Your description of Chloe’s driving seems consistent with hers- she didn’t want to drive without a license, but there were no ubers available and getting her boss to drive her was too hard.
She said she wanted to drive without a license. We gave her alternatives (us paying for taxis/ubers for the once a week or two grocery shop she had to do). She could have done that until she went home and got her license, but she wanted to drive.
Yes, she had to use the car once every week or two for groceries. We offered to pay for taxis for her to go and pick that up. We also offered to pay for taxis for any other things she wanted to do. It was all expenses paid.
One of the falsehoods she told was that she had to drive daily. This was not the case.
Maybe you did everything right here, and it would have been good enough for a reasonable person. Maybe using the phone was prohibitive (although sounds like she did use it as part of her job?). In which case, Chloe is being unfair at best, malicious and deceptive at worst.
But I can see a lot of ways your report could be misleading while being technically true[1]. The ideal thing would be for Chloe to respond with more details, but if things are half as bad as she said, it’s very reasonable for her not to do that. But that’s also the most likely response if she made it up.
Non-exhaustive list of possible reasons taxis might have been a bad solution:
* the taxi companies don’t actually show up quickly and reliably (which wouldn’t be surprising, since even Uber isn’t reliable in places as remote as Alameda, which is a 5 minute drive from downtown Oakland). * she didn’t speak Spanish, the drivers don’t reliably speak English, and she finds the language barrier stressful. * she got sexually harassed by a driver her first week there and is scared of a repeat * she fears the expense will be used against her later.
Your description of Chloe’s driving seems consistent with hers- she didn’t want to drive without a license, but there were no ubers available and getting her boss to drive her was too hard.
There were taxis available.
She said she wanted to drive without a license. We gave her alternatives (us paying for taxis/ubers for the once a week or two grocery shop she had to do). She could have done that until she went home and got her license, but she wanted to drive.
Did you see the section where it shows how difficult it was for her to get a ride? She just asked and Emerson said yes. It wasn’t very difficult.
to be clear: you offered to pay for taxis when she was running errands for you, as part of her job?
Yes, she had to use the car once every week or two for groceries. We offered to pay for taxis for her to go and pick that up. We also offered to pay for taxis for any other things she wanted to do. It was all expenses paid.
One of the falsehoods she told was that she had to drive daily. This was not the case.
Here is where I find myself:
Maybe you did everything right here, and it would have been good enough for a reasonable person. Maybe using the phone was prohibitive (although sounds like she did use it as part of her job?). In which case, Chloe is being unfair at best, malicious and deceptive at worst.
But I can see a lot of ways your report could be misleading while being technically true[1]. The ideal thing would be for Chloe to respond with more details, but if things are half as bad as she said, it’s very reasonable for her not to do that. But that’s also the most likely response if she made it up.
Non-exhaustive list of possible reasons taxis might have been a bad solution:
* the taxi companies don’t actually show up quickly and reliably (which wouldn’t be surprising, since even Uber isn’t reliable in places as remote as Alameda, which is a 5 minute drive from downtown Oakland).
* she didn’t speak Spanish, the drivers don’t reliably speak English, and she finds the language barrier stressful.
* she got sexually harassed by a driver her first week there and is scared of a repeat
* she fears the expense will be used against her later.