5 ms·

Uber’s march across America’s regulatory landscape

64 points by DaveWalk 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joshuaellinger 11y ago
That's a misleading article. For example, in Austin, Ann Kitchen's proposal passed 9-2 and fingerprints are required. Austin already had horse-and-buggy rides for the tourists so relabeling it was a funny tactic but not substantive. What's more, Uber/Lyft lost the fight over fingerprints in Houston and San Antonio. Overall, it looks less like a giant coup and more like responsible regulation change to protect public safety. Uber/Lyft are effectively saying is that so many of their drivers lie about their names because they have minor criminal records that Uber/Lyft can't recruit enough drivers if they have to do effective background checks. That's not going to fly. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-uber-lyft-and-austins-fingerprint-c/npnLg/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-ub...
- manyxcxi 11y ago
  I bet that's a large part of the reason they fight against fingerprinting but I know there's a very large technical and economic one. They have a very nice bulk rate with a very good (in my opinion as a developer and customer) background check API service that means the switch to fingerprinting would cost them SIGNIFICANTLY more per transaction than the background check system they're currently using, which doesn't support fingerprint checks. EDIT: I don't have any claims as to the accuracy of the system they use vs fingerprint systems but I can say that the backgrounds we get from the same system they use are just fine for our insurance underwriters and our background checks are for people operating vehicles as well.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  So I signed up for Uber as a partner a while ago and had to submit to a background check from some third party data broker (hell if I can remember the name of the company, though). What is an "effective" background check? Either the broker has criminal records for you, or they do not.
  - pmorici 11y ago
    There are hundreds if not thousands of courts and government offices that keep the relevant records. Each has a different way of making those records available. If the background check service doesn't get all or them then it won't be effective because a person with a serious criminal record could just go to a different jurisdiction to escape their record.
- viscanti 11y ago
  While the fingerprint background checks feel safer, it turns out that they're less accurate and less safe than the checks Uber is doing. They are doing both fingerprints as well as their traditional background check process for all the Taxis on their system in California. "In 2014 at least 600 people in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—all cities that require taxi drivers to go through Live Scan—who previously drove taxis failed our background check. (2) These drivers were not given access to Uber’s platform, but may continue transporting passengers by taxi. Their records included convictions for sex offenses or rape (19 potential drivers), DUIs (36 potential drivers), child endangerment or abuse (seven potential drivers), and assault or battery (51 potential drivers)." - https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/ https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/
egypturnash 11y ago
I suspect the next legal battle for Uber will be the drivers forming unions. It's happened here in Seattle (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/technology/seattle-clears-the-way-for-uber-drivers-to-form-a-union.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/technology/seattle-clears-...) and is already being challenged (http://www.geekwire.com/2016/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-calls-seattles-uber-union-law-illegal-hints-at-lawsuit/ http://www.geekwire.com/2016/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-calls-s...). Personally I'm all for them unionizing so they can get a fair wage and have some bargaining power, rather than being a bunch of individuals who have to take every change Uber makes, or leave.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Those unions aren't going to be very effective, unless they somehow get a monopoly on being able to drive for uber, which I doubt they can get.
  - jeremyjh 11y ago
    Perhaps they could get it if their members were not permitted to drive for competing services at the same time.
    - hueving 11y ago
      No, I think the parent is referring to the fact that anyone can easily become an Uber driver. The incentives would be good because a big chunk of drivers striking would create high surge pricing.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kartan 11y ago
  I agree. But for that the best will be to change their contract to be regular employees. That is what what they really are. And then they will have the usual right like the rest of employees. That the communication between the employee and the employer is done using an app doesn't changes anything. All this "as I hired you with an app the laws doesn't apply anymore" is horrible.
UK-AL 11y ago
Their most effective lobbyists are their customers who really prefer the modern approach.
- barney54 11y ago
  This point is the real key. If you have enough users who like your product it is possible to beat intrenched interests.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    But they'd never have gotten to that point without ignoring the laws, which is the one thing everybody likes to give them a hard time about. So very many people can't tell the difference between "x is wrong, therefore illegal" and its converse.
    - erichocean 11y ago
      Oh they can, just only on issues they personally care about.
- SilasX 11y ago
  People need to understand, that's the general lobbying dynamic. Lobbyists don't automatically get their way just from giving cash; they push for incremental change where public support for that change is already strong.
kauffj 11y ago
That map seems highly inaccurate. Two of the cities I've worked in over the past year have anti-Uber legislation or enforcement and neither is on the map. Portsmouth, NH made Uber illegal and even went so far as to have the police charge the most vocal critic of this policy for felony wiretapping (http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20151106/NEWS/151109368 http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20151106/NEWS/15110936...). In Philadelphia, the Parking Authority has gone after Uber, stopped/seized cars, and issued hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines.
MistahKoala 11y ago
Were Quartz holed up in Antarctica throughout 2015? Even on my side of the Pond, Uber's regulatory battles were well-reported, to say nothing of the stink from London's cab drivers and Transport for London. A slightly disingenuous piece, IMO, considering the role of consumers in Uber's proactive approach to challenging the status quo.
dmschulman 11y ago
Side observation: what is with the recent trend in clickbait headlines utilizing this notion of "hardly anyone noticed". I've certainly noticed an uptick in this phrase on a few stories just this week in the news cycle. Did the reporter go door to door and ask if anyone noticed X? There have been many stories in the last year regarding Uber's regulatory woes and how the company is fighting back. Out of all the many recurring clickbait tactics, "hardly anyone noticed" has to be one that immediately raises the most red flags for me, not to mention how insulting it is.
- dang 11y ago
  Presumably they have to keep coming up with new ones because readers get acclimated to the old ones. Submitters: please remember that the HN guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is linkbait. We changed this one to a representative phrase from the article.
codecamper 11y ago
Anyone know if this legislation is specifically allowing just Uber & Lyft? Or dose the legislation just make ridesharing legit?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kitwalker12 11y ago
what if Uber starts charging a tax on its competitors like Pablo Escobar charged his associates for getting rid of the extradition laws...plata o plomo (I've been watching too much narcos)

