Uber

[shocka khan]

A fine choice which I can respect, although I disagree and have used Uber in excess of 100 times.

Why advocate for more stringent rules than are legislatively required for taxi companies in Kansas while taking away my choice, though?

I'm not aware of what's going on in Kansas, I am aware of what's going on in Houston, and your second statement (about advocating for more stringent rules) is incorrect for our city. Our mayor was trying to get them to comply with the 'normal' cab admin rules.

Uber tried an end-run around them in the Texas House and got shot down.

[SHOCKvalue]

I know the libertarian side of me wants to go all apeshit with the rest of the emotional majority on this news, but I don't see how simply asking for a government background check on drivers and requiring appropriate insurance coverage under of the auspices of a business operation are unreasonable prerequisites. There are boatloads of careers in our economy requiring a government background check - both my wife and I are have such as a requirement. And the requirement to carry a business rider on your personal vehicle used in a business capacity is one big, massive "duh!"

This isn't an issue of "big government," it is an issue of a business carrying itself like a child having a temper-tantrum and a whole bunch of people finding said temper-tantrum behavior to be reasonable.

[Dupe]

I know the libertarian side of me wants to go all apeshit with the rest of the emotional majority on this news, but I don't see how simply asking for a government background check on drivers and requiring appropriate insurance coverage under of the auspices of a business operation are unreasonable prerequisites. There are boatloads of careers in our economy requiring a government background check - both my wife and I are have such as a requirement. And the requirement to carry a business rider on your personal vehicle used in a business capacity is one big, massive "duh!"

This isn't an issue of "big government," it is an issue of a business carrying itself like a child having a temper-tantrum and a whole bunch of people finding said temper-tantrum behavior to be reasonable.

This was also what I heard. It was never that Uber is not allowed in Kansas, it was that Kansas required reasonable things they didn't want to do. Everything I read on facebook makes it seem like Sam Brownback showed up at an Uber convention and ran them all out of the state or something. I get the feeling its the same hatred for the other decisions Kansas has made that is driving the hatred about this Uber deal.

Personally, I want Uber. I think it's great. I have a feeling Kansas lawmakers do, too, but they have a few opinions on making sure it works for all Kansans (including patrons, cab drivers, even Uber drivers), not just corporate Uber. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Can someone explain to me why Kansas lawmakers would be against having it here? I have a hard time believing they have some axe to grind specifically with Uber. Social media is full of people acting like Kansas threw them out just to be mean and "stone agey" for no reason other than hate for teachers or something... :) I think that's unlikely.

[Dupe]

A fine choice which I can respect, although I disagree and have used Uber in excess of 100 times.

Why advocate for more stringent rules than are legislatively required for taxi companies in Kansas while taking away my choice, though?

This is where I can be won over. If they are requiring Uber to do TOO MUCH and aren't requiring similar things from other service providers, I can see why it is annoying.

[shocka khan]

Uber executives have also been caught saying in public that they should perform 'enemy research' against their critics (and one Silicon Valley columnists in particular) and use it against them. Sort of like extortion.

Dirty politics works, dirty corporate behavior doesn't.

[MoValley John]

Uber executives have also been caught saying in public that they should perform 'enemy research' against their critics (and one Silicon Valley columnists in particular) and use it against them. Sort of like extortion.

Dirty politics works, dirty corporate behavior doesn't.

Here is what I don't understand, why would Uber be fine with background checks, mandatory insurance and all of the other requirements to do business in Nebraska, but turn around and abandon Kansas when the same requirements were being demanded by the Kansas legislature. My guess is that the taxi lobby did a better job in Kansas then they did in Nebraska. Yes, the taxi lobby did play dirty here, but when Uber satisfied the banks and insurance companies, banking and insurance lobbies were stronger.

When you accuse Uber of dirty politics, which I'm sure they do, acknowledge that the taxi industry is involved in the same exact thing.

[_kai_]

Something I'd like answered, and can't find an answer to it, is why did SB 117 start out as a health insurance bill, and then morph into this ride sharing bill with no mention of health insurance?

[shocka khan]

Something I'd like answered, and can't find an answer to it, is why did SB 117 start out as a health insurance bill, and then morph into this ride sharing bill with no mention of health insurance?

Something about how making sausage and writing legislation....if you saw how either were made, you'd swear them off.

[shocka khan]

Here is what I don't understand, why would Uber be fine with background checks, mandatory insurance and all of the other requirements to do business in Nebraska, but turn around and abandon Kansas when the same requirements were being demanded by the Kansas legislature. My guess is that the taxi lobby did a better job in Kansas then they did in Nebraska. Yes, the taxi lobby did play dirty here, but when Uber satisfied the banks and insurance companies, banking and insurance lobbies were stronger.

When you accuse Uber of dirty politics, which I'm sure they do, acknowledge that the taxi industry is involved in the same exact thing.

There's a difference between dirty politics and smearing a writer's reputation. You're right, taxi companies and Uber use lobbyists to 'grease the wheels'. I don't believe I have ever seen an executive of a company advocate trying to obtain compromising information on writers or analysts in an attempt to extort them.

