11 ms·

I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely ou

by Lazare 11y ago

I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service? I don't get it.

adevine 11y ago
This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-may-7-e9a072ba5bf0 https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-ma...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation. This section is especially egregious: > What happens if Prop 1 passes? > Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable now and the people have spoken.” Austin spoke (and not Austin's government, Austin's voters!). Innovation is welcome, simply with additional (voter desired and approved) regulations. If ridesharing is sufficiently lucrative with these additional required regulations, competitors will fill the gap. If not, Austin's voters may re-evaluate their decision at a future date.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding and adopting it. It's totally reasonable for Austin to vote and ask for something that honestly is pretty reasonable. However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing).
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen! > However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing). I argue this is subjective (they voted "against their own interests"). They voted for more knowledge about their drivers (something they can control). One should not need to forfeit additional safety regulations to a tech company due to irresponsible intoxicated/influenced drivers being used as the proverbial boogyman.
      - kyrra 11y ago
        Or Waze carpooling could come to the US. http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/ http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/
    - makomk 11y ago
      By that argument, Uber and Lyft can demand any change to the law they like and if they care enough about it to pull out of areas as a negotiating tactic, any government that doesn't immediately give in is causing drunk driving deaths.
callinize_cto 11y ago
Totally agree. Uber could come up with a quick way to do fingerprint background checks. Just have the driver, go through a drive-through background check stop. It might take 5 minutes, but I thought Uber & Lyft drivers had a short orientation anyway. Kill 2 birds. After reading Josh Baer's article, I do agree with him that its a lot easier to point at a startup and say something is easy, without all the knowledge from the inside. I am sure there is a lot of data on why this is hard to do. I do think that part of this boils down to liability. If a certain percentage of drivers are known offenders of some kind, Uber or Lyft could get sued for letting them remain on their platform. Super sad to see Uber go. Its a great app. I use it almost daily. Reality hasn't set in yet.
- partiallypro 11y ago
  Eh, it's not easy, and it's an artificial barrier to entry created by the government to enter the space. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with special interests (taxi companies) lobbying to keep competition out of the area.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - drewcrawford 11y ago
    You're very misinformed. I live in the area. Uber/Lyft have campaigned really aggressively. I've got stuff from them in the mail, they contacted me at my unlisted cell, they've been canvassing hard for months. I've never even seen an "anti" ad. The "pro" Uber/Lyft PAC spent north of $8m, while the "anti" PAC spent 1/40th of that [0]. This is by far the most money ever spent on any election in this city's history, by a factor of about 5. And all of it is Silicon Valley money, which is just weird. Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. I don't know whether they were really necessary for Uber/Lyft to continue operations or not. I just know a bunch of SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms. [0] http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake-in-austin/ http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake...
vonklaus 11y ago
There are 2 answers to this. Lyft, which made the above qoute and Uber, obviously could continue operating if breifly pausing to fingerprint their drivers. However, the first answer to your question is that they won't. The premise of ridesharing is about scalable technology that allows people to work together on a platform. It would be an expensive precedent for these companies to have to pay for this cost. This is regardless of how you the consumer feel. There is also a very non-trivial impediment to get drivers to do this, especially if they are barred for something like a felony, even non-violent or not related to a vehicle. The difference is who controls the process, which wasn't stated in the article. I suspect a 3rd prty (e.g. Austin) would want drivers to come into a public place (police staton/town hall) and get fingerprinted. I do not believe that could simply thumbprint a phone. The second answer is privacy & convenience. A driver is unlikely to want to get fingerprinted and it probably makes little difference. Why should some agency get potentially millions of fingerprints (if this become national) when it would serve no purpose. Maybe they can serve warrants, ect. Again, idk if this is good or bad from a public standpoint but in practice Uber/Lyft already have a car, registration, license, picture, social media and very quickly a review system. So to the extent someone wanted to cheat, it would just be another small ipediment.
- jtchang 11y ago
  I actually feel fingerprints are a bad idea but I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". One other thought is that why wouldn't Uber/Lyft want these regulations. It seems like the are already the dominant party and fingerprint regulation would create a moat for other competitors to enter.
  - callinize_cto 11y ago
    I think most regulation keeps competitors out vs in.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft/Uber/Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction. I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft & Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.
courtneypowell 11y ago
