Post by High Priestess on Jun 2, 2017 15:05:27 GMT
A New York Times article describes Airbnb hosts "discriminating" against the disabled:
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/technology/airbnb-disability-study.html
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-disabilities-20170606-story.html
www.theverge.com/2017/6/2/15729326/airbnb-disability-discrimination-study
Excerpt:
But is this "discrimination" or is it prudence? I have some problems with the way this article is written...it seems to have a bias towards viewing it as "discrimination" when hosts turn down guests whose needs they may not be able to accomodate. This in most cases would decidedly NOT be discrimination...this is prudence, being practical, taking care, avoiding liability or increased risk. It's as if the authors of the article were totally unaware that hosts can be liable for injuries and accidents taking place on their property...as well as for much more minor things, such as a disabled guest arriving and then immediately cancelling and getting a full refund because the place did not meet their high level of need and long list of necessities.
The study authors do say that the findings cannot "solely" be blamed on personal prejudice...in fact I would think that personal prejudice would be much less likely to be the reason for a decline, than purely practical reasons. The statement that Airbnb "increases opportunities for exclusion" is a daft assertion -- it's like saying that building a dog park in a city facilitates exclusion because people who are allergic to dogs can't go there. Such views are silly and I think are the product of a galling level of entitlement.
I did a search in two cities in my area and found over 300 listings in each which are checked off as wheelchair accessible. That's a heck of a lot of hosts willing to host disabled people, I'd say!
What are your experiences with disabled guests, if you have had any? Would you accept a guest who inquired if your listing was wheelchair accessible, or stated that they were disabled and walked with one or two canes or a walker? What if you had stairs at the property, and were concerned about the guests' ability to manage them? Did you know that it's prohibited for a host to ask the guest about their disability or to ask other questions which might be needed to screen the guest to ensure that your listing could meet their needs? How feasible is it to rent to someone whom you're prohibited from screening to ensure that you can meet their needs and/or that they won't present more liability and risk to you than you or your home insurance company is willing to take? None of these issues are addressed in this NYT article.
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/technology/airbnb-disability-study.html
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-disabilities-20170606-story.html
www.theverge.com/2017/6/2/15729326/airbnb-disability-discrimination-study
Excerpt:
Ms. Garcia, who is from El Paso, was planning a May trip with her family to the Chicago area and wanted to know if the places she was considering could accommodate her needs as someone with muscular dystrophy. Unfortunately, she said, her questions appeared to frighten off at least two potential hosts.
She said she feels that if she had not mentioned her disability, “they would have rented to me, no issue.”
Ms. Garcia is not alone in feeling that way. Other users have reported similar bias, and a new Rutgers University study — based on more than 3,800 Airbnb lodging requests sent by the researchers — suggests it may be common: Travelers with disabilities are more likely to be rejected and less likely to receive preapproval for a potential stay, the authors found.
Hosts granted preapproval to 75 percent of travelers who made no mention of any disability, according to the study. That rate fell to 61 percent for those who said they had dwarfism, 50 percent for those with blindness, 43 percent for those with cerebral palsy and just 25 percent for those with spinal cord injuries.
The researchers could not solely blame the findings on personal prejudice. They said physical inaccessibility was a major factor behind the disparity in hosts’ responses. That, they said, raised concerns that businesses like Airbnb could exclude users with disabilities even as they expand access to services over all.
“Here’s the flip side of our tech revolution: Platforms like Airbnb seem to be perpetuating or increasing opportunities for exclusion, both economic and social,” said Lisa Schur, a professor in the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations and one of the study authors.
She said she feels that if she had not mentioned her disability, “they would have rented to me, no issue.”
Ms. Garcia is not alone in feeling that way. Other users have reported similar bias, and a new Rutgers University study — based on more than 3,800 Airbnb lodging requests sent by the researchers — suggests it may be common: Travelers with disabilities are more likely to be rejected and less likely to receive preapproval for a potential stay, the authors found.
Hosts granted preapproval to 75 percent of travelers who made no mention of any disability, according to the study. That rate fell to 61 percent for those who said they had dwarfism, 50 percent for those with blindness, 43 percent for those with cerebral palsy and just 25 percent for those with spinal cord injuries.
The researchers could not solely blame the findings on personal prejudice. They said physical inaccessibility was a major factor behind the disparity in hosts’ responses. That, they said, raised concerns that businesses like Airbnb could exclude users with disabilities even as they expand access to services over all.
“Here’s the flip side of our tech revolution: Platforms like Airbnb seem to be perpetuating or increasing opportunities for exclusion, both economic and social,” said Lisa Schur, a professor in the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations and one of the study authors.
But is this "discrimination" or is it prudence? I have some problems with the way this article is written...it seems to have a bias towards viewing it as "discrimination" when hosts turn down guests whose needs they may not be able to accomodate. This in most cases would decidedly NOT be discrimination...this is prudence, being practical, taking care, avoiding liability or increased risk. It's as if the authors of the article were totally unaware that hosts can be liable for injuries and accidents taking place on their property...as well as for much more minor things, such as a disabled guest arriving and then immediately cancelling and getting a full refund because the place did not meet their high level of need and long list of necessities.
The study authors do say that the findings cannot "solely" be blamed on personal prejudice...in fact I would think that personal prejudice would be much less likely to be the reason for a decline, than purely practical reasons. The statement that Airbnb "increases opportunities for exclusion" is a daft assertion -- it's like saying that building a dog park in a city facilitates exclusion because people who are allergic to dogs can't go there. Such views are silly and I think are the product of a galling level of entitlement.
I did a search in two cities in my area and found over 300 listings in each which are checked off as wheelchair accessible. That's a heck of a lot of hosts willing to host disabled people, I'd say!
What are your experiences with disabled guests, if you have had any? Would you accept a guest who inquired if your listing was wheelchair accessible, or stated that they were disabled and walked with one or two canes or a walker? What if you had stairs at the property, and were concerned about the guests' ability to manage them? Did you know that it's prohibited for a host to ask the guest about their disability or to ask other questions which might be needed to screen the guest to ensure that your listing could meet their needs? How feasible is it to rent to someone whom you're prohibited from screening to ensure that you can meet their needs and/or that they won't present more liability and risk to you than you or your home insurance company is willing to take? None of these issues are addressed in this NYT article.
