[studentrob]

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].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

[EdHominem]

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber.

> The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse.

No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all.

The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

[studentrob]

> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is.

I said both are bullying each other.

> 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.

[EdHominem]

> I said both are bullying each other.

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.

[studentrob]

> How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied?

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.

[EdHominem]

> When a company attempts to hammer home the message that they are right and local officials are wrong, that's bullying.

The city officials making up nonsense about fingerprinting drivers, for safety, is the bullying. Implying that Uber and Lyft drivers are rapists and the companies don't care. And lying about the ability of fingerprint to save lives, even if.

Given that officials are managing perception, not fact, they are wrong, and deserve to be called out for it. That's not bullying, just the price of making unsupportable claims.

> Public officials hold positions as both representatives and leaders. Their voice holds sway.

Unless that magically makes them right, it's irrelevant.

> these parties would be better off calmly stating their positions to the public via their official mediums, or doing it at the negotiation table.

How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.

[studentrob]

> When you deal with people for whom perception is more important than facts, you're never going to win by discussing facts.

I think you're missing my point about perception. The world runs on perception. When presented with the same facts, even two identical twins may come up with a different conclusion. They each lead different lives.

I understand where you're coming from because I used to believe in hard truths too. This is the main point of our disagreement, and it's not worth discussing the details of the situation in Austin further without first agreeing on this point. I know we'll disagree on Austin because of our disagreement about perception of facts. Perhaps the world's most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, discusses this frequently, for example here [1], here [2], and here [3]. I think [3] is the best example because it shows when Kissinger changed his point of view on the subject of facts vs. perception. This is a man who opened up China to trading with the rest of the world after 30 years of disconnect. He's not perfect but he knows how to work with people and make things happen.

> How would negotiating for the same rights as any other business help Uber and Lyft? Please sir, may I have the right to buy gas, serve passengers, etc?

I think you have to come to the table with a mindset other than "you're out to get us". You need to believe that there is some merit to the government or people's position, and that they might have reason to believe that the public perceive a government background check is more secure than a private one, and would vote accordingly (as they did). Whether the fingerprint-based background check is better or not becomes irrelevant at the negotiating table. One can't wave a magic wand and change public perception to align with what you believe. Politicians will negotiate based on the public's view. The facts about background checks are useful to present on U/L's website or in media, but the only thing that matters to the politician will be public perception. This is why you see some politicians flipping on things like gay marriage. They weren't necessarily ideologically against it in 1990, they just felt they didn't have the strength to change the voters' view on the topic. You can call that weakness but there are tons of issues like this and gauging public opinion is really hard. Politicians spend all their time at it. There's a pretty good podcast from This American Life on the subject [4]. Politicians spend all their time calling people asking for money, which is a way of connecting with people and hearing their views. Barney Frank says,

"If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [4]

[1] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=10m06s

[2] https://youtu.be/wooGL__-OvA?t=57m24s

[3] https://youtu.be/_eM_z4vRxrA?t=5m52s

[4] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[studentrob]

> 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.

[EdHominem]

> Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork.

The city is not the elected officials, it's the myriad workers who perform the day-to-day work. The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

> 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.

If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

> City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public,

You yourself point out that they win by being perceived to do that's in the interest of the public, not some hard to define "actual good".

> You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts.

Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign. Facts are everything, not nothing.

> Taxes permit the government to pay for [stuff]

And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc. But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands.

> At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do.

An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

It doesn't matter that Uber is safer than a cab, if you can't attach your name to that claim you're politically better off banning it.

[studentrob]

> The city is not the elected officials

The city is everyone, both elected officials and those who elected them. The elected officials represent the desires of the city whenever they were last elected.

> The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.

Yes, this is exactly why we have a democratic republic and we don't referendum everything. It gives the public a chance to blame one individual rather than each other.

> If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.

Of course. My point was that city employees do suffer when you scoff at the law. They risk losing their jobs. Many roles are appointed by the elected administration.

> Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.

The government spent money holding a referendum that potentially would have benefited U/L. You're certainly free to voice your concerns about how tax money is spent. The city, in my opinion, acted properly.

> not some hard to define "actual good".

Right, I didn't say "actual good", I said "interest of the public". That is another way of saying their desire, which is based on their perception of facts, not facts themselves. I don't believe in "actual good" or "objective morality". Perceptions are reality

> Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign.

Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.

> Facts are everything, not nothing.

I don't mean to say facts are useless. I mean that people can interpret them differently. One man's trash is another's treasure, that sort of thing. Some people love U/L, others have no need for it. Recognizing differences in people can help you build products, companies, run for office, etc.

> And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.

For sure. I have very little stake in this issue. No U/L stock and I don't live in Austin. I'm merely American. My interest is it's interesting to discuss. Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.

> The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc.

That's wonderful.

> But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless

Again I'd say that's short sighted. People do care when a business leaves a city. Parents recognize the value of tax money, which goes towards keeping them and their young ones safe and educated.

> its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands

Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion. Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.

> An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.

Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective. People voted on this. If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.

Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point, particularly to me, since I'm not even a resident. Perhaps you also just find it interesting to discuss. Cheers!

[aioprisan]

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?

[studentrob]

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.