64 points by DaveWalk 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

That's a misleading article. For example, in Austin, Ann Kitchen's proposal passed 9-2 and fingerprints are required. Austin already had horse-and-buggy rides for the tourists so relabeling it was a funny tactic but not substantive. What's more, Uber/Lyft lost the fight over fingerprints in Houston and San Antonio. Overall, it looks less like a giant coup and more like responsible regulation change to protect public safety. Uber/Lyft are effectively saying is that so many of their drivers lie about their names because they have minor criminal records that Uber/Lyft can't recruit enough drivers if they have to do effective background checks. That's not going to fly. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-uber-lyft-and-austins-fingerprint-c/npnLg/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-ub...

manyxcxi 11y ago
I bet that's a large part of the reason they fight against fingerprinting but I know there's a very large technical and economic one. They have a very nice bulk rate with a very good (in my opinion as a developer and customer) background check API service that means the switch to fingerprinting would cost them SIGNIFICANTLY more per transaction than the background check system they're currently using, which doesn't support fingerprint checks. EDIT: I don't have any claims as to the accuracy of the system they use vs fingerprint systems but I can say that the backgrounds we get from the same system they use are just fine for our insurance underwriters and our background checks are for people operating vehicles as well.
Karunamon 11y ago
So I signed up for Uber as a partner a while ago and had to submit to a background check from some third party data broker (hell if I can remember the name of the company, though). What is an "effective" background check? Either the broker has criminal records for you, or they do not.
- pmorici 11y ago
  There are hundreds if not thousands of courts and government offices that keep the relevant records. Each has a different way of making those records available. If the background check service doesn't get all or them then it won't be effective because a person with a serious criminal record could just go to a different jurisdiction to escape their record.
viscanti 11y ago
While the fingerprint background checks feel safer, it turns out that they're less accurate and less safe than the checks Uber is doing. They are doing both fingerprints as well as their traditional background check process for all the Taxis on their system in California. "In 2014 at least 600 people in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—all cities that require taxi drivers to go through Live Scan—who previously drove taxis failed our background check. (2) These drivers were not given access to Uber’s platform, but may continue transporting passengers by taxi. Their records included convictions for sex offenses or rape (19 potential drivers), DUIs (36 potential drivers), child endangerment or abuse (seven potential drivers), and assault or battery (51 potential drivers)." - https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/ https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/