The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors. They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business. Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local vote to delay the real issue as long as possible.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  I'm also confused because similar legislation has passed elsewhere (like here in Australia) and Uber 'welcomed' it (in the sense that Uber was not made illegal) and continues to operate with the added sensible legislation.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Perhaps the rules on what constitutes an employee vs contractor are different enough that Uber feels this wouldn't be a threat? Or perhaps the incentives are different enough that it matters less. Because it's not about finger prints: that's trivial to do. (Hell, you could probably come up with a simple lens to put on a cell phone to extract enough info to get a print... Not to mention existing services. They're lying if they say this puts too much burden and couldn't continue to operate. No, they want to keep the fiction that there are no Uber driver employees, that they're all, to use the brain-dead term working in the "sharing economy".
  - legulere 11y ago
    In Germany you need a special drivers license to commercially transport people, which is mostly a background check and regular checkups that you're physically capable for driving people around. Uber used drivers that didn't have it until they were told to stop. It just shows again how Uber is trying to prey on competitors by ignoring all regulations.
    - xixixao 11y ago
      Wait, in Germany you cannot drive your family around without a special driving licence? Not all regulation makes sense...
snitko 11y ago
If a business feels like regulations created by the government are not reasonable, it has all the right to decide to stop doing business. Government shouldn't be regulating such things in the first place, but since it does, it surely can't force businesses to continue working under them. > but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. It is outrageous. I mean, it's a vehicle. Not a spaceship, for gods sake. This person has licence and good rating in the app? Good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, don't use Uber. What right do you (or government, for that matter) have to tell other people what to use or not, I really don't know.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  One of them could take all of the other's business in Austin by integrating with a background check service, but they were both either too stubborn or too slow to implement integration with such a service in case their proposition failed. Now they're both losing business on top of the money already lost campaigning.
  - laurentoget 11y ago
    I really think the fingerprinting is a red herring. I think they were just trying to set a precedent to simplify their regulatory landscape.
  - snitko 11y ago
    In case you didn't notice, it's not about fingerprints. It's about the principle. It's a fight between business and government. Government wants money and control, businesses show they can't be blackmailed like that and pull out. There is literally nothing Uber or Lyft did wrong. They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere. If I believed in democracy, I'd say people should be voting better next time, but I don't.
    - lern_too_spel 11y ago
      > They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere. Nobody is claiming otherwise, just that they're stupid for leaving the profits to the taxi companies, who do comply with the background check laws. Either one of them could have become the dominant transportation player in Austin, but they were both too incompetent to make contingency plans.
darawk 11y ago
Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater in my view.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Getting in a car with random strangers is a perfect case of information asymmetry. Passengers aren't going to be repeat customers with the same drivers. Each driver is pretty much an unknown that the passenger has little control over choosing. On the broader point about what the government should be regulating: One of the worst things about living outside the developed world is how careful you have to be. You have to be careful what you eat, who you get in a car with, where you go. The consequences of not being careful are significant. In the developed world, the government ensures a minimum level for pretty much everything, and it's amazing. It's civilization.
  - darawk 11y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. Whether or not a passenger is a repeat customer of a driver is irrelevant, the drivers are rated by each passenger (at least for uber, this is non-optional), and if their rating gets too low, they stop getting fares. This system is infinitely more effective, efficient, fair and maybe most importantly, up to date, than any background check or fingerprinting system ever could be. And not only is it effective at protecting the public, it actually incentivizes the driver to be better than the bare minimum (which is what is encouraged by simple background checks).
    - Hondor 11y ago
      How does a rating stop a person from becoming a driver just so he can rape his first fare, then quit? He's not going to be bothered by stars or future fares.
viscanti 11y ago
> Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Refuse is probably a strong word here but I imagine significantly less people are willing to drive in somewhere to give their fingerprints for a background check than just entering a social security number in a web form. So there's more inherent friction. But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and some kind of fingerprinting system. So it puts uber in a business that they're not in and makes it harder for drivers to become drivers.
- greenyoda 11y ago
  "But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and some kind of fingerprinting system. So it puts uber in a business that they're not in..." Aren't there companies that that Uber could contract with to do the background checks?
- laurentoget 11y ago
