Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal • Hacker News Board

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#81

Post by MichaelGG » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

courtneypowell wrote: post #14

Lazare wrote: post #2

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…

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 v…

Isn't one of the main questions (from the IRS) regarding an employee vs contractor the substitutability of the person? If you delegate work out, but must perform it yourself, then that's a major strike against being a contractor. Same for if you are told exactly how to do something v just what result is needed?

Search IRS 20 questions. Here a non PDF result: https://daf.csulb.edu/admin_guidelines/guidelines/independen...

I'm sure Uber is obviously more informed than me but seems like a tight line they're at. And the IRS can weigh in with their own decision, too.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#82

Post by uncletammy » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:43 AM UTC

The real story here is how Lyft and Uber harrassed their supporters away from the polls.

I got 7 flyers in the mail, 3 unsolicited phone calls, multiple push notifications and texts, and a visitor at my door all over a 4 day time period. It can sure make you indifferent to them not getting their way.

Their aggressive marketing campaign turned attention away from the issues on the ballot and they came off as an enormous bully who was clearly buying the vote.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#83

Post by MichaelGG » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:45 AM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #80

courtneypowell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

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.

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".

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#84

Post by laurentoget » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:53 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #72

laurentoget wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The uber review system is a good protection against a driver who is rude or unprofessional to most of their customer. It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months. Fingerprinting would. Two different systems for two different purposes.

> It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months. This would never happen. The first time they assault a passenger, they'd immediately get kicked off the platform and likely referred to police. You can commit a crime as an Uber driver, but there's no way you're getting away with it. There's a precise log of who you drove and where.

that does not help the first victim.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#85

Post by eridius » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

kinkdr wrote: post #7

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!

They're called ride sharing because the concept was born out of an app that was actually about finding carpool opportunities (I forget the name though).

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#86

Post by morgante » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

laurentoget wrote: post #84

morgante wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does not do anything against a repeat sex offender who will randomly assault a customer every few months. This would never happen. The first time they assault a passenger, they'd immediately get kicked off the platform and likely referred to police. You can commit a crime as an Uber driver, but there's no way you're getting away with it. There's a precise log of who you drove and where.

that does not help the first victim.

Obviously. But no system is capable of rooting out potential sex offenders.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#87

Post by eridius » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:57 AM UTC

uncletammy wrote: post #82

The real story here is how Lyft and Uber harrassed their supporters away from the polls. I got 7 flyers in the mail, 3 unsolicited phone calls, multiple push notifications and texts, and a visitor at my door all over a 4 day time period. It can sure make you indifferent to them not getting their way. Their aggressive marketing campaign turned attention away from the issues on the ballot and they came off as an enormo…

I take it you prefer to be more subtly influenced into voting the way others want? Because either way you are being influenced by others to vote the way they want you to.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#88

Post by legulere » Sun, May 08, 2016, 8:00 AM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #80

courtneypowell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

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.

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.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#89

Post by BinaryIdiot » Sun, May 08, 2016, 8:02 AM UTC

laurentoget wrote: post #60

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department, get digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for under $50. I think you just described a good part of the hassle. Not everyone driving for Uber / Lyft have $50 to use for fingerprinting services and a similar cost, even heavily discounted, represents a significant cost to the companies if they're covering it. Th…

People who drive for Lyft/Uber need a newer car with insurance and registration. The cost and regulatory burden of getting a background check is not significant in comparison to a car payment.

You need to have that regardless to drive. You're missing the big part of Uber and Lyft's model: anyone who wants extra cash can sign up and start driving people. If someone wants extra cash for a weekend then realized they need to go get fingerprinting done which could take a week then they're a missed opportunity.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#90

Post by BinaryIdiot » Sun, May 08, 2016, 8:05 AM UTC

laurentoget wrote: post #58

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? The logistics and costs are both high. Honestly I'm all for background checks but fingerprinting is completely unrealistic. There are a lot of on-demand services nowadays some of which drive you places, others go into your home. I can't imagine Uber and Lyft will be the only ones required to do fingerprinting eventually. Someone…

Have you ever had to get a background check? I have. The FBI background check requires ink fingerprints which you get at a police station. Takes 15 minutes and I think $10. Georgia State background check accepts an electronic livescan which i had done at a UPS store. This is easier than getting your car emission tested.

> Have you ever had to get a background check? I have. The FBI background check requires ink fingerprints which you get at a police station.

Yes. The FBI one in fact (fyi you don't have to do those at a police station; depends on why and where you're getting one).

> Takes 15 minutes and I think $10. Georgia State background check accepts an electronic livescan which i had done at a UPS store. This is easier than getting your car emission tested.

Depends on the type of emissions testing you need to do but at least when I lived in MD I would be in and out of the emissions place is about 10 minutes.

Regardless emissions is a requirement to simply drive. To drive other people via Uber or Lyft you simply need to open the app and have a legal vehicle. Adding this requirement now prevents those drivers who only drive temporarily or when they think of it and need some extra cash. If you're a college student who wants to get some extra bucks you might try Uber or Lyft, realize you need to get fingerprinted (which could take weeks depending on where you are) and either you're paying for it (requiring more time to make up the difference) or Uber or Lyft are paying for it (which likely means more fees for customers as that will be very expensive).

Doesn't seem realistic at all to me.