Here's the link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthickey/2014/11/17/uber-exec-wants-to-expose-writers-private-lives-over-journalistic-criticism/

[MoValley John]

Slow down, chief!!! I read the article. You said in your post that Uber execs were caught saying, "they should perform 'enemy research' against their critics (and one Silicon Valley columnists in particular) and use it against them. Sort of like extortion."

The article in fact said that the exec wished they would or could dig up dirt, not that they should. You may say that is a subtle difference, but actually, it is an enormous difference.

Here is the difference, his comment was thought to be off record to begin with, he was expressing frustration and he never said that Uber would ever stoop to that level. You insinuate that Uber intended to dig into the lives of reporters.

What the VP was really doing, was expressing frustration regarding the reporting on Uber. It was something many have thought. It was poorly expressed, but an off the cuff, wishing tit for tat comment. I've heard these comments hundreds of times.

The reaction from the media was equally expected. The media believes that they are off limits. They also report dismay when the media is attached. This guy expresses that he wished the media got some of their own medicine, and you equate it as Uber advocating, or participating in this activity.

[shocka khan]

I really don't have the cycles to discuss this further, I have done a lot of research into this and my experience is that people who like Uber are almost like anti-vaxers.

I'm not against innovation in the transportation industry, I have a problem with Uber.
* - Uber has governance problems. They're in trouble in China, India, have had scrapes in Kansas and Texas. I haven't heard that about Lyft.
* - Uber's employees seem to have conduct problems on a limited scale. That indicates issues in their hiring process. Yes, it's hard to get good people, but some people try harder than others. Uber falls in that group that does not try too hard. Again, I haven't heard of that with Lyft.
* - Uber seems to want to do things to compete that indicate they're more like an Enron and less like Berkshire Hathaway. Usually that kind of behavior sets off alarm bells relative to whether there is fraud going on. I don't see that with Lyft.
* - Uber engages in predatory pricing. A drunk was picked up by an Uber cab and transported from downtown to a hotel in West Indianapolis. He was a victim of Uber's 'surge pricing' and was charged $1200. Resulting media outcry forced Uber to back off. Again, I have not seen that with Lyft.

I believe that the taxi industry is over-regulated and the cab franchises are actively working against Uber. That does not surprise me. I'm sure the cab industry pushes regulations that don't accomplish much to protect themselves from the Ubers of the world. Government should not be used as a barrier to entry into an industry, unless that industry has been deemed as a critical industry. I don't believe the cab industry is critical.

I believe in innovations and regulation that protects the publc. I hope Lyft will succeed because Uber needs competition to keep them honest. I'm thinking that some of the taxi industry will survive and they will also compete.

I don't know why you're calling me chief. It could be that it is a term of endearment for you? I'm not a chief, unless that's a term you use to describe your friends.

[Play Angry]

I have done a lot of research into this and my experience is that people who like Uber are almost like anti-vaxers.

What on earth.

[MoValley John]

I'm not pro Uber and I'm not anti Uber. I just find your anti Uber rhetoric interesting. Much of it is a bit convoluted.

I've neither used Uber, nor have I used Lyft. I do believe that they need some regulation, but growing up the child of a father heavily involved in the transportation industry, I can assure you that the taxi industry is corrupt as any industry you will find. The taxi industry uses regulation to prevent competition, they have everybody paid off. Uber, good or bad, is really upsetting the status quo.

As an aside, I will give you a cab story that happened in your city of Houston. In January, my wife attended a trauma nurse conference in Houston. The 10 minute cab ride from the asirport was $75. That wasn't the bad part. The bad part was the undisclosed $35 charge. The cabbie cherged our credit card as a debitcard. The cab company charges a $35 atm fee for all debit card transactions. It was an effing credit card! Upon finding the hidden an undisclosed charge, I called the cab company. They told me if I didn't like it, I should complain to the Texas Department of Transportation. I did. They told me I must file a cvomplaint in person. In other words, the cab companies have the Texas DOT bought off and they stiff every out of state traveller they can.

Oh, and as for Berkshire Hathaway, they and Warren Buffett are as corrupt as they come.

[shocker3]

Here is what I don't understand, why would Uber be fine with background checks, mandatory insurance and all of the other requirements to do business in Nebraska, but turn around and abandon Kansas when the same requirements were being demanded by the Kansas legislature. My guess is that the taxi lobby did a better job in Kansas then they did in Nebraska. Yes, the taxi lobby did play dirty here, but when Uber satisfied the banks and insurance companies, banking and insurance lobbies were stronger.

When you accuse Uber of dirty politics, which I'm sure they do, acknowledge that the taxi industry is involved in the same exact thing.

The taxi industry had no involvement in the KS bill.

[shocker3]

A fine choice which I can respect, although I disagree and have used Uber in excess of 100 times.

Why advocate for more stringent rules than are legislatively required for taxi companies in Kansas while taking away my choice, though?

No one in the KS legislature was interested in regulating uber at all. It was uber that came to the legislature with a regulation bill that they wanted the legislature to pass. Taxis are basically not regulated by the state. They are regulated by local governments. The uber bill basically prohibits local goverments from regulating uber type companies and their drivers. It leaves regulation exclusively with the state.