for the Nazis
No, history clearly shows it was the Progressives and their fellow-travelers in the US.
and it was the big business who funded Hitler because of his anticommunist platform.
IBM did business with Germany along with others, but "funded Hitler" as in supplying him with large amounts of cash donations as you imply? Fantasy.
And the first thing Hitler did after he rose to power, was to arrest all progressives (SPD and KPD members).
The SPD and KPD were socialist and communist political parties respectively, from the former Wiemar Republic.
In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the Peopleâ(TM)s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).
https://www.facinghistory.org/...
They had nothing to do with the US Progressive movement. Unless you're saying US Progressives are actually socialists and communists, which does have more than a grain of truth to it.
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
That *I* have no idea of!? You spout other people's history-rewriting talking points without any citations and without thinking for yourself.
Go away with your juvenile insults. Adults are talking here.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The government DOES provide it. They do so through legislation that requires hire car businesses to have a certain percentage of vehicles on the roads
Oh, you mean slavery.
So first you whine that the government isn't doing anything, now you whine because it is pointed out they are doing something and doing it in probably the most tax efficient manner.
Are you saying that slavery is the most tax efficient manner to provide government services?
227-3517
Progressives like Henry Ford?
That only shows your lack of historical knowledge. Hitler was funded by Thyssen, Borsig, Krupp and several other German industrialists yearning for "good old times". There was also support from abroad, like donations from Vickers-Armstrong (UK) and Comitee des Forges (France).
I am German, I know our history very well and all of this is even highschool-level stuff that doesn't go very deep. If you do go deeper, it gets far worse.
Weimar, not Wiemar. Why do you Americans have such a large problem with the "ei" diphthong?
And of course they were progressives. A progressive is someone who wants to change things for the better. All socialists are progressive. Ther opposite are reactionaries, who want to either keep the status quo or revert to what they consider "good old times".
Some US progressives are indeed socialists or communists. Never heard of CPUSA? Your Democratic party are kinda sorta social democrats of a very tame variety.
No idea indeed. Now go and educate yourself first before you call others childish.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I am German, I know our history very well and all of this is even highschool-level stuff that doesn't go very deep.
Yet, you provide no links to citations.
Weimar, not Wiemar. Why do you Americans have such a large problem with the "ei" diphthong?
Auto-correct sucks sometimes. Sorry I did not catch it. Auto-correct insists it's Wiemar. It's not Americans in particular. Thanks for the sweeping generalization, though. Very Progressive of you.
And of course they were progressives.
There are more than one group who call themselves Progressives. Why do Europeans fail to realize that their political and ideological groupings and distinctions are not the only ones that exist? It's the same sort of difference that Europeans are so quick to point out between US and European understanding of Left and Right when they claim that Leftists in the US are far to the right of Europeans on the Right.
A progressive is someone who wants to change things for the better. All socialists are progressive.
Here you attempt to define Socialism as those who want to change things "for the better". Better for those in power, perhaps. Better for the common citizen? Hardly. History shows us that socialism assures equal misery for all by setting the "equality" at the lowest common denominator. Socialism and communism have resulted in the largest mass atrocities and acts of genocide the modern world has ever known, far outdoing the Nazis.
The US Progressive movement has no relation to the dictionary definition of progress/progressive that you trotted out.
Some US progressives are indeed socialists or communists. Never heard of CPUSA? Your Democratic party are kinda sorta social democrats of a very tame variety.
Here we can mostly agree, although US Progressives themselves scream bloody murder if anyone actually calls them socialists/communists or socialist/communist-like.
No idea indeed. Now go and educate yourself first before you call others childish.
I would suggest you educate yourself before attempting to treat others as inferiors.
*I* am childish and attempt to treat others as inferiors!?!? May I remind you who started the personal attack?
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
I was not the one who reached for an ad hominem attack in my initial reply and came across as a pseudo-intellectual gasbag with delusions of superiority as you did.
I am done with you, as it's apparent your ego and Euro-superiority complex does not allow you to participate in an honest adult discussion.
Good day, Sir!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Except that everybody's covered for emergency medical services. If you show up at an emergency room with an expensive problem, they have to stabilize you before they can discharge you. They'll try to collect money for it, but in general they won't collect anywhere near their expenses.
This drives up all hospital costs, since the hospitals have to build into their prices the idea that they won't get nearly all the money they invoice for. If you walk into the emergency room with a bad heart attack or get carried in with a bad injury, and you have insurance with a high deductible, the hospital is only on the hook for the deductible, which they have a halfway reasonable chance of collecting (at least a significant part of).
Since there's a law that says you have emergency care, what's the problem with a law that says you have to cover it? Consider the penalty for not having an acceptable plan to be a replacement for that insurance.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They can contract with, or employ, enough drivers to cover this. It will cost them a little more, most likely, but that's a requirement of running a taxi business.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
slavery is actually very efficient. But that isn't what they are doing. Governments should not be directly engaging in business, the most efficient mechanism though hated by many is regulation as it puts equal requirements on everyone while not making the government a direct competitor to business.