[Aerroon]

>Any efficiency gains that disproportionately marginalize the disabled are anti-human, and the cost should fall on neither the customer nor the gig employee but on the business and the government.

But the gig employee is the business. They're the ones that are actually rendering the delivery service. The cost naturally falls onto them, because it takes them longer to fulfill this order.

[msbarnett]

> But the gig employee is the business.

Rather, the gig employee (note that word even you used, “employee”?) is a thinly veiled fiction the actual business uses to offload risks and avoid having to pay benefits.

If the gig employee was a real business they could set prices, choose how to go about doing the job (routes to take to destination, etc), market themselves instead of acting as an interchangeable cog in the real businesses’ app, etc, etc, etc, etc

[treeman79]

Many years ago I worked at RadioShack. We changed watch batteries all the time. Zero training, just expectations.

Guy brought a watch in. I was getting ready to change it when he informed me that it was a $25,000 watch. I probably handed it back to him and said sorry, not taking responsibility for that. I was not qualified.

I can’t imagine forcing untrained people to deal with significant medical issues and be financially responsible for a fall etc.

I’ve had some severe disabilities at times, so I’ve been on both ends.