egypturnash 11y ago

I suspect the next legal battle for Uber will be the drivers forming unions. It's happened here in Seattle (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/technology/seattle-clears-the-way-for-uber-drivers-to-form-a-union.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/technology/seattle-clears-...) and is already being challenged (http://www.geekwire.com/2016/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-calls-seattles-uber-union-law-illegal-hints-at-lawsuit/ http://www.geekwire.com/2016/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-calls-s...). Personally I'm all for them unionizing so they can get a fair wage and have some bargaining power, rather than being a bunch of individuals who have to take every change Uber makes, or leave.

tomjen3 11y ago
Those unions aren't going to be very effective, unless they somehow get a monopoly on being able to drive for uber, which I doubt they can get.
- jeremyjh 11y ago
  Perhaps they could get it if their members were not permitted to drive for competing services at the same time.
  - hueving 11y ago
    No, I think the parent is referring to the fact that anyone can easily become an Uber driver. The incentives would be good because a big chunk of drivers striking would create high surge pricing.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kartan 11y ago
I agree. But for that the best will be to change their contract to be regular employees. That is what what they really are. And then they will have the usual right like the rest of employees. That the communication between the employee and the employer is done using an app doesn't changes anything. All this "as I hired you with an app the laws doesn't apply anymore" is horrible.

UK-AL 11y ago

Their most effective lobbyists are their customers who really prefer the modern approach.

barney54 11y ago
This point is the real key. If you have enough users who like your product it is possible to beat intrenched interests.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  But they'd never have gotten to that point without ignoring the laws, which is the one thing everybody likes to give them a hard time about. So very many people can't tell the difference between "x is wrong, therefore illegal" and its converse.
  - erichocean 11y ago
    Oh they can, just only on issues they personally care about.
SilasX 11y ago
People need to understand, that's the general lobbying dynamic. Lobbyists don't automatically get their way just from giving cash; they push for incremental change where public support for that change is already strong.

kauffj 11y ago

That map seems highly inaccurate. Two of the cities I've worked in over the past year have anti-Uber legislation or enforcement and neither is on the map. Portsmouth, NH made Uber illegal and even went so far as to have the police charge the most vocal critic of this policy for felony wiretapping (http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20151106/NEWS/151109368 http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20151106/NEWS/15110936...). In Philadelphia, the Parking Authority has gone after Uber, stopped/seized cars, and issued hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines.

MistahKoala 11y ago

Were Quartz holed up in Antarctica throughout 2015? Even on my side of the Pond, Uber's regulatory battles were well-reported, to say nothing of the stink from London's cab drivers and Transport for London. A slightly disingenuous piece, IMO, considering the role of consumers in Uber's proactive approach to challenging the status quo.

dmschulman 11y ago

Side observation: what is with the recent trend in clickbait headlines utilizing this notion of "hardly anyone noticed". I've certainly noticed an uptick in this phrase on a few stories just this week in the news cycle. Did the reporter go door to door and ask if anyone noticed X? There have been many stories in the last year regarding Uber's regulatory woes and how the company is fighting back. Out of all the many recurring clickbait tactics, "hardly anyone noticed" has to be one that immediately raises the most red flags for me, not to mention how insulting it is.

dang 11y ago
Presumably they have to keep coming up with new ones because readers get acclimated to the old ones. Submitters: please remember that the HN guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is linkbait. We changed this one to a representative phrase from the article.

codecamper 11y ago

Anyone know if this legislation is specifically allowing just Uber & Lyft? Or dose the legislation just make ridesharing legit?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kitwalker12 11y ago

what if Uber starts charging a tax on its competitors like Pablo Escobar charged his associates for getting rid of the extradition laws...plata o plomo (I've been watching too much narcos)