  You need fingerprints for a number of occupations including real estate agents, teachers and foster parents. There are multiple businesses offering fingerprinting services. It takes 10 minutes and I think it cost me $12 last time i had to do it.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Usually, there are existing providers of such services (including often local law enforcement offices), and employers subject to a requirement for fingerprinting just have applicants designate the employer as the recipient, go into the established fingerprint center, and get it done.
- drone 11y ago
  In Texas, there are established commercial businesses which provide finger printing services already using a quick electronic process [0]. In my experience, it takes about 5 minutes to get done w/ an appointment. Uber already has a page set up for their Houston drivers to schedule an appointment via a Morpho Trust office [1]. I doubt that the city would accept Uber doing its own fingerprinting. In Houston, the city's argument was that Uber's background check failed to catch felons, persons convicted of sexual assault, and homicide [2]. [0] https://www.ibtfingerprint.com/locations/?st=tx https://www.ibtfingerprint.com/locations/?st=tx [1] http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check/ http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check... [2] http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-27-16-uber-sues-houston-over-fingerprints-mayor-says-city-will-not-compromise-on-public-safety/ http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-27-16-uber-s...
tushar-r 11y ago
> Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? I've been getting a $1 safe ride fee when using Uber in the US. So they do pass on the background check cost to the customer. There is some other reason for this. Maybe like the poster said in a later comment - about their classification the drivers. Or just them throwing a fit because it did not got their way. Here in India, couple of states have been telling Uber (and their competitor Ola), that they can have surge pricing recently.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coherentpony 11y ago
> Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service? Because proposition 1 contained other parts. Not just the background check stuff: http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-prop-1-means http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-...
- paulmd 11y ago
  They would also have to identify their vehicles with a logo (slap a magnet on the side of the car), avoid obstructing an active street or bus stop, and pay one of three fee options (at Uber/Lyft's choice). It's not going to cripple Uber/Lyft's business model. They disagree, of course, which is their prerogative. There are still taxi services available in Austin who find those regulations perfectly workable. If you dislike your health department making you wear hair nets or meet food-holding temperatures, you are perfectly free to discontinue providing a service that goes against the public interest.
  - jon-wood 11y ago
    I find it strange that they're so against it in Austin when in my home town they just launched with much the same conditions - here Uber effectively operate as a private hire taxi firm, to the point that the only thing the local taxi companies could find to complain to the press about was Uber not being required to display a phone number on their cars.
ghughes 11y ago
It's possible they're looking at the long-term picture and investing heavily now to aggressively counter anything that looks like stricter regulation. If they capitulate in Austin today, then tomorrow they'll be railroaded into doing it everywhere else, which will end up costing them not-insignificant amounts of money and drivers over time. Having mandatory background checks also significantly raises the barrier to entry for casual carpoolers, which is a market that Uber is keen to capture.
tyingq 11y ago
This article seems to point at the real issue: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/uber-threatens-to-leave-houston-if-fingerprinting-/nrCqX/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/uber-threatens-to-leave... Basically, that allowing cities to specify the implementation and rules around fingerprinting makes the onboarding process too slow. Slow enough that that they can't hire drivers fast enough to meet demand. I can see their point on this, since each city is free to make their own rules for the process. On the other hand, if they volunteered their own process...one that incorporated fingerprints and most of what cities are asking for, then perhaps there's a place to meet in the middle. Basically, a single process that works for all cities. As it stands, it looks like neither side is willing to compromise.
- cobralibre 11y ago
  As it stands, it looks like neither side is willing to compromise. Austin's mayor, Steve Adler, has specifically said that he would like to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution with Uber and Lyft. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/election-day-voting-light-so-far-on-austins-prop-1/nrJmG/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ele...
vilniuse 11y ago
Good point.
randommodnar 11y ago
Because Uber and Lyft drivers should be fucking employees. I don't give two shits if the taxi industry is disrupted, but I do care about the treatment of their drivers.
tptacek 11y ago
Maybe it's the fee. One of the three fee options, "the cost of one cab permit per drive", would put them out of business in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. It would be survivable in Austin, but it would set a very bad precedent.
- mst 11y ago
  (tyop: should be 'permit per driver') Unless I misread http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-prop-1-means http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-... a 'yes' vote would've meant the fee must be 1% of annual revenue, whereas the 'no' vote means they can still pay that amount, or have two alternative options if they prefer. So at that point I'm not sure why that would upset them, except perhaps the fear that the 1% option would then be separately phased out later? (which is possibly a very real risk; I'm seeking synthesis, not antithesis, here)

