What do you guys think of Uber's threat to leave Houston

The additional unnecessary background checks just make the business more expensive, slow, and borderline unprofitable.

That's why no one is rushing in to do ridesharing at the cities uber and lyft left.

All that's left is garbage yellow cab

 

So you a PRO-removing these checks for everyone? Including Yellow cab?

Rocket River

 

Uber already does one through Checkr. I'm saying the addition FBI check isnt necessary

I doubt yellow cab does two background checks

 

Applied at Get Me. Total cost of finger print scan is $40 which they're covering the cost of. Background check should take 3-5 days. Where Uber and Lyft left, another app like Get Me will take advantage of this opportunity.

 

Yeah, they probably do the correct one mandated by the regulator instead of just doing whatever they thought would be good enough and then having to do double work.

 

GetME disaster – email blast to 500 Austin TX drivers

GetMe Disaster in the making. For a rideshare company that already has lots of skeptics sending an email blast to 500+ Austin TX drivers was a horrible idea!

They didn’t use blind carbon copy! All email addresses are publicly available!

In Austin, TX, the city council has been fighting with Uber and Lyft for awhile. This led to a proposed change to regulations regarding ridesharing which was overturned by the public signing petitions on behalf of Uber and Lyft. The city council still wouldn’t agree so now the public gets to vote on ridesharing in Austin. Keeping the existing regulations rather than the new city regulation which would cause Uber and Lyft to leave town.

GetMe has been a topic in the city council debate. GetMe is a new rideshare company based out of Dallas TX that has agreed to the city council demands. However GetMe is a pretty sketchy company. For example, the CEO of GetMe has been kept anonymous. Anecdotally, the prices being charged by GetMe also appear to be higher than Taxi companies. This has led to a lot of concern in the driver community in Austin. Many believe GetMe is actually run by the Taxi companies and is just out to sabotage ridesharing in Austin.

Today, GetMe sends out a carbon copy email to over 500 Austin TX drivers! They didn’t hide any of the email addresses! It may have been more than 500 emails. Gmail only allowed me to see the first 500.

get-me-disaster-moasic
Some of the GetMe emails and responses. Click photo to enlarge.

The thread of replies from the drivers has been hilarious. Ranging from people offering to sue GetMe, to people trying to sell identity theft protection, or promote other apps. Needless to say a lot of drivers have replied to ALL asking to be removed. I imagine dozens (or hundreds) more replying in private.

But let’s also go back to their original email. This is apparently the GetMe onboarding process:

I will be onboarding Monday to Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm by the airport right behind the shell gas station ,PLEASE DONT FORGET TO BRING YOUR INSURANCE,BANKING INFO AND DRIVERS LICENCE.

LOOK FOR THE GETME CAR . BLACK MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER.
That’s a pretty sketchy way to do business. Let’s overlook the bad grammar and using all caps. We’re supposed to meet at the airport by the Shell gas station? This is an unofficial driver spot to wait for airport pickups. (The airport is geofenced.) This isn’t even an area with any real parking other than street parking. There is no office for GetMe in town. That is pretty normal for TNCs. They open a city in temporary space before leasing an office. At least before Uber opened an office they rented meeting rooms at hotels. GetMe meets in a parking lot behind a gas station. You’re also asked to provide your insurance and drivers license which is pretty normal to get approved to drive. However my banking information? Why isn’t this done digitally over a secure SSL connection? How can I know that this guy is going to handle my banking information properly? This guy can’t even send out a blind carbon copy email. How do we trust that he won’t be sending our banking information out to other people “accidentally?”

GetMe is a disaster. I cannot believe that the Austin city council actually thought these guys were the answer to the TNC issues.

UPDATE:

The replies to the emails are getting even better. Someone added Ann Kitchen (Austin City council member leading the charge against Uber and Lyft). I then felt the need to add my own reply.

ann-kitchen-reply
Reply to Ann Kitchen. Click photo to enlarge.

And now Chris replies to Ann Kitchen including a photo of the Black Mitsubishi Outlander. BTW that location is just about as sketchy as where they actually want us to meet them to do the onboarding process!

get-me-email-2

https://rideshareacademy.com/getme-disaster-austin-tx/

 

No, they really aren't. The money the companies spent on the Prop campaign in Austin would have more than paid for the proposed background checks for every Uber and Lyft driver nationwide. In the grand scheme of things, background checks are pocket change to these companies - they don't make the business more expensive or unprofitable even in a tiny sense. They left Austin out of spite, not for profitability reasons - the regulations aren't even in force, and there's not even an enforcement mechanism or penalty determined.

The bigger issue coming down the road for them is potential collusion. If they are claiming their drivers are truly independent contractors, then Uber may not be able to set prices, as it would be price-fixing by a bunch of independent sole proprietorships. There are a bunch of lawsuits flowing down the pipes on this issue - a recent one just got settled so the court didn't have to rule on the matter, but if it does, it could blow up the entire business model.

