|
Recently Austin had an election that was primarily about whether Uber and Lyft should be required to fingerprint their drivers. Their background checks have proven safer than the ones they were being told to replace them with, and they spent $9 million trying to convince Austin to pass a bill removing those regulations, primarily through junk mail. As the election got near, they said they'd leave Austin if the regulation passed. That, combined with the fact that Uber and Lyft are really unsympathetic companies anyway, was enough to where the voting public sided against them and voted to keep the regulations around. Uber and Lyft aren't in Austin anymore but hopefully they'll come back soon. In the meanwhile, a new ridesharing company named GetMe with a secret CEO is starting to offer rides here. What people haven't seen is that the story about Uber and Lyft "threatening to leave Austin" was tried out in October and December as well, which lines up very nicely with GetMe's big press pushes: http://getme.com/media Councilwoman Ann Kitchen seems to be responsible for the first attempt at passing fingerprinting regulations, as you can see in this news article from October, when GetMe started its food delivery service in Austin. This article used to be titled "Austin to discuss whether Uber, Lyft should face same rules as cabs." You'll see it happen a lot: They post a news article, it gets picked up by news aggregators, and they change the article, adding in quotes from city council members. Austin committee calls for new fees, fingerprint checks for Uber, Lyft posted:“To threaten to leave, simply because we are trying to protect public safety, cannot be my deciding factor,” Kitchen said. “There are other transportation network companies, and they will be here.”* http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/austin-to-discuss-whether-uber-lyft-should-face-sa/nnxPg That's been the narrative all three times. Uber and Lyft "threaten to leave," fingerprint background checks are a matter of public safety, other ridesharing companies will fill in the gaps. Here's a more blatant example from December 14, the day before GetMe started its ridesharing service in Austin. Memo: Austin recommends fingerprint background checks for all rideshares posted:(Updated Dec 14th) Also a new Transportation Network Company (TNC) now identified as Get Me has secured an agreement with the City of Austin and has expressed it does not oppose the recommended regulations, and plans to launch Dec 15th, according to a release. http://kxan.com/2015/12/11/city-recommends-fingerprint-background-checks-for-tnc-drivers/ Here's another article from Dec 14, which is full of quotes telling you how to feel. Get Me launches rides in Austin as Uber, Lyft threaten to leave, Dec 14 posted:"We're excited to be here. We support the on demand driver network and we're here to stay," says Jonathan Laramy, co-founder and chief experience operator. http://keyetv.com/news/local/get-me-launches-rides-in-austin-as-uber-lyft-threaten-to-leave The local paper's election day article went through 4 headlines, according to this one site. "Election day voting light so far on Austin's prop 1" "Democratic political consultant David Butts said Uber wanted to make an example to the nation with Austin but failed" "Austin voters decisively rejected Uber and Lyft’s $8.6 million bid to overturn fingerprinting" "Prop. 1 goes down as activist proclaims: ‘Austin made Uber an example’" https://muckrack.com/link/z4sV3/election-day-voting-light-so-far-on-austins-prop-1 There's a lot more here, this is just one example of a particularly blatant rhetorical device the local news used to manipulate the outcome of the election. There are a couple more examples in this timeline of Uber and Lyft's contributions to their PAC, Ridesharing Works for Austin, according to offhanded mentions by the Statesman, which is its own special brand of terrible. But that's another post. http://goo.gl/RGajcy
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
it is posted:Their background checks have proven safer than the ones they were being told to replace them with, Can you provide some background or supporting documentation for this claim? I never heard Uber make a reasoned argument as to why the city's requirements were unreasonable or untenable, beyond "we don't want to." But it's possible that the information sources I frequent did not present Uber's side of the argument fairly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:Can you provide some background or supporting documentation for this claim? I'm about to write on the Statesman's abuse of statistics, but you're right, this does require some justification: Story showing that 11.7% of people who passed name-based background checks (like Uber and Lyft use) failed fingerprint background checks (like the ones they'll be required to use) in some national survey: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/safety-the-key-as-austin-city-council-takes-on-rid/npmBD/ Story showing that a third of cab drivers who applied to drive for Uber failed their background check: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/transportation/prop-1-ad-on-third-of-austin-cabbies-gives-only-a-/nrGDx/ He spins it like Uber is trying to mislead Austin with their statistics, it's great. Really, this is just self-selection bias; if all cab drivers applied to Uber the actual rejection rate would probably be higher. Only the cab drivers who think they have a shot are going to bother. it is fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