by Lazare 11y ago

adevine 11y ago

This article by the founder of a well known Austin startup incubator explains it well: https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-may-7-e9a072ba5bf0 https://austinstartups.com/austin-tech-vote-for-prop-1-on-ma...

toomuchtodo 11y ago
The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation. This section is especially egregious: > What happens if Prop 1 passes? > Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable now and the people have spoken.” Austin spoke (and not Austin's government, Austin's voters!). Innovation is welcome, simply with additional (voter desired and approved) regulations. If ridesharing is sufficiently lucrative with these additional required regulations, competitors will fill the gap. If not, Austin's voters may re-evaluate their decision at a future date.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding and adopting it. It's totally reasonable for Austin to vote and ask for something that honestly is pretty reasonable. However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing).
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen! > However, it isn't particularly "fair" but they voted againest their own interests (if they wanted ridesharing). I argue this is subjective (they voted "against their own interests"). They voted for more knowledge about their drivers (something they can control). One should not need to forfeit additional safety regulations to a tech company due to irresponsible intoxicated/influenced drivers being used as the proverbial boogyman.
    - kyrra 11y ago
      Or Waze carpooling could come to the US. http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/ http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/
  - makomk 11y ago
    By that argument, Uber and Lyft can demand any change to the law they like and if they care enough about it to pull out of areas as a negotiating tactic, any government that doesn't immediately give in is causing drunk driving deaths.

callinize_cto 11y ago

Totally agree. Uber could come up with a quick way to do fingerprint background checks. Just have the driver, go through a drive-through background check stop. It might take 5 minutes, but I thought Uber & Lyft drivers had a short orientation anyway. Kill 2 birds. After reading Josh Baer's article, I do agree with him that its a lot easier to point at a startup and say something is easy, without all the knowledge from the inside. I am sure there is a lot of data on why this is hard to do. I do think that part of this boils down to liability. If a certain percentage of drivers are known offenders of some kind, Uber or Lyft could get sued for letting them remain on their platform. Super sad to see Uber go. Its a great app. I use it almost daily. Reality hasn't set in yet.

partiallypro 11y ago
Eh, it's not easy, and it's an artificial barrier to entry created by the government to enter the space. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with special interests (taxi companies) lobbying to keep competition out of the area.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- drewcrawford 11y ago
  You're very misinformed. I live in the area. Uber/Lyft have campaigned really aggressively. I've got stuff from them in the mail, they contacted me at my unlisted cell, they've been canvassing hard for months. I've never even seen an "anti" ad. The "pro" Uber/Lyft PAC spent north of $8m, while the "anti" PAC spent 1/40th of that [0]. This is by far the most money ever spent on any election in this city's history, by a factor of about 5. And all of it is Silicon Valley money, which is just weird. Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. I don't know whether they were really necessary for Uber/Lyft to continue operations or not. I just know a bunch of SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms. [0] http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake-in-austin/ http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake...

vonklaus 11y ago

There are 2 answers to this. Lyft, which made the above qoute and Uber, obviously could continue operating if breifly pausing to fingerprint their drivers. However, the first answer to your question is that they won't. The premise of ridesharing is about scalable technology that allows people to work together on a platform. It would be an expensive precedent for these companies to have to pay for this cost. This is regardless of how you the consumer feel. There is also a very non-trivial impediment to get drivers to do this, especially if they are barred for something like a felony, even non-violent or not related to a vehicle. The difference is who controls the process, which wasn't stated in the article. I suspect a 3rd prty (e.g. Austin) would want drivers to come into a public place (police staton/town hall) and get fingerprinted. I do not believe that could simply thumbprint a phone. The second answer is privacy & convenience. A driver is unlikely to want to get fingerprinted and it probably makes little difference. Why should some agency get potentially millions of fingerprints (if this become national) when it would serve no purpose. Maybe they can serve warrants, ect. Again, idk if this is good or bad from a public standpoint but in practice Uber/Lyft already have a car, registration, license, picture, social media and very quickly a review system. So to the extent someone wanted to cheat, it would just be another small ipediment.

jtchang 11y ago
I actually feel fingerprints are a bad idea but I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". One other thought is that why wouldn't Uber/Lyft want these regulations. It seems like the are already the dominant party and fingerprint regulation would create a moat for other competitors to enter.
- callinize_cto 11y ago
  I think most regulation keeps competitors out vs in.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft/Uber/Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction. I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft & Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.

