Lyft Moves Customer Support Team To Nashville To Combat High-Priced San Fran Market

by Sarah Buhr : Tech Crunch – excerpt

Peer-to-peer ride-sharing startup Lyft informed 20 members of its San Francisco-based customer support team this week it will be relocating them to Nashville, Tennessee.

Lyft is building out its new customer service headquarters in Nashville, where overhead such as rent and salaries are cheaper. It will also help Lyft’s east coast support. The ride-sharing startup is asking customer service reps in San Francisco to work out of the capital of country music, instead.

“As we continue to grow we know we need more space for the employees who support our passengers and drivers,” reads an official statement from Lyft. “We chose Nashville as the home of our newest office because it is a great city with a lower cost of living and a growing talent pool.”

The move is part of a growing trend in Silicon Valley to find cheaper space and lower overhead elsewhere. Average office rent in San Francisco nearly doubled from $30 in 2013 to $70 per square foot today. Compare that to the $18-$22 average per square foot rental price in downtown Nashville.

Uber recently bought and plans to grow out its workforce in the Sears building in Oakland, California and other startups have added customer support and sales operations in areas other than San Francisco for a similar reason. Thumbtack, a peer-to-peer services startup sets its headquarters in San Francisco, but the customer support team operates in Sandy, Utah… (more)

Flywheel Taxi sues state, says cities should regulate Uber, Lyft

By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez : sfexaminer – excerpt

Flywheel Taxi has filed suit against state regulators, claiming the taxi industry is regulated unequally compared to its new technology cousins like Uber and Lyft.

The suit was filed U.S. District Court of Northern California on Sept. 23, but announced by litigant Flywheel Taxi late Friday.

“The fact is, I cannot compete against a company that plays by another set of rules,” said Hansu Kim, president of Flywheel Taxi.

Taxis and ride-hail apps like Uber play by two sets of standards, the suit argues. Taxis must have robust vehicle inspections, video surveillance to protect passengers, Department of Justice criminal background checks, in-person training, restrict vehicle carbon emissions, restrict vehicle mileage, be fully insured, and more.

But Uber and Lyft, by contrast, do not need to meet those same strict standards, the suit argues. Notably, Kim said, the taxi industry has taken on financial losses in the face of stiff competition from Uber, and Lyft.

Those technology companies are legally known as Transportation Network Companies, and are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, the regulator targeted by the suit.

The CPUC said it hadn’t yet seen the suit, and therefore could not yet comment. Uber and Lyft did not immediately return requests for comment.

Flywheel Taxi’s suit argues the uneven playing field between the old and new for-hire transit companies is a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It also claims those rules differ because two sets of regulators — cities and the state — regulate taxis and for-hire apps. The CPUC, a state entity, regulates Uber and Lyft. But city agencies across California, like the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency regulate taxis.

“I’m all for the market determine the best service, but this is an unfair playing field,” Kim said… (more)

Why Uber is wise to destroy itself, before someone else does

By Thomas Lee : sfchronicle – excerpt

From taxicab unions and package couriers to politicians and regulators, a growing crowd of people would like to destroy Uber.

Add one more name to the list: Uber founder and CEO Travis Kalanick.

“There is an insane amount of public good” that comes with driverless cars, including better safety, Kalanick said. “As a technology company, am I going to be a part of the future or resist it? We don’t want to be the taxi companies before us.”…

Somewhere lost in the scrum over whether Uber drivers are employees or contractors, or whether the company conducts proper background checks, is the simple fact that Kalanick wants to eventually replace all Uber drivers with software and computers. Like Google and Tesla, Uber is trying to develop a car that can drive without a human operator.

This makes for some odd contradictions. At the Dreamforce conference last week in San Francisco, Kalanick suggested that he started Uber to help drivers as well as riders…

“We like to say that we give riders high-fives and give drivers hugs,” Kalanick said. “Taxi drivers have to pay $140 a day to rent a car. For that privilege, they get to be impoverished. Taxi drivers are good people. They are just treated badly.”

