Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 206 posts

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

#111

Post by csbrooks »

natrius wrote: post #64
mcotton wrote: post #61

As an Austin resident I think the real lesson to learn is how poor of a job Uber did of gaining supporters. I went from being a vocal supporter to an almost hostile opponent based on their behavior. They spent a reported $8 million in very confusing ads. They sent text messages and push notifications to customers. All of this felt very disingenuous and deceptive. I will be sad to see them go but they are their own wo…

It was a very bad campaign, which makes me suspect that they did it on purpose. If they won this campaign, they'd have to win again in every other city that tries this. If they lose, pull out of Austin for a while, and make sure it's national news, other cities might think twice. But it could just be incompetence.

They basically turned it into "here's the legislation we wrote, if you don't pass it, we're leaving immediately", and then spammed everyone with text messages, INCREDIBLE amounts of junk mail, and door-to-door canvasing. They turned a lot of people off, big time. (Where's the story about that?)

I'm really hopeful some competitor can show up and eat their lunch, before they come slinking back. The way they behaved turned me from a fan into someone who actively distrusts them.

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

#112

Post by AlexandrB »

eridius wrote: post #87
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.

Would you be more likely to support someone's pet cause if they were yelling at you about how they need your support or if they asked politely? Human social structures are not based on rational decision making but on perception. That's why politics exists.

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

#113

Post by joshuaellinger »

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…

Taxis classify their drivers as independent contractors. They are required to do fingerprinting.

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

#114

Post by maxerickson »

vonklaus wrote: post #10
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…

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…

If it provides a framework for shutting them out of a city, it's going to be an expensive precedent either way.

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

#115

Post by tyingq »

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…

This article seems to point at the real issue: 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.

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

#116

Post by vilniuse »

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…

Good point.

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

#117

Post by drone »

viscanti wrote: post #36
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…

> 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 som…

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 [1] http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check... [2] http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/04-27-16-uber-s...

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

#118

Post by theli0nheart »

rumcajz wrote: post #30
nefitty wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about investing in a startup to battle the entrenched taxi interests, who seem to have just won a major battle?

And then losing your investment when you win the battle and Uber moves in? Why would anyone do that?

Because you could make a lot of money in the interim.

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

#119

Post by jessriedel »

Hondor wrote: post #93

Don't forget who the biggest victims of background checks will be. Unemployable ex-cons. Anyone who's been convicted at any time in their life will have yet another door to employment shut in their face. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, New Zealand decided to ban anyone with a record of sexual offending from being a taxi driver. That sounds good and safe to the average Joe but one poor man, in his 50's I think, lost his job…

There are lots of jobs besides jobs where strangers get into an automobile alone with you. I am against vindictive employment and voting restrictions on felons, and I'm open to having my mind changed by statistics like the recidivism rate, but I think if you commit a sex crime you don't get to be a taxi driver any more.

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

#120

Post by yummyfajitas »

gonzo wrote: post #79
jdminhbg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also feel the city has a right to enact ordinances that the populace believes will help keep them "safer". But there's a limit somewhere, right? You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume), so there has to be some line around a city's democratic rights?

> You don't feel that a city has the right to enact an ordinance keeping black people out even if it made them feel safer (I assume) Your example is specifically barred by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as decided in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), and Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), as well as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, aka "The Fai…

The question is why is this limit good, but a different limit is bad?

We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?

Post reply on HN