Uber & Lyft leaving Austin after voters want drivers fingerprinted.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

It seems that with all the stories of assaults, rapes, robberies, etc., requiring drivers be fingerprinted as part of the background check is a common sense approach. Or, perhaps not? Apparently fingerprinting is expensive and would seriously impact Uber and Lyft.

Both Uber and Lyft dumped millions into a No vote drive against the petition that Austin voters passed into law this past Saturday. Austin joins New York and Houston as the first cities to require drivers be fingerprinted.

So, visitors to the OT, what do you think? Is this a reasonable requirement? Or is the threat to public safety overstated and current background checking satisfactory as these two companies would suggest? Is this the beginning of a trend that will eventually sweep the nation?

What about Europe? Uber and Lyft are currently trying to work through the maze of regulations hoping eventually to set up business there.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-lyft-set-leave-texas-city-over-fingerprinting-075141677.html?ref=gs

Uber, Lyft set to leave Texas city over fingerprinting rule

Washington (AFP) - Ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft are set to quit the Texas city of Austin after voters said fingerprinting should be part of driver background checks, reports said.

The companies had poured $8.6 million into a campaign to keep fingerprinting, which can be expensive and time-consuming, out of driver checks.

Results from the vote on Proposition One -- the most expensive campaign in city history -- showed 56 percent in favor of fingerprint checks, compared 44 percent against, according to the Austin American-Statesman newspaper.

The vote came after the City Council passed an ordinance in December that, among other rules for ride-sharing companies, required their drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks by February 1, 2017.

Uber and Lyft announced after the results of Saturday's vote that they were set to suspend operations in Austin, the capital city of Texas, on Monday morning.

"Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin," Uber Austin general manager Chris Nakutis said in a statement.

"We hope the City Council will reconsider their ordinance so we can work together to make the streets of Austin a safer place for everyone."

Lyft added in its own statement: "We're very disappointed to leave the Lyft Austin community -- and we hope to come back soon. If you'd like to help make Austin rideshare-friendly again, reach out to your City Council member and tell them."

Currently, New York and Houston are the only US cities that require fingerprinting for ride-sharing drivers, media reports said.

Uber has threatened to pull out of Houston if fingerprinting rules aren't changed, saying they hamper driver recruitment.

Business is booming for ride-sharing companies but they face tricky regulatory issues in cities around the world.

They are up against stiff resistance from traditional taxi drivers, as well as bans in some places over safety concerns and questions over legal issues, including taxes.

On Wednesday, San Francisco-based Uber announced a policy board that includes a former European Commission vice president to help the company overcome regulatory and other hurdles.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'd say it seems to be strait forward invasion of privacy to me. Have them be registered, sure, but I just think fingerprinted is a bit to far.

**LordofHats**

Is this a similar requirement for other driver services like taxis and limos?

**Breotan**

Do taxi drivers in Auston have to be fingerprinted? If so, what is wrong with extending that process to Uber and Lyft?

**LordofHats**

Breotan wrote:
Do taxi drivers in Auston have to be fingerprinted? If so, what is wrong with extending that process to Uber and Lyft?

That's my question (the first one). I'm not exactly familiar with the later companies, but there seem to be doing a similar service, and it makes sense to me to apply to them the same (or similar) regulations lacking a compelling reason not to ("we'll go out of business" is not a compelling reason in and of itself).

**skyth**

Funny, they site 'public safety', but I bet there would be a lot more howling if there was a new requirement to fingerprint gun owners...

**Nostromodamus**

skyth wrote:
Funny, they site 'public safety', but I bet there would be a lot more howling if there was a new requirement to fingerprint gun owners...

Gun Owners aren't providing gun services to the general public and are supposed to be protected from governmental infringement by the Constitution.

Taxi drivers are providing public services and have no Constitutional protections.

The comparison is irrelevent.

**MrMoustaffa**

Considering the hiring process for Uber consists of

1. Do you have a pulse?

2. Does your car not look like it rolled off a junkyard today?

3. Did you not stab the person who gave you your uber phone?

If you pass those 3 you're pretty much hired.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require a bit more stringent hiring process.

Not like its the first job I ever had that required fingerprinting either, from my understanding it's not all that uncommon in lower level jobs.

**Breotan**

Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
So, visitors to the OT, what do you think? Is this a reasonable requirement? Or is the threat to public safety overstated and current background checking satisfactory as these two companies would suggest?

I don't I'd have a problem with fingerprinting for taxi drivers in general in terms of privacy grounds, exactly. You're free not to seek being a cabbie if you don't want that level of scrutiny.

I'm not sure how useful it would be though. I don't believe there really are any statistics about whether or not Uber is safer than a regular cab, or limo, or what have you. I know there have been a handful of incidents, but doesn't Uber have like a million drivers, and however many millions of rides per year?

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Is this a similar requirement for other driver services like taxis and limos?

Yes.

Don't worry, Uber has a plan B. They've pulled in state legislators to rescue them from the evil oppression of municipal regulation.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Legislature-to-consider-statewide-regulations-on-7421527.php

Me I don't have a dog in this hunt except I don't want a corporate threatening me. They can

themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
Funny, they site 'public safety', but I bet there would be a lot more howling if there was a new requirement to fingerprint gun owners...

You should do, like research before you post things.

In Texas you have to have fingerprints before you can get an LTC.
You have to have a fingerprint for a mere driver's license here.

It should be a simple process
1. Use the print you have to give to get a driver's license.
2. Just hold Uber and Lyft civilly and criminally responsible if something happens.

