5 ms·

Uber has been having similar regulatory fights in Kansas City, which recently passed ordinances that Uber claimed would make it prohibitive to do business there

Uber has been having similar regulatory fights in Kansas City, which recently passed ordinances that Uber claimed would make it prohibitive to do business there (http://goo.gl/cXlhzb http://goo.gl/cXlhzb). Uber made claims that "thousands of jobs" would be lost in the move, despite the fact that its competitors (Lyft, etc.) would abide by the new rules and continue to operate. It seems a little silly to talk about the jobs of your contractors as being "lost" when they can walk over to your competitor and work almost seamlessly. Uber pulling out of Kansas makes half of the KC metro area impossible to work in. I'm curious if this will have a major impact on Uber's future in the entire city.

iamdave 11y ago
Uber made claims that "thousands of jobs" would be lost in the move I've got a lot of reservations about calling Uber/Lyft a "job" in the first place; in fact I have a lot of problems with these "sharing economy" apps-calling them jobs when really you're just subcontracting labor on the cheap while the business side collects massive investments and benefits for the full-time employees. It's like when you drive by a Dominos Pizza {substitute with the chain of your choice} and they have signs "make $15/hr"; you'll maybe make $15/hr on an incredibly busy day or a sudden surge in ride requests, but what's the mean? Is $15/hr the mean? If not, you don't get to advertise "make $15/hr". I said it once at the start of all of these talks two years ago: It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that "disruption" in so many startups more recently means less "disruption with the goals of bringing about much needed substantive change to local regulation" and more like "give my company special treatment to operate". And it's a hard pill for cities to wave off when the population centers are all clamoring for an alternative to taxis. okay I'm done ninja editing.
- cantankerous 11y ago
  I think I agree with you, but I'm hesitant to to slight somebody for how they making an honest living. All "jobs" aren't created equal, especially of many jobs are contracted or low paying without benefits. It's unfortunate that this kind of (presumably it's political in origin) rhetoric has colored our reality as it has.
- hn_user2 11y ago
  Especially because they argue that they are not a taxi company because they are doing "ride sharing". Well are you ride sharing or are you a limousine service with jobs on the line?
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Funny you mention that, given Uber was forced to roll back its claims that you could easily make $90K a year as an Uber driver... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/uber-driver_n_6249608.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/uber-driver_n_62496... amongst many others).
cantankerous 11y ago
Also, here's a video of Kansas City's mayor, Sly James, speaking about the frustration of these negotations from his side of things prior to the vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjJUJW0Jt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjJUJW0Jt4
halviti 11y ago
I hope this has a big impact on Uber even outside of Kansas. I think any customer would prefer background checks for drivers. Being defiant against them is just bad PR. Background checks cost $20, or if you go through a channeler because you want your results in a couple days, you can pay $50.. This is a tiny price to pay for the safety of thousands of passengers, not to mention it wouldn't cost them anything, as they could defer the cost to the drivers as a part of the application process. Trying to skimp out on insurance also goes further to show a wanton disregard for passenger safety.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tigeba 11y ago
Kansas City, MO and Uber have worked out their differences. I believe Uber will provide background check info to the city about their drivers, and pay a flat fee to cover all their drivers in the city. http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2015/04/23/kansas-city-reaches-compromise-with-uber.html http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2015/04/23/kansas...
- cantankerous 11y ago
  Good catch! I haven't been back recently and hadn't checked the news. I'm still waiting for the state legislators to prohibit city regulation of ride sharing services. This may roll back the requirements at the city level. See: http://goo.gl/7MIZFP http://goo.gl/7MIZFP

iamdave 11y ago

Uber made claims that "thousands of jobs" would be lost in the move I've got a lot of reservations about calling Uber/Lyft a "job" in the first place; in fact I have a lot of problems with these "sharing economy" apps-calling them jobs when really you're just subcontracting labor on the cheap while the business side collects massive investments and benefits for the full-time employees. It's like when you drive by a Dominos Pizza {substitute with the chain of your choice} and they have signs "make $15/hr"; you'll maybe make $15/hr on an incredibly busy day or a sudden surge in ride requests, but what's the mean? Is $15/hr the mean? If not, you don't get to advertise "make $15/hr". I said it once at the start of all of these talks two years ago: It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that "disruption" in so many startups more recently means less "disruption with the goals of bringing about much needed substantive change to local regulation" and more like "give my company special treatment to operate". And it's a hard pill for cities to wave off when the population centers are all clamoring for an alternative to taxis. okay I'm done ninja editing.

cantankerous 11y ago
I think I agree with you, but I'm hesitant to to slight somebody for how they making an honest living. All "jobs" aren't created equal, especially of many jobs are contracted or low paying without benefits. It's unfortunate that this kind of (presumably it's political in origin) rhetoric has colored our reality as it has.
hn_user2 11y ago
Especially because they argue that they are not a taxi company because they are doing "ride sharing". Well are you ride sharing or are you a limousine service with jobs on the line?
FireBeyond 11y ago
Funny you mention that, given Uber was forced to roll back its claims that you could easily make $90K a year as an Uber driver... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/uber-driver_n_6249608.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/uber-driver_n_62496... amongst many others).

cantankerous 11y ago

Also, here's a video of Kansas City's mayor, Sly James, speaking about the frustration of these negotations from his side of things prior to the vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjJUJW0Jt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjJUJW0Jt4

halviti 11y ago

I hope this has a big impact on Uber even outside of Kansas. I think any customer would prefer background checks for drivers. Being defiant against them is just bad PR. Background checks cost $20, or if you go through a channeler because you want your results in a couple days, you can pay $50.. This is a tiny price to pay for the safety of thousands of passengers, not to mention it wouldn't cost them anything, as they could defer the cost to the drivers as a part of the application process. Trying to skimp out on insurance also goes further to show a wanton disregard for passenger safety.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

tigeba 11y ago

Kansas City, MO and Uber have worked out their differences. I believe Uber will provide background check info to the city about their drivers, and pay a flat fee to cover all their drivers in the city. http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2015/04/23/kansas-city-reaches-compromise-with-uber.html http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2015/04/23/kansas...

cantankerous 11y ago
Good catch! I haven't been back recently and hadn't checked the news. I'm still waiting for the state legislators to prohibit city regulation of ride sharing services. This may roll back the requirements at the city level. See: http://goo.gl/7MIZFP http://goo.gl/7MIZFP