 

why do you think it is stupid to not want to be deceived and blackmailed into voting a certain way?

uber/lyft are the ones being stupid and short-sighted. their threat to leave town if they did not get their way backfired. they screwed their employees and their customers and left the door wide open for a number of other companies to fill the void.

listening to local talk radio yesterday, many of the full-time uber/lyft drivers who called in were actually against prop 1. they want the city to take over background checks b/c it will help weed-out all the part-timers, who are stealing the business from those who are doing it full-time. most had no problem at all paying the background check fee. the main complaint i was hearing was that there are now so many drivers that its harder to make the kind of money they were initially making.

 

not for me. it was entirely an issue of fairness and not wanting to be manipulated and deceived.

i have no dog in this fight and wasnt even going to vote until their blitzkreig bulls**t ad campaign inspired me.

 

the companies that spent $9 million for a local election (most in history of austin, from what i understand), mailed me a dozen fliers, had at least a half dozen people knock on my door, threatened to leave town if they did not get their way, paid off our former mayor ($50k "consulting fee") and ran a totally dishonest and deceptive ad campaign are the ones being bullied? thats funny!

tell that to the ridesharing compaines bud.

 

The way to respond to a business doing something you don't like is to STOP USING THEM. Not to use force of state to bend them to your will.

Of course they were against it. Occupational requirements/licensing is a way to keep out competition. I'm sure current drivers are for any measure that prevents easy entry into their line of work.

Hotels hate AirBnB for the same reason, and they are probably the next target for these little fascists.

 

you are comparing an ad campaign (protected free speech) to the power of the state

only the latter could ever be called bullying

 

So, I ended up voting for Prop 1 mainly because Uber and Lyft represented one of the few reliable and accessible transit options in the city of Austin. I found it distasteful that city council chose this as their signature issue in spite of so many other pressing problems in the city of Austin.

Now we're back to an era where yellow cabs don't show up for morning airport runs and arbitrarily refuse fares, the "Airport Flyer" bus doesn't serve those who need to catch it for early-morning flights, late night buses run infrequently and erratically and people could potentially drive drunk instead of calling an Uber. For all of the high-minded moralists preaching from their soapboxes, the city of Austin's calendar revolves events (SXSW, ACL, Fun Fun Fun Fest, F1, UT Football) that encourage attendees to get ****faced. Tsk-tsking attendees won't decrease DWIs in the same way that on-demand rides from Uber and Lyft do.

While I don't think that the regulations being requested of Uber and Lyft were burdensome, I also understand that you don't get to a $62.5 billion valuation by operating through an infinite number of municipal regulatory hoops. Their business model depends on the ability to sign up drivers with little wait time, scale that nationwide and prevent themselves from calling drivers anything other than "contractors."

I truly see both sides to the debate in Austin, but I hate to think that the immediate beneficiaries of Prop 1's failure are the institutional dinosaurs Yellow Cab and Cap Metro, neither of which has shown a willingness or ability to address the growing commute needs of one of the fastest-growing cities in the country.

This is an aside, but I bolded your take on Airbnb because it's interesting. I'm an Airbnb user and have found it to be a great service. But, I read an interesting take on the situation in New Orleans where critics say that a limited housing supply is being squeezed by impermanent Airbnb units, causing rents to spike for the city's traditionally poorer natives. I'd never considered that before, but I sympathize with it. In cities like Austin, which is also attempting to regulate Airbnb amidst dwindling housing supply, people need a place to live. If the city becomes too expensive, the city loses talent and businesses who choose to go elsewhere (or there are more dependents on government-subsidized housing rolls) all for the sake of having tourists stay in an apartment rather than a traditional hotel.

It's all an interesting feedback loop.

 

the way to respond to a company trying to bully and blackmail a city into getting their way is to VOTE AGAINST THEM. and it was the ridesharing companies trying to use force, lies, millions of dollars and threats to bend the city to its will.

ive never even used uber/lyft and would not have had a problem at all with continuing doing things they way they have been. as far as i know there were no problems...however, for me and most everyone i know it was all about the ridesharing companies and their dishonest, strong-arm tactics.

you think the citizens of austin are "little fascists" b/c we dont like companies coming in and trying to manipulate and deceive us and buy an election? thats funny!

you are comparing the power of a dishonest and manipulative multi-million dollar ad campaign to the citizens of austin.

you can call us "little fascists" or whatever, but the main reason they lost is b/c many of us felt like we were indeed being bullied. if they had run an honest and ethical campaign where the issue was presented clearly and fairly i suspect they would have won.

 

I don't think it backfired at all. I think they're hoping for a lot of grousing by Austinites about lack of transportation so they can use the example as a cudgel against bigger cities like Houston. Do it our way, Houston, or you may end up another Austin.

I get this is a common economic philosophy. But it is some frustratingly magical thinking. The free market won't solve every problem. A strategy based on relying on consumers to choose to not use services that cost-shift is doomed to failure. When you write 'stop using them,' I read 'I don't care.' It's a stupid, poison pill suggestion. Why should we take a regulatory philosophy that plainly won't work? What has worked and can work is using the force of the state, which has been duly and democratically elected. It is the free market of regulatory decision-making, and there's nothing wrong with using government to get the economic outcomes we want. So I totally disagree that simply to stop using businesses that do things you don't like. The proper way to respond is to build a regulatory system that incentivizes companies to do the things that are optimal for society.

