| > 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. The workers at the DMV don't suffer, the meter readers don't suffer, etc. If anyone does, it's the politician whose stupid ideas and lies wasted everyone's time and money. And that's a feature. > 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. Cough. They use your tax money to send propaganda to you, lying about the facts. They abuse the presumption that they're working for the public to push their own agenda. Uber and Lyft have fact on their side. And if they lied, they'd risk someone going to jail. > 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. You just spent time explaining that tax money can be used to buy services. I knew that, but figured you might be saying it because you didn't see the other side of the equation where untaxed wages can also be used to buy things... > Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion. Only if you water words down until they don't mean anything. The city's demands are for useless measures to fix an issue that already doesn't impact anyone, and the proposition is one they make money from. > 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. No, I think the politicians are lying which confounds the issue. The people trust them and many or all may be mislead but that's not the same as thinking that each and every voter themselves is unreasonable. > Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective. That's not the issue, that's the overton-window version. Worthless checks are worthless, no matter who does them. > 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. As you say, it's not about facts. Engaging on the wrong issues merely settles the discussion around those issues. > Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point I'm not complaining, I think it's exactly what the city deserves for duplicitousness. Sometimes walking away from crazy people is all you can do. |
So you don't think Fasten or other competitors will be able to fill the gap? I'll be interested to follow developments.
> Sometimes walking away from crazy people is all you can do.
That's fine that you feel this way. I'd argue it hasn't been the path forward for businesses or governments when working with each other. U/L has a lot of business elsewhere so the decision to leave may not hurt them in the short term.
I understand better now how strongly you feel the city government is lying. I'm still not convinced that leaving Austin is the right way for U/L to get what they want.
Arguing that private background checks are just as effective as government fingerprint checks is a nuanced point of view. The public may have a hard time swallowing this one. Through their vote, they expressed more trust in the government's claim that fingerprint checks are more secure than private checks. Generally, people trust government security over private security. Apple staked a good part of its reputation challenging one part of this belief. They seem to have won, for now. U/L could also something extreme along those lines, walk away as you say, or try negotiating. They have several options