So why is Uber trying to put all human drivers — including those who work for taxis and Uber — out of business?

On the surface, Kalanick sounds flaky, even hypocritical. But his plan also reflects a business reality that Silicon Valley knows all too well. Technology is evolving so fast that companies must adapt or risk getting disrupted into extinction…

It’s the reason Apple and Cisco hoard cash. And why Google is reorganizing itself into a holding company called Alphabet. The era of one or two companies dominating a market for decades is over; a small startup can bring down the mightiest of corporations… (more)

It feels like Uber, Apple, Google and Alphabet want it all. If their employees and contractors don’t design it they will buy it to keep the competition down. Silicon valley is leading the way in putting humans out of work while building the new Gotham of the West. No doubt everyone working for them is on their way to disrupting themselves out of a job.

Hillsborough panel may ask state to set Uber, Lyft rules

By Mike Salinero : tbo – excerpt

In San Francisco and Los Angeles, a check of Uber drivers earlier this summer turned up convicted sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, kidnappers and a murderer. The check was undertaken during a consumer protection lawsuit filed by the two California cities’ district attorneys. San Francisco DA George Gascon said the investigation found “systemic failures” in Uber background checks, according to news reports.

The long-standing battle between Hillsborough County’s Public Transportation Commission and ride-share companies Uber and Lyft could be settled in Tallahassee.

Today, the transportation commission will consider proposing a state law that would allow Uber and Lyft to operate legally in Hillsborough County if they abide by certain requirements. A draft bill will be presented to the county’s legislative delegation Sept. 25 if a majority of commission members agree.

The requirements have all been ignored or refused by Uber and Lyft in the past. They include the following:

♦  Uber and Lyft drivers must undergo federal and state background checks that include fingerprinting.

♦  Drivers must carry personal and liability insurance which covers the drivers when they are carrying passengers.

♦  Vehicles must have annual inspections by a certified mechanic of the driver’s choosing.

Some — not all — Uber and Lyft vehicles must be accessible for wheelchair-bound and blind passengers.

Uber and Lyft are abiding by similar regulations in other metro areas, including New York, Dallas-Fort Worth and Columbus, Ohio, said Kyle Cockream, executive director of the Public Transportation Commission.

“They’re doing vehicle inspections, background checks and they’ve got insurance like we’re asking for,” Cockream said. “They won’t comply in any market until they are compelled to.”… (more)

If these companies can meet these requirements in some cities, they can meet them in all cities.

Uber Drivers’ Labor Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status In California

By Dan Levine : huffingtonpost -excerpt

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 1 (Reuters) – Uber drivers are entitled to class action status in litigation over whether they are independent contractors or employees, a key development in a case threatening Uber’s business model and that of other hot startups dependent on similar service workers.

Three drivers sued Uber in a federal court in San Francisco, contending they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

The results of Uber’s legal battle could reshape the sharing economy, which is built around Internet companies that serve as marketplaces matching people who provide a service with others looking to pay for it.

In the ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco said California drivers could sue as a group on the question of whether they are employees or contractors, and over their demand for payment of tips that were not passed on to them. Drivers’ attorneys must submit more evidence to sue as a group for reimbursement of other expenses... (more)

RELATED:
Class-action lawsuit means long, ugly battle for Uber
Uber previously said that it will appeal class-action certification, but the worker-misclassification trial can proceed regardless of continuing disputes on the class issue. In the ruling, Chen certified some claims but not all, excluding for now more recent drivers who signed an arbitration clause.
Still, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the drivers in the case, said Chen’s decision is “a major victory for Uber drivers. It will allow thousands of Uber drivers to participate in this case, as well as to attempt to recover the tips that Uber advertised to customers are included in the fare, but are not in fact distributed to the drivers.”

Taxi Drivers Say SFO Lets Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar Break Airport Rules

By Jeremy Lybarger : sfweekly – excerpt
At a press conference on the steps of City Hall yesterday, The San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance (SFTWA), SF Yellow Cab, and Luxor Cab came out swinging against ride-hail apps at SFO.

