11–20 of 206 posts
But isn't that just a cost of doing business? On the surface this seems reasonable. Uber/Lyft are welcome to raise fares if the background checks result in less drivers on the road. Subsequently the consumer is welcome to not use Uber/Lyft if it gets too expensive.
Maybe I am missing something?
I imagine they will have better luck corrupting the State of Texas legislature to override the cities, but have fun doing this 49 more times.
Why do they still call it ride sharing? Just yesterday it was in the news that Uber drivers will now accept tips. How is this anything else than a glorified app based taxi service? Maybe call it freelancing taxi, but definitely not ride sharing. On a positive note, I am glad to see Uber respecting the law for once!
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…
for those wondering what the actual differences were. Frankly it was a good move on the cities part. As a citizen I'm not sure. I relied on uber to get me around when I was feeling lazy. That being said I don't think running background checks through FBI and in-person face to face interviews for drivers are too much to ask. When the companies posed this false dichotomy it turned me off completely. Quite literally threatening the population with disastrous consequences and questionable statistics didn't sit well with me. Neither did the constant barrage of flyers hawking aforementioned stats.
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…
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 r…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 r…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-ma...
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 no…
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).
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…
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 fro…
Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business? Edit: Ah yes, https://checkr.com/
Checkr is just a standard background check, of which Uber/Lyft already do similar checks.