Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

The secret reason Austin tech wants Uber/Lyft back in town (it has nothing to do with ridesharing)

(EDITORIAL) Last week, Texas passed a bill to override the City of Austin and most people expressed enthusiasm. But the upper echelon were relieved for an unspoken reason.

Published

on

uber app

Sorry Austin, Texas wants Uber back

Anyone in Austin with a pulse and the internet has heard by now that the Texas Legislature passed a state bill overruling the Austin ordinance requiring ridesharing companies to screen drivers through the city directly. The proposed law would still require criminal background checks on drivers, but rolls back the fingerprinting requirements that drove Uber and Lyft out of town.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign the bill into law, after which, Uber and Lyft have stated they will immediately resume operations.

City Mayors have argued this is an example of the state attempting to override local control so corporations can profit while public safety is at risk.

Uber and Lyft spent millions to fight and then overturn the 2015 Austin fingerprinting ordinance, but a sloppy campaign left locals confused (most of whom still can’t cite the facts). Add on top of that debacle that the outlying cities surrounding Austin proper, inserted themselves and wanted their cut – if Austin gets paid $X for every driver to get fingerprinted, they too should get $X.

Since then, local non-profit Ride Austin filled the void and when this bill passed in the Texas Legislature, they announced aggressive plans to challenge the 1099 model for ridesharing drivers, potentially moving to a bold W2 plan.

The pendulum of sentiment

Local sentiment has widely been enthusiastic about the potential return of the ridesharing giants, but nowhere more than in the tech community.

And the enthusiasm isn’t because Uber and Lyft are fellow tech companies, no, this has everything to do with a quiet pulse in the upper echelon of the tech community, and it’s all about the money.

You see, two major Austin City Council moves were made in recent years that gave the city an anti-tech reputation – Proposition 1 (that ended with Uber/Lyft evacuating the city) and Ordinance No. 20160223-A.1 which placed burdensome regulations on short-term rentals (STRs) by limiting occupancy to six unrelated adults, prohibiting indoor assemblies of over ten people, and requiring operators to give access to all buildings/rooms to the city without notice or warrant.

The STR Ordinance was particularly painful given that HomeAway is headquartered in Austin, one of the largest STR sites on the planet.

And locals were quite embarrassed when it came time for South by Southwest (one of the tech industry’s premier pilgrimages every year) and Uber wasn’t an option for visitors.

These regulations led to the tech industry ending an era of individuals caring about politics and the sector armed itself politically overnight as a whole, organizing in a meaningful way for the first time in Austin’s history.

Earning a bad rap

Despite the seeds of organization being planted, the regulations led to the perception that Austin politicians are anti-tech, which rippled throughout the tech and venture capital (VC) world.

Because investors, both of the angel or VC variety, see the city as not friendly to tech, they’ve quietly expressed an unwillingness to invest in Austin companies.

And who can blame them? If they invest funds in Austin companies and the city cuts them off at the knees, they believe they’ll be better served playing it safe in the Valley or in their own backyard.

Thus, the upper echelon in Austin tech is extremely excited about the expected return of Uber and Lyft. While there is a deep care and concern about mobility, the real reason being whispered in town, is that the kink in the financial hose will be straightened out and the flow will return, if not strengthen.

#DollaDollaBillsYall

Lani is the Chief Operating Officer at The American Genius - she has co-authored a book, co-founded BASHH and Austin Digital Jobs, and is a seasoned business writer and editorialist with a penchant for the irreverent.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Paul O'Brien

    May 22, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    It’s really not more complicated than this….. some of Austin thinks we’re all downtown and can/will bike to meetings. Most of Austin is everywhere but downtown and well beyond the city limits. If we can’t get around, we can’t do business. Making it burdensome to get around, just because, is stupid.

    I don’t need to get an Uber. Austin being difficult about enabling any form of transportation makes it burdensome to get around and makes everyone in the world wonder why we’d bother to get in the middle of things that ease business.

  2. Judah Ross

    May 22, 2017 at 10:38 pm

    Good, it’s about time the tech industry started throwing their weight around. We have enough special interest groups driving the conversation, at least tech is generally progressive and pro growth. Next lets put some energy into highways and density.

  3. Pingback: Act II: Uber and Lyft are *almost* back in Austin - The American Genius

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion Editorials

‘OK, Boomer’ can get you fired, but millennial jokes can’t?

(EDITORIAL) The law says age-based clapbacks are illegal when aimed at some groups but not others. Pfft. Okay, Boomer.

Published

on

Boomer sad

A brand new meme is out and about, and it’s looking like it’ll have the staying power of ‘Fleek’ and ‘Yeet!’

Yessiree, ‘Okay, Boomer’ as related to exiting a go-nowhere conversation with out-of-pocket elders has legitimate sticky potential, but not everyone is as elated as I am. Yes, the Boomer generation themselves (and the pick-me’s in my age group who must have a CRAZY good Werther’s Original hookup), are pushing back against the latest mult-iuse hashtag, which was to be expected.

The same people happy to lump anyone born after 1975 in with kids born in 2005 as lazy, tech-obsessed, and entitled, were awfully quick to yell ‘SLUR’ at the latest turn of phrase, and I was happy to laugh at it.

But it turns out federal law is on their side when it comes to the workplace.

Because “Boomer” applies to folks now in their mid 50’s and up, workplace discrimination laws based on age can allow anyone feeling slighted by being referred to as such to retaliate with serious consequences.