 

I don't think it'd quite blow up the model. It seems conceivable that can tweak the software to allow drivers to set their own prices and they'd still be able to offer price transparency. Of course, that could open a pandora's box of other problems.

 

Not when public safety is involved.

 

Good article on the topic:

http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-uber-austin-houston-fingerprinting.html


Is Fingerprinting Austin's Uber and Lyft Drivers Actually Safer?


Ride-hailing companies argue it's not, which is why they refuse to do it and are backing out of cities that try to make them. But security experts and public officials think otherwise.

Charles Carroll, a top executive in a company that helps governments run background checks, can hardly believe the debate about how best to screen drivers for Uber, Lyft and other car-hailing companies. It’s not the companies refusing to use fingerprint-based FBI background checks that surprises Carroll, it’s that the companies argue their screenings are better than fingerprinting.

“The fingerprint and the background search through the FBI is absolutely the gold standard,” he said. “I’ve never heard of anybody question this until Uber came along.”

Usually, the debate over whether to use fingerprints comes down to cost, said Carroll, the senior vice president of identity services at MorphoTrust. In Texas, for example, a one- or two-county criminal history search based solely on a person’s name and birthday would cost $3 or $4. In Texas, for a check with the FBI database, which covers the whole country, Carroll's company charges about $39.

But violent acts by Uber drivers, including a shooting spree in Kalamazoo, Mich., that left six people dead, have prompted calls in cities around the country for more outside scrutiny. Uber and Lyft, though, argue that their current system is safer than fingerprinting.

The issue is getting a lot of attention these days, particularly after voters in Austin, Texas, this weekend shot down a law proposed by ride-hailing companies to prohibit the city from fingerprinting Uber and Lyft drivers. The defeat for the companies, which spent at least $8.6 million backing the failed initiative, means drivers for ride-hailing companies there will have to undergo the same kind of background checks as cab drivers do, which includes submitting fingerprints to the city for an FBI search. Fifty-six percent of Austin voters opposed the measure, in what was easily the most expensive race in the history of the city.

After Saturday's vote, Uber and Lyft both said they would cease service in Austin starting Monday to avoid having to change the way they currently do business. Uber uses a company called Checkr to process background checks. Applicants provide their full name, date of birth, Social Security number and driver’s license number, among other things, and Checkr then runs that information through several databases, including sex offender registries and terrorist lists. The city never sees the results. Under Austin's new law, that would all have to change.

In the Austin campaign, the ride-hailing companies claimed one-third of Austin cab drivers who passed the city’s test didn’t pass Uber’s. That survey only looked at the 163 cab drivers (out of about 3,000 in the city) who also applied to drive for Uber. Uber hasn’t released many details about the survey, but the Austin American-Statesmen pointed out that it was taken before the Austin City Council expanded the scope of background checks for cab drivers from statewide to national FBI searches.

Only two other cities require fingerprint checks for ride-hailing drivers -- Houston and New York City -- but there’s a push to do so in others, including Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Uber has also threatened to leave Houston -- as Lyft already has -- if the city doesn’t repeal its fingerprinting requirements.

“Houston’s rules are some of the most burdensome in the country … [and] there is no evidence to suggest this improves safety for passengers,” wrote Sarfraz Maredia, Uber’s general manager in Houston, in a letter to city leaders.

Mayor Sylvester Turner, though, said Houston’s background checks found Uber-approved applicants who had histories of drunken driving, prostitution, assault and battery, and murder. One applicant had 24 aliases, five birthdates, 10 Social Security numbers and an active warrant for an arrest. He has also pointed out that Uber’s national checks don't include information from Delaware, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Wyoming.

“What I can tell you is that, if the city’s background checks protected even one person as it relates to public safety, it has been worth it,” the mayor said. “In this city, we cannot afford to compromise public safety.”

Uber also claims that Houston’s certification process took as long as four months for a two-year permit, and that 20,000 potential drivers screened by Uber opted not to go through the city screening process. Uber didn’t disclose how many drivers it has in Houston, and it went to court to block the city and state from releasing that information.

Turner disputes Uber’s charges, noting that 47 percent of drivers reported no delays, and two-thirds of them said they got their license in less than two weeks.

Uber also previously tried to discredit fingerprinting services. Because fingerprints can smudge or smooth with time, the company argues that makes them unreliable. In some cases, identifying fingerprints requires human input, which is subject to human error, the company wrote.

Carroll, the executive at the fingerprinting company, doesn’t buy it.

“You need to make sure that the person who has control over your safety and security has absolutely had an in-depth background search,” he said. “To me, there’s only one way to do that, and that’s through the FBI.”

 

Depends on you perspective. Uber/Lyft also prevents a ton of DUIs that will inevitably happen when those companies go away

 

Absolutely - but irrelevant to whether or not cities have a right/responsibility to get involved with corporate regulation when public safety is involved.