“Cab companies are not against innovation. We love innovation. What [ride-hail companies] brought to the table is great. What they’re trying to attempt to do is good. We’ve learned from it, too. We have apps,” said Jim Gillespie, President and General Manager of Yellow Cab.

The issue, Gillespie said, is public safety.

Taxis in San Francisco undergo annual vehicle inspections by licensed mechanics, and cab drivers must pass Live Scan background checks and complete taxi and sensitivity training courses.

Ride-hail companies, by contrast, inspect their own vehicles, and the background checks their drivers receive are reportedly so perfunctory that last week San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon filed an amended complaint against Uber, alleging, “We learned of systemic failures in Uber’s background checks. They have drivers who are convicted sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, kidnappers and a convicted murderer.”

Also at issue, according to taxi drivers, are rampant violations on the part of ride-hail drivers at SFO.

Ride-hail drivers are supposed to wait in the airport’s cell phone lot until a passenger pings them for pick-up, but according to taxi drivers, Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hail companies “troll” the terminal loops and idle curbside, waiting to be hailed. And although SFO claims to have issued $200,000 in citations against ride-hail violators, taxi drivers say the rules are loosely enforced.

To support their point, taxi drivers filmed ride-hail violators at SFO in June. Their video shows apparently empty Uber and Lyft drivers circling the terminals and parking curbside. (The video suggests that while Uber has since updated its app to default to drivers legally parked in the cell phone lot, Lyft and Sidecar have not.)

Stanley Roberts also got in on exposing Uber “cheats” during a “People Behaving Badly” segment last month… (more)

“There just doesn’t seem to be balance in enforcement,” said an independent consultant who works with Yellow Cab… (more)

SF District Attorney: Convicted murderer, sex offenders drove for Uber

By Michael Barba : sfexaminer – excerpt

Uber drivers in San Francisco and Los Angeles have included a convicted murderer, sex offenders and other criminals, according to an amended complaint filed Tuesday by the District Attorney’s Office against the ride-hail company.

District Attorney George Gascon announced the charges Wednesday, eight months after an initial complaint from Los Angeles’ and The City’s district attorneys said that Uber has been misleading the public with false information about its background checks of drivers.

“We learned of systemic failures in Uber’s background checks,” Gascon said, noting that Uber has at times boasted its checks as industry leading. “They have drivers who are convicted sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, kidnappers and a convicted murderer.”

In total, the complaint includes a list of 22 drivers convicted of various misdemeanors and felonies… (more)

Uber and the lawlessness of ‘sharing economy’ corporates

By Frank Pasquale and Siva Vaidhyanathan : guardian – excerpt

Companies including Airbnb and Google compare themselves to civil rights heroes, while using their popularity among consumers to nullify federal law.

Travis Kalanick, Uber CEO. ‘Nullifying companies like Uber claim they are striking a blow against regulations they consider “out-of-date” or “anti-innovation” – their major innovation, however, is to undermine local needs and effective governance.’

In February, Airbnb chief executive Brian Chesky compared his firm’s defiance of local housing ordinances with that of Gandhi’s passive resistance to British rule. Meanwhile, a tweeter compared Uber to Rosa Parks, defying unjust laws. Chesky quickly backed down after widespread mockery. Companies acting out of self-interest comparing themselves with the noble heroes of civil rights movements is as absurd as it is insulting.

But there is a better analogy from the US civil rights era for law-flouting firms of the on-demand economy. It’s just not the one corporate leaders claim. They are engaged in what we call “corporate nullification”, following in the footsteps of Southern governors and legislatures in the United States who declared themselves free to “nullify” federal law on the basis of strained and opportunistic constitutional interpretation… (more)

Uber vs. the world: App-based car service declares victory in NYC, but faces global roadblocks

By Cristina Corbin : foxnews – excerpt (video)

Uber, the app-based mode of transport favored by millennials worldwide, is battling politics, bad press and claims its disruption of the car-for-hire business presents a danger on the streets, but a partial victory in New York shows the company is more than willing to fight for its future.