courtneypowell 11y ago

The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors. They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business. Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local vote to delay the real issue as long as possible.

madeofpalk 11y ago
I'm also confused because similar legislation has passed elsewhere (like here in Australia) and Uber 'welcomed' it (in the sense that Uber was not made illegal) and continues to operate with the added sensible legislation.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Perhaps the rules on what constitutes an employee vs contractor are different enough that Uber feels this wouldn't be a threat? Or perhaps the incentives are different enough that it matters less. Because it's not about finger prints: that's trivial to do. (Hell, you could probably come up with a simple lens to put on a cell phone to extract enough info to get a print... Not to mention existing services. They're lying if they say this puts too much burden and couldn't continue to operate. No, they want to keep the fiction that there are no Uber driver employees, that they're all, to use the brain-dead term working in the "sharing economy".
- legulere 11y ago
  In Germany you need a special drivers license to commercially transport people, which is mostly a background check and regular checkups that you're physically capable for driving people around. Uber used drivers that didn't have it until they were told to stop. It just shows again how Uber is trying to prey on competitors by ignoring all regulations.
  - xixixao 11y ago
    Wait, in Germany you cannot drive your family around without a special driving licence? Not all regulation makes sense...

snitko 11y ago

If a business feels like regulations created by the government are not reasonable, it has all the right to decide to stop doing business. Government shouldn't be regulating such things in the first place, but since it does, it surely can't force businesses to continue working under them. > but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. It is outrageous. I mean, it's a vehicle. Not a spaceship, for gods sake. This person has licence and good rating in the app? Good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, don't use Uber. What right do you (or government, for that matter) have to tell other people what to use or not, I really don't know.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
One of them could take all of the other's business in Austin by integrating with a background check service, but they were both either too stubborn or too slow to implement integration with such a service in case their proposition failed. Now they're both losing business on top of the money already lost campaigning.
- laurentoget 11y ago
  I really think the fingerprinting is a red herring. I think they were just trying to set a precedent to simplify their regulatory landscape.
- snitko 11y ago
  In case you didn't notice, it's not about fingerprints. It's about the principle. It's a fight between business and government. Government wants money and control, businesses show they can't be blackmailed like that and pull out. There is literally nothing Uber or Lyft did wrong. They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere. If I believed in democracy, I'd say people should be voting better next time, but I don't.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    > They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere. Nobody is claiming otherwise, just that they're stupid for leaving the profits to the taxi companies, who do comply with the background check laws. Either one of them could have become the dominant transportation player in Austin, but they were both too incompetent to make contingency plans.

darawk 11y ago

Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater in my view.

rayiner 11y ago
Getting in a car with random strangers is a perfect case of information asymmetry. Passengers aren't going to be repeat customers with the same drivers. Each driver is pretty much an unknown that the passenger has little control over choosing. On the broader point about what the government should be regulating: One of the worst things about living outside the developed world is how careful you have to be. You have to be careful what you eat, who you get in a car with, where you go. The consequences of not being careful are significant. In the developed world, the government ensures a minimum level for pretty much everything, and it's amazing. It's civilization.
- darawk 11y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. Whether or not a passenger is a repeat customer of a driver is irrelevant, the drivers are rated by each passenger (at least for uber, this is non-optional), and if their rating gets too low, they stop getting fares. This system is infinitely more effective, efficient, fair and maybe most importantly, up to date, than any background check or fingerprinting system ever could be. And not only is it effective at protecting the public, it actually incentivizes the driver to be better than the bare minimum (which is what is encouraged by simple background checks).
  - Hondor 11y ago
    How does a rating stop a person from becoming a driver just so he can rape his first fare, then quit? He's not going to be bothered by stars or future fares.

viscanti 11y ago

> Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Refuse is probably a strong word here but I imagine significantly less people are willing to drive in somewhere to give their fingerprints for a background check than just entering a social security number in a web form. So there's more inherent friction. But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and some kind of fingerprinting system. So it puts uber in a business that they're not in and makes it harder for drivers to become drivers.