On February 12, GetMe sent out a carbon-copy email to 500 people, exposing their email addresses (and also has a hilarious onboarding process):GetME disaster – email blast to 500 Austin TX drivers posted: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. http://rideshareacademy.com/getme-disaster-austin-tx/ None of the local news outlets reported on that story. Not the Statesman, not KEYE, not KXAN, not KVUE, none of them. You know what was reported on 2/12? "Austin headed to expensive, consuming ride-hailing campaign" A news article, which is not labeled an opinion piece posted:What lies ahead over the next 12 weeks promises to be costly, emotional and consuming. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/austin-headed-to-expensive-consuming-ride-hailing-/nqPbn/ Here, Ben Wear introduces all the major players and explains what's at stake. The Statesman is a really interesting study, because they're a lot more obvious about the storyline. A 4-week subscription to the Statesman online for a dollar is the best possible entertainment for your value. The timeline in the last post should help you organize it a bit https://www.statesman.com/flist/news/local/uber-and-lyft-austin/fCPY/ I was gonna do a breakdown of all of these, but I"m gonna just point out some recurring themes in approximately chronological order and let you go explore. Most of these appear multiple times. The timeline in the last post should help you organize it temporally a little bit. Uber and Lyft threaten to leave Ann Kitchen is there City council proposes a solution Mayor Adler proposes a solution This won't hurt Austin's bid to a $60,000,000 Smart City grant This may be about whether Uber and Lyft's drivers are employees Junk mail is apparently the worst thing in the world Uber and Lyft have spent $2.2 million dollars Uber and Lyft have spent more than Mayor Adler did on his $1.2 million mayoral bid Uber and Lyft have spent $8.1 million dollars If Uber and Lyft make good on their threats to leave Austin GetMe is still there Uber and Lyft have spent $8.6 million dollars The election is May 7 Uber and Lyft do bad things completely unrelated to fingerprint background checks The election will have cost taxpayers $800,000 Fingerprint background checks only cost $25 Uber and Lyft won't be FORCED to leave Austin Austin defeated Uber and Lyft Out-of-work Uber and Lyft drivers Mayor Adler inviting Uber and Lyft back to the table Also you'll see them use the word "ride-hailing." Their explanation, according to this non-opinion news article, is the following: Wear: Don't mess up your vote! Here's what Uber, Lyft ballot question means posted:And all of this has to do with Transportation Network Companies, which regular readers of the Statesman might recognize as ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft. But others might know them by the companies’ preferred descriptor: ride-sharing. We don’t use that term here because sharing implies altruism, something given rather than something you have to pay to get. Like a ride with Uber or Lyft. But that’s another story. He's replacing the common term with a less familiar one to make a statement about Uber and Lyft being buttholes. That reads confusingly and is not very neutral. And just a couple paragraphs earlier: he wrote this: quote:Yes, there are a few problems there. I teach writing over at Austin Community College, and if one of my students turned that in, the red pen would get a workout. Clarity, dear writer — above all else, clarity. There ARE quite a few problems there! I'm sure you can figure them all out though. But anyway, I think the paper's prohibition against the term ridesharing was real. Here's an article from months ago that was updated in early October, about when GetMe started doing food deliveries in Austin. Look at the URL, then look at the actual headline, then realize you're reading an ad for an app: http://www.statesman.com/news/business/austin-a-hub-for-tech-based-ridesharing-delivery-s/nnsM4/ And an opinion piece from former mayor Lee Leffingwell, the chair of Ridesharing Works for Austin. It was updated after the fact, and he never actually says "ridesharing" except for once now. Hm. (I'm suggesting that the article was edited soon after it was posted to replace "ridesharing" with "ride-hailing" and there's no way he calls it that and the editor missed one) http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/opinion/leffingwell-vote-for-prop-1-to-keep-ride-hailing-i/nq8Lw/ It's pretty neat how effective this was at swaying public opinion. Just keep exposing people to talking points and eventually they'll buy them. it is fucked around with this message at 09:11 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
You should write a scathing op-ed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Poor Uber, being bullied by the big mean government.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
i really, truly do not give a poo poo about the city of austin chasing uber and lyft away with regulations. gently caress uber, and gently caress lyft
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:Can you provide some background or supporting documentation for this claim? No, don't you see, the less information you have about someone before you do a background check, the more accurate it'll be because you won't get conflicting information!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