Founded just six years ago in San Francisco and  now valued at more than $40 billion, Uber ended — or at least pumped the brakes on — a feud with the Big Apple, where lawmakers and Mayor Bill de Blasio were threatening to cap the number of drivers allowed on city streets. But in a surprise deal announced late Wednesday, the city agreed to table the limits until completion of a four-month study on whether Uber cars are in fact increasing traffic and harming the environment. The partial cave came after Uber put out an ad showing drivers from a broad racial and ethnic spectrum and pushed back aggressively at the political undertones of the plan.

“There is nothing progressive about protecting millionaire taxi donors who mistreat drivers and discriminate against riders and no amount of name calling by Mayor de Blasio will change that.” – Uber spokesman Matt McKenna… (more)

RELATED:
Why Democrats are against the modern economy?

More proof that San Francisco politicians are out of sync with the national platform on Uber and other disruptive businesses. The Republicans, including Jeb Bush see these industries as the future and the Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton are questioning the social and economic impact of these tech behemoths. The huge wealth that is built of air, sometimes called the cloud, is probably not sustainable. Hence the rush to turn that air into property.

The SFMTA should lower the taxicab medallion transfer price

By Peter Kirby : sfexaminer – excerpt

Career taxicab drivers are now being forced to buy taxicab medallions, rather than earning and receiving them for a one-time nominal fee. In recent years, the value of a medallion has dropped like a stone while the medallion price set by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has remained the same. Medallion transfers (purchases) have slowed to a trickle. For these reasons, the SFMTA should be responsive to market conditions and lower the medallion transfer price.

When I put my name on the taxicab medallion waiting list in 1998, I agreed to a deal whereby when my name got to the top of the list, I would be granted a taxicab medallion for a one-time fee of maybe a couple of thousand dollars. Once granted, I would take that medallion to the taxicab company of my choice and from there on out receive checks in the amount of about $2,300 per month for as long as I held the medallion. This was to be on top of whatever I made driving the cab. When I retired from the industry, the medallion was to go back to The City. That was a profit-sharing program, which provides for a middle class. That lets working-class people buy houses, raise kids and put them through college. It was a situation that provided working-class people with a secure financial future.

Then came the SFMTA’s medallion sales programs. Without being given an opt-out, the SFMTA changed the terms of my agreement without my consent. No longer could I earn a medallion for a one-time fee. Now I am forced to buy a medallion for $250,000 with a minimum down payment of $12,500 and about a 5 percent interest rate to pay off the rest over 30 years. Sure, I get to sell it when I’m done with it, but I need money now and, under the former deal, I could save for my future. As it stands now, I can forget about raising kids properly or buying a house.

Not only that, but in the meantime The City has allowed Uber and the other Transportation Network Companies to suck most of the profits out of the taxicab industry. Now that it’s time for me to get my medallion, there are hardly any profits to share.

Taxicab companies have had to drastically lower the amount of monthly medallion holder payments. In many cases, the monthly checks made out to medallion holders have fallen below the monthly amounts those medallion holders must pay to pay off their medallion.

What was once something that provided a present and a future for working-class people is now an albatross around the neck. As long as the TNCs are allowed to operate, they will continue to devalue taxicab medallions. Although the SFMTA does not report any medallion loan defaults yet, these are sure to happen as long as Uber is allowed to operate and continue sucking the profits out of our industry. One can see how this might give potential medallion purchasers pause.

While the value of a medallion has fallen precipitously, the price has remained at $250,000 since the medallion sales programs started in 2010. The number of taxicab medallion transfers have slowed almost to a standstill. Market conditions demand the SFMTA go about lowering the medallion transfer price. It would be a good turn for taxicab drivers and the SFMTA.

On Tuesday, I will address the SFMTA board at its regular meeting and ask Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin to initiate the process of lowering the medallion transfer price. I will be suggesting a price between $125,000 and $150,000. If you agree, please show up and voice your support. Thank you.

Peter A. Kirby is a cab driver in San Francisco… (more)