greenyoda 11y ago
"But then Uber needs to maintain an office (or a set of offices) in every city that provides convenient parking and some kind of fingerprinting system. So it puts uber in a business that they're not in..." Aren't there companies that that Uber could contract with to do the background checks?
laurentoget 11y ago
You need fingerprints for a number of occupations including real estate agents, teachers and foster parents. There are multiple businesses offering fingerprinting services. It takes 10 minutes and I think it cost me $12 last time i had to do it.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Usually, there are existing providers of such services (including often local law enforcement offices), and employers subject to a requirement for fingerprinting just have applicants designate the employer as the recipient, go into the established fingerprint center, and get it done.
drone 11y ago
In Texas, there are established commercial businesses which provide finger printing services already using a quick electronic process [0]. In my experience, it takes about 5 minutes to get done w/ an appointment. Uber already has a page set up for their Houston drivers to schedule an appointment via a Morpho Trust office [1]. I doubt that the city would accept Uber doing its own fingerprinting. In Houston, the city's argument was that Uber's background check failed to catch felons, persons convicted of sexual assault, and homicide [2]. [0] https://www.ibtfingerprint.com/locations/?st=tx https://www.ibtfingerprint.com/locations/?st=tx [1] http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check/ http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check... [2] http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-27-16-uber-sues-houston-over-fingerprints-mayor-says-city-will-not-compromise-on-public-safety/ http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-27-16-uber-s...

tushar-r 11y ago

> Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? I've been getting a $1 safe ride fee when using Uber in the US. So they do pass on the background check cost to the customer. There is some other reason for this. Maybe like the poster said in a later comment - about their classification the drivers. Or just them throwing a fit because it did not got their way. Here in India, couple of states have been telling Uber (and their competitor Ola), that they can have surge pricing recently.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

coherentpony 11y ago

> Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service? Because proposition 1 contained other parts. Not just the background check stuff: http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-prop-1-means http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-...

paulmd 11y ago
They would also have to identify their vehicles with a logo (slap a magnet on the side of the car), avoid obstructing an active street or bus stop, and pay one of three fee options (at Uber/Lyft's choice). It's not going to cripple Uber/Lyft's business model. They disagree, of course, which is their prerogative. There are still taxi services available in Austin who find those regulations perfectly workable. If you dislike your health department making you wear hair nets or meet food-holding temperatures, you are perfectly free to discontinue providing a service that goes against the public interest.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  I find it strange that they're so against it in Austin when in my home town they just launched with much the same conditions - here Uber effectively operate as a private hire taxi firm, to the point that the only thing the local taxi companies could find to complain to the press about was Uber not being required to display a phone number on their cars.

ghughes 11y ago

It's possible they're looking at the long-term picture and investing heavily now to aggressively counter anything that looks like stricter regulation. If they capitulate in Austin today, then tomorrow they'll be railroaded into doing it everywhere else, which will end up costing them not-insignificant amounts of money and drivers over time. Having mandatory background checks also significantly raises the barrier to entry for casual carpoolers, which is a market that Uber is keen to capture.

tyingq 11y ago

This article seems to point at the real issue: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/uber-threatens-to-leave-houston-if-fingerprinting-/nrCqX/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/uber-threatens-to-leave... Basically, that allowing cities to specify the implementation and rules around fingerprinting makes the onboarding process too slow. Slow enough that that they can't hire drivers fast enough to meet demand. I can see their point on this, since each city is free to make their own rules for the process. On the other hand, if they volunteered their own process...one that incorporated fingerprints and most of what cities are asking for, then perhaps there's a place to meet in the middle. Basically, a single process that works for all cities. As it stands, it looks like neither side is willing to compromise.

cobralibre 11y ago
As it stands, it looks like neither side is willing to compromise. Austin's mayor, Steve Adler, has specifically said that he would like to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution with Uber and Lyft. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/election-day-voting-light-so-far-on-austins-prop-1/nrJmG/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ele...

vilniuse 11y ago

Good point.

randommodnar 11y ago

Because Uber and Lyft drivers should be fucking employees. I don't give two shits if the taxi industry is disrupted, but I do care about the treatment of their drivers.

tptacek 11y ago

Maybe it's the fee. One of the three fee options, "the cost of one cab permit per drive", would put them out of business in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. It would be survivable in Austin, but it would set a very bad precedent.

mst 11y ago
(tyop: should be 'permit per driver') Unless I misread http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-prop-1-means http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-... a 'yes' vote would've meant the fee must be 1% of annual revenue, whereas the 'no' vote means they can still pay that amount, or have two alternative options if they prefer. So at that point I'm not sure why that would upset them, except perhaps the fear that the 1% option would then be separately phased out later? (which is possibly a very real risk; I'm seeking synthesis, not antithesis, here)