So, without fighting, we have in the past seen some of the things Uber has gotten into and can agree it’s not really a good company however I do think they have tried to be better. However, myself and a restaurant owner where having a discussion about Uber Eats promoting black restaurants and not charging black owned restaurants for the remainder of the year.
My question: isn’t this against the law and do you think this is an indication they are no better than previous suites against them?
I know this is a touchy subject right now so keep things clean. I just want to know if I was right or wrong in our debate.
Well, I don’t think, technically, Uber can be said to be serving the public. You have to be a member to be served. This includes the businesses they operate with. Based on it being a private, members only club, I believe they’re probably free to serve, or not serve, or selectively give discounts, to any member as they see fit. On the other hand, IANAL.
I don’t think there is much different than the bakers not making a cake for the same sex couples marriage. They are providing a public service.
My thing is couldn’t this actually hurt what’s going on? Say (like I think they will) some lawsuits come forward. Then say they are found of no wrong doing. Wouldn’t this open the door for future wrong doings? Like open the door for a racist people to only cater to whatever race they like because they can refer back to this?
I just think Uber could have done something different than this. This almost look like it will cause more bad than good.
It is racial discrimination, or positive discrimination. Equality would be all restraurant owners not being charged. Anything that benefits one over another is a form of discrimination and you see it all the time in business.
For example where a small company is charged more for a product or service, because they order in smaller amounts, a large customer gets a big discount, because they are ordering in volume (which essentially reduces the administrative costs, because your salesperson has only had to make one sale, not dozens or hundreds for the same volume). That is a “logical” discrimination and is based actual cost reductions. It is unfair and discriminates against the small customer, but reflects reality. Policies, positively or negatively affecting a section of customers/partners, on something “irrelevant” to the transaction, such as race, creed, age, sex etc. is discrimination.
But, again, you see it all the time, discounts for children, students and OAPs. As a business, I think you are free to make such decisions, although many types of discrimination would be hard to justify. This is a good PR gesture from Uber Eats, based on the problems they’ve had with their Bro’ culture. As this would be seen as “positive” discrimination, they would probably get a slide on it, but as with @PHolder IANAL.
Edit: You also see this sometimes in some “social” businesses, they charge “normal” customers more and use that to subsidise the cost for the underprivileged. This is social discrimination, but it makes the privileged feel good, because they are helping others.
I am curious how it plays out. I do think one of the businesses or someone else will bring up a racial discrimination lawsuit and I wonder how it will go. If it is ruled to be ok then the fear now shifts to someone saying “you pay more or get our service free if your white” and they would have this on their side.
I see what you are saying about the school lunches and there are companies like Costco and Sam’s Club that anyone can buy bulk and save however this with Uber Eats is based completely on the color of someone’s skin and not a assistant program like schools have for lunches. To me that is the definition of racial discrimination.
If they get away with this and are allowed how long will it be before a new company comes up and says you get this service free as long as you are white. You can’t say they wouldn’t be able to do it because it was allowed with Uber. I see where Uber might have thought this was a positive impact but this could set back what people are fighting for.