Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at what Amazon does in order to avoid sales tax in various jurisdictions.
In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number
Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out.
By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan.
This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things.
Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you?
People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves.
Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1].
> The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.
"Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.
> The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city
That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.
How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.
> The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out.
The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.
> That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money.
Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.
We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.
People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.
> They also need to balance public safety
They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.
Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway. When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying. It's normal and happens all the time. What I'm suggesting is rather than fighting in the public arena via 3rd party messaging which is saying "I'm right, they're wrong", these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table. It's clear that hasn't happened because this has blossomed into a dramatic news story.
> If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer.
This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job.
Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork.
> The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out.
This makes no sense. The city doesn't win by excluding businesses from operating, nor do the city officials. City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public, and by sharing details with the public that they might not otherwise know. The same can be said of businesses and their PR efforts.
> Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents.
Balancing taxes, security, etc. is in the interest of residents. Taxes permit the government to pay for police, firemen, road construction, schools, etc. Security permits them to move freely without needing to focus much on that themselves.
> We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city.
In balancing these there is a give and take. Setting one weight to 100% is not an option in a balanced equation.
> People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points.
Yup I don't dispute that.
> They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting
You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts. At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.
Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies.
Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?
10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done.
They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done
PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing.
U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone.
Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10.
Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved.
U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y.
It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.
>Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best.
But they already comply with fingerprinting requirements (and other variations in laws) for other juridictions, like NYC, which requires Ubers to get a special TLC number, and IIRC Houston and San Antonio, where they fingerprint.
I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?
Burning through VC money in the process? That's a risky move. Uber follows fingerprinting procedures in NYC and Houston, why not Austin? It seems to me Uber/Lyft are better off coming to the negotiation table to discuss a way forward.
It's a lot riskier for the VCs to allow regulations like this to stand. Fingerprinting might be tolerable by itself, but this isn't really about fingerprinting, of course. Every major city whose regulators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the taxi operators will come up with additional random expensive hoops to jump through, repeating as necessary until the competitor is run out of town. Anyone attempting to confront the incumbents with an innovative new service will suffer the death of a thousand cuts.
(Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.)
No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.
U/L's position is not clear. Why operate with different rules in NYC? If they could articulate their desired policy to the public, maybe they'd find more support in Austin.
You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5.
Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1]
I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber.
I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors.
In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number
I detailed more of it here:
https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...