Slashdot Mirror
Uber and Lyft Spend $8.2 Million To Lose Fingerprint Election, Vow To Leave Austin (examiner.com)
On Saturday voters in Austin, Texas refused to repeal a new regulation that requires fingerprinting drivers for ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. In Austin's most expensive election ever, the ride-sharing services spent over $8.2 million pushing Proposition 1, apparently outspending their opponents by a 80:1 ratio. But on election day, the proposal to repeal ultimately received just 39,083 votes -- 44% of the total cast -- meaning the lobbyists spent $209 for each vote received. Both services have said they will cease operations in Austin rather than perform the fingerprint-based criminal background checks.
I live just outside of Austin and couldn't vote on this but would have voted against Prop 1 (against Uber an Lyft) just because of the annoying radio ads constantly running against it -- the ads with the hushed, concerned female voice saying things like, "Did you know that the city will take over background checks, at taxpayers expense?" Combine that with the threats to leave the market... After enough of those I wasn't even interested in looking into the merits of the arguments on both sides. Good riddance, although Uber and Lyft will probably run to the state government and get some State Rep from Bumscrew, West Texas to sponsor a bill overturning all local elections/ordinances preventing "consumer ride choice freedom".
What's the problem with letting the market decide? If you feel unsafe riding with someone who hasn't been fingerprinted, then don't use Uber. But if I want to use Uber, and Uber wants to take my money, then that should be the end of it. The Uber driver is an adult, and I'm an adult. We don't need a nanny.
As someone who lives in Austin, I can confirm the bombardment in advertising. Over the last few weeks I got between one and four pro-Prop 1 mailers per day. My wife and I didn't get texts, and we don't answer unknown numbers so we don't know if they actually called us or not. They did call my mother-in-law twice. The first time, they deliberately lied to her. "They" never identified themselves, but I'm assuming it was Rideshare Works for Austin (the Uber/Lyft PAC).
RWA: Which way are you planning on voting on Prop 1?
MIL: I'm FOR fingerprinting.
RWA: Then you want to vote FOR Prop 1.
MIL: Are you sure? I thought I'm supposed supposed to vote against.
RWA: Nope, you're supposed to vote FOR it if you're in favor of fingerprinting.
We got at least four canvassers. The first guy asked us how we were planning on voting for Prop 1, and my wife replied that she was for fingerprinting. He tried to argue that fingerprinting wasn't necessary, so he was pro-Prop 1. I answered the door to another canvasser who was anti-Prop 1. My wife ignored the last two when she saw that they were carrying clipboards.
I ran into a pro-Prop 1 canvasser while out jogging with my neighbors. The canvasser got lost in our neighborhood, so we walked with her for a block. She tried to use some of the pro-Prop 1 talking points, but she admitted that she didn't really care about it, so she was probably paid.
On top of that, the internet was on fire. Here and here are two reddit posts just about the phone calls. Nextdoor threads were epic.
Full disclosure: I live in Austin and voted "Yes" on Prop 1. Two things I don't understand about your argument above:
First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?
Second, what is the actual cost (both in terms of "dollars" and "inconvenience") to implement fingerprint-based background checks? Is it really that much? Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting? That might shrink the pool of drivers, but Uber and Lyft would still get their cut.
So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?
I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?
And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?
Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?
Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?
What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
because they're already short drivers. Uber doesn't pay enough to cover rent let alone the wear and tear on a vehicle. I know the popular belief is that their drivers are college kids out for beer money but in my experience it's mostly desperate people. A lot of those are ex-cons who can't get any other work in an increasingly bad economy. Why hire an ex-con when you've got 100 guys with clean records to choose from? A lot of Uber drivers won't pass the checks. That'll mean Uber will have to pay better to get more drivers. e.g. more surge pricing. That'll eliminate their competitive advantage over taxis.
Uber and really the entire "sharing" economy can't survive without white knuckle desperation. Take those people out, however you do it, and they'll collapse. And that's just what they did in Austin.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The entire point was to bring it under their thumbs. So they charge a hundred bucks (or whatever) for a background check. There ya go.. an added barrier to entry for the new drivers. That helps the existing companies. Then there's the bureaucrats. All these new applications means a new load of employees to handle them. And lets say there are a couple thousand who go for it with Lyft/Uber. Well, there's a couple hundred grand for the budget.
But what about those background checks? Well, my councilman's buddies at the taxi lobby don't like Uber. So..... maybe it takes 6 months to get approval. Maybe more. Or maybe lots just don't get approved by mistake. But you can appeal if you like.
These companies take one of their huge advantages from having the casual driver who picks up a few fares from time to time. Maybe if there is a big surge it is worth it for a few hours... whatever. But if we move the barrier to entry for divers from "download this app and sign up" to "go down to city hall and apply for a background check, get fingerprinted, pay the fee and wait a few months", maybe these casual drivers don't exist. And surge pricing is much higher because of it. And the taxi companies disadvantage against the upstarts is reduced.
Nobody thinks the sole motivator for the council is getting those fees. They are motivated by lots of things, but one of the sweeteners tossed in by the taxi lobby is the fees and added bureaucracy. Everyone likes a little more power.
So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also?
I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..
I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted? ;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there.
Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others.
Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones
for phone ownership....
I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!
Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part
of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.
However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the
world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.