**Co'tor Shas**

Breotan wrote:
Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

I've never had that happen. I don't think they do criminal checks around here.Different places I guess.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

I've never had that happen. I don't think they do criminal checks around here.Different places I guess.

They do criminal checks quite a bit (and FB/social network checks-watch out youngins!!) but fingerprint checks less so. I've seen a lot of fingerprints for licenses. I think I had to have one for my Bar card, but its been a few millennia.

What I has never been explained to me is the reason for UBer/Lyft's hostility to the background check.

**jmurph**

Uber/Lyft's entire market model is to be a taxi service without paying the costs associated with such services. They are opposed because it cuts into their margin.

The assaults/rapes/shootings by these drivers is exactly why these regulations exist on public carriers in the first place.

**Ketara**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

I've never had that happen. I don't think they do criminal checks around here.Different places I guess.

They do criminal checks quite a bit (and FB/social network checks-watch out youngins!!) but fingerprint checks less so. I've seen a lot of fingerprints for licenses. I think I had to have one for my Bar card, but its been a few millennia.

What I has never been explained to me is the reason for UBer/Lyft's hostility to the background check.

It costs them money.

**Frazzled**

All regulation costs money. Suddenly Democrats have discovered regulation costs money?
one lawsuit breaching the corporate veil and making them liable for their employees (no they aren't independent contractors) and wammo it will do the same thing.

**Sarouan**

Frazzled wrote:
All regulation costs money. Suddenly Democrats have discovered regulation costs money?

Since when Uber/Lyft are Democrats? They just try to squeeze more money for themselves at any cost.

**Frazzled**

Not Uber, those complaining.

Interesting things have been brought up however. If there is an accident, what insurance covers the passenger? Your crappy ass personal liability car insurance policy better not be it.

Its beginning to look like Uber lays off all the company costs on the driver.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:

They do criminal checks quite a bit (and FB/social network checks-watch out youngins!!) but fingerprint checks less so. I've seen a lot of fingerprints for licenses. I think I had to have one for my Bar card, but its been a few millennia.

What I has never been explained to me is the reason for UBer/Lyft's hostility to the background check.

I've worked at a few different places, and I've never has do do anything like that. I think they even removed the "Have you committed a felony? y/n" question a while back. Might just be NY, I'll have to check.

**Frazzled**

Its ironical that in the same month this occurred Austin city council passed an ordinance eliminating the requirement for criminal background checks for government employees, to provide them an equal second chance.

Maybe this is council's nefarious plot to increase bicycle ridership to take advantage of all the restriping they just did.

**Jihadin**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

I've never had that happen. I don't think they do criminal checks around here.Different places I guess.

Bre you had it done at Seattle MEPs?

Besides I see another possibility of a individual to start a company filling the void Uber and Lyft has left

**Ahtman**

Background checks and the like for pseudo-taxis is not American. Leave that kind of stuff to non-pseudo-taxis.

**jreilly89**

Not sure who i side with. I think fingerprinting is a decent idea, but I also see how Uber and Lyft got so much business from trying to avoid the types of fees regular cabs have to charge. Will keep an eye on this one.

**timetowaste85**

Meh, got finger printed and it was $90. It's not that expensive. Yes, I realize that if Uber paid that fee, it's a ton for all those drivers. But if it becomes an up front cost for the drivers to get their job? Well, tons of other jobs require it. So deal.

And I say this as a guy for whom Uber has become essential (taxi from CT to NJ: $150. Uber same distance: $70. And paid on the Corp card too. Yeah...)

**Dreadclaw69**

Looks like Austin already has fingerprinting for taxi drivers;
https://lintvkxan.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/memo-to-mayorcouncil-from-atd-director-rob-spillar-re-tranportation-net.pdf

It seems these steps are to bring Uber & Lyft into the same regime as similar service providers.

**Kilkrazy**

In one way that's fair, but in another way the concept of Uber is to subvert the existing structure of taxi cab organisation and make it a lot cheaper. That obviously isn't possible without cutting costs -- how much are cost cuts leading to cut corners?

**Breotan**

Jihadin wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Only recently have I had to be fingerprinted as part of the job process. Most of the rest only require documentation and standard criminal background checking.

I've never had that happen. I don't think they do criminal checks around here.Different places I guess.

Bre you had it done at Seattle MEPs?

Had it done as part of a contract job at a software firm working on government contracts.

**Jihadin**

Dang...I printed a guy who looks a bit like your avatar

**jreilly89**

timetowaste85 wrote:
Meh, got finger printed and it was $90. It's not that expensive. Yes, I realize that if Uber paid that fee, it's a ton for all those drivers. But if it becomes an up front cost for the drivers to get their job? Well, tons of other jobs require it. So deal.

And I say this as a guy for whom Uber has become essential (taxi from CT to NJ: $150. Uber same distance: $70. And paid on the Corp card too. Yeah...)

To all Dakka members, how common is finger printing? I've worked several different jobs from retail to semi-professional and never once had to be finger printed.

**Nostromodamus**

jreilly89 wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:
Meh, got finger printed and it was $90. It's not that expensive. Yes, I realize that if Uber paid that fee, it's a ton for all those drivers. But if it becomes an up front cost for the drivers to get their job? Well, tons of other jobs require it. So deal.

And I say this as a guy for whom Uber has become essential (taxi from CT to NJ: $150. Uber same distance: $70. And paid on the Corp card too. Yeah...)

To all Dakka members, how common is finger printing? I've worked several different jobs from retail to semi-professional and never once had to be finger printed.

Only times I've had to be fingerprinted were for passport, US naturalization and concealed pistol licence. Never for a job, and I've had 13 jobs.