I have a hard time feeling sympathetic to anyone in this matter. Just looks like business as usual for everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Uber is convenient and inexpensive, but that's because they are losing money trying to destroy other driver services who don't rely on ripping off their contractors and skirting regulations. I hope more cities chase them out, then I hope they fail.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Rolling over and using an incorrect term like "ride-sharing company" with no scrutiny isn't neutral either. Leffingwell got a huge check from RWA btw
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
it is posted:On February 12, GetMe sent out a carbon-copy email to 500 people, exposing their email addresses (and also has a hilarious onboarding process): it turns out that a lovely email CC is not news, OP
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
it is posted:He's replacing the common term with a less familiar one to make a statement about Uber and Lyft being buttholes. That reads confusingly and is not very neutral. And just a couple paragraphs earlier: he wrote this: How dare someone replace an intentionally deceptive silicon valley catchphrase with more accurate language! I share the same outrage as your employer OP.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Is Uber planning to phase out its lobbyists as well, transitioning to a cadre of drivers so abject in their submission as to defend Uber tirelessly, for no compensation?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is Uber planning to phase out its lobbyists as well, transitioning to a cadre of drivers so abject in their submission as to defend Uber tirelessly, for no compensation? Someone must altruistically work to save the rest of the nation from Big GetMe™
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Someone must altruistically work to save the rest of the nation from Big GetMe™ I'm struggling to realize the best metaphor to describe the relationship between objectivist financiers and those who defend them out of some sense of philosophical integrity. Should I go with pets, or cattle?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm struggling to realize the best metaphor to describe the relationship between objectivist financiers and those who defend them out of some sense of philosophical integrity. Should I go with pets, or cattle? Pretty sure they already use the term 'serfs'
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
it is posted:He spins it like Uber is trying to mislead Austin with their statistics, it's great. Really, this is just self-selection bias; if all cab drivers applied to Uber the actual rejection rate would probably be higher. Only the cab drivers who think they have a shot are going to bother. "Uber releasing their hiring statistics on the ~5% of Austin cab drivers who applied in the middle of a contentious political issue that would affect their ability to operate in the city is just proof that their background checks are way more stringent and that most cab drivers wouldn't cut it with them." -a well informed person who is most certainly not a shill.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Please take this to the Fall of the Unicorns thread or the TXPOL thread where we can laugh at you like the idiot you are without having to have another thread making GBS threads up the forums.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:How dare someone replace an intentionally deceptive silicon valley catchphrase with more accurate language! I share the same outrage as your employer OP. In general the term "Sharing Economy" seems dumb as hell. These people aren't sharing*; they're making economic transactions with one another. A professor of mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Sundararajan) from undergrad is apparently a well-known researcher/speaker about this topic and is always posting stuff on his Facebook about how the "Sharing Economy" is this huge deal that will forever change the way most people are employed and do business. I think this is really dumb because most jobs that our society needs to function can't be translated into a "Sharing Economy" type job. To his credit, he does take a "truth is in the middle" approach where he admits there are significant potential downsides to companies with this business model becoming more prevalent (like more employees being "contractors" and not having the same benefits as direct employees). This isn't to say that stuff like AirBnb and Uber aren't worth researching. It IS interesting how the prevalence of technology like smart phones enables people to far more easily conduct these person-to-person transactions. But it sure as hell isn't some revolutionary thing. * Actually I guess this could be considered technically wrong, since I don't think the definition for "sharing" necessitates that the person isn't getting paid for it. But it's still obviously misleading, and using that definition pretty much any business that rents a product/service is "sharing" it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Yeah, I don't think there's a point in having a new thread about this. We already have one about Unicorns like Uber and one about techbros which also discusses Uber.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:09
|
|