However for “You millenials…” no such protections exist. Age-based discrimination laws protect people over 40, not the other way around. That means all the ‘Whatever, kid’s a fresh 23 year old graduate hire’ can expect from an office of folks in their 40s doesn’t carry any legal weight at the federal level.

And what’s really got my eyes rolling is the fact that the law here is so easy to skirt!

You’ve heard the sentiment behind #okayboomer before.

It’s the same one in: ‘Alright, sweetheart’ or ‘Okay hun’ or ‘Bless your heart.’

You could get across the same point by subbing in literally anything.

‘Okay, Boomer’ is now “Okay, Cheryl” or “Okay, khakis” or “Okay, Dad.”

You can’t do that with the n word, the g word (either of them), the c word (any of them) and so on through the alphabet of horrible things you’re absolutely not to call people—despite the aunt you no longer speak to saying there’s a 1:1 comparison to be made.

Look, I’m not blind to age based discrimination. It absolutely can be a problem on your team. Just because there aren’t a bunch of 30-somethings bullying a 65 year old in your immediate sphere doesn’t mean it isn’t happening somewhere, or that you can afford to discount it if that somewhere is right under your nose.

But dangit, if it’s between pulling out a powerpoint to showcase how ‘pounding the pavement’ isn’t how you find digital jobs in large cities, dumping stacks of books showing how inflation, wages, and rents didn’t all rise at the same rate, or defending not wanting or needing the latest Dr. Oz detox… don’t blame anyone for pulling a “classic lazy snowflake” move, dropping two words, and seeing their way out of being dumped on.

Short solution here is – don’t hire jerks, and it won’t be an issue. Longer term solution is… just wait until we’re your age.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Uber CEO regrets saying that murder is part of business

(EDITORIAL) Uber CEO calls murder a mistake. Should society support a business that seems to think death is just part of the cost of doing business?

Published

on

Uber Pickup

On February 21, 2016, I woke up early to notifications about a shooting in Kalamazoo, Michigan. An Uber driver shot multiple individuals. Although I live in Oklahoma, the Facebook algorithms correctly deduced that this incident would be of interest to me. I have family and friends in Michigan, some in the Battle Creek area, just miles east of Kalamazoo. Later that morning, I learned that one of my friends had been killed in the incident.

Uber was criticized for the incident. Lawmakers across the country called for tougher background checks on Uber drivers. It was a PR nightmare for the company. Ultimately, it was the driver who was charged. Earlier this year, the driver pled guilty to all counts against him and was sentenced to life in prison. Uber continued operating, although then-Governor Rick Snyder did sign legislation that increased regulations for the ride-sharing industry.

I say this out of disclosure. This Uber tragedy affected me in a way that may cloud my opinion. I believe that Uber should be regulated more than it is. But recent events have made me question why society supports Uber and what I believe is a toxic culture.

How does Uber keep managing their corporate profile?

Uber seems to weather their PR crises fairly well. They’ve been criticized for inadequate background checks. Sexual harassment allegations at corporate headquarters shook up the management team. Uber has suffered data breaches. In 2018, the organization settled with the FTC for $148 million. Still, the company enjoys a market share of transportation services.

In 2018, Dara Khosrowshahi, former CEO of Expedia took over at Uber as its new CEO, replacing the CEO and founder Travis Kalanick. It was reported that Kalanick “led the company astray” from its moral center. Khosrowshahi said at the time, “In the end, the CEO of the company has to take responsibility.”

Just days ago, during an interview, Khosrowshahi said that “the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi was a ‘mistake.’” It was a political murder. Khosrowshahi compared the assassination to a self-driving accident with an Uber vehicle that killed a pedestrian. It didn’t take long for Khosrowshahi to issue a retraction, saying that he “said something in the moment (he doesn’t) believe.”

Is Uber’s culture toxic?

Khosrowshahi says that his comment shouldn’t mark him as a person. He thinks that what he said was a “learning moment.” When a CEO misspeaks in an interview that isn’t just local, but international, maybe we should pay attention. According to him, murder isn’t a big deal. I wonder if he would say that if it was his father who died, or his friend who was killed by a driver.

When my friend died in the Kalamazoo shooting, I had to seriously think about how I viewed Uber. My friend wasn’t even using Uber at the time. She was getting into her own car at a local restaurant with some friends of hers. I recognize that Uber wasn’t responsible for the driver going on a shooting spree, but I have to wonder if it was Uber’s culture that led to a lack of response at the time.

Uber’s new CEO seems removed from how its services affect individuals and communities as its previous CEO did. When a company thinks that murder is a “mistake,” maybe it’s time to rethink about supporting a service that doesn’t seem to think about people, its employees, its drivers and its riders.

It may be more convenient than a cab, but it’s time to look at Uber’s real impact on society. I hear Uber saying that innocent deaths are just the cost of business. Is that the basis for a billion-dollar corporation?

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Funny females are less likely to be promoted

(CAREER) Science says that the funnier a female, the less likely she is to be promoted. Uhh…

Published

on

funny females promoted less often

Faceless keyboard warriors around the world have been — incorrectly — lamenting that women just aren’t funny for years now (remember the “Ghostbusters” remake backlash?).The good news is they are obviously wrong. The bad news? When women dare to reveal their comedic side in the workplace they are often perceived as “disruptive” while men are rewarded.

That’s right. Women not only have to worry about being constantly interrupted, receiving raises less frequently than men despite asking for them equally as often, and still making nearly $10,000 less than men each year, but now they have to worry about being too funny at the office.

A recent University of Arizona study asked more than 300 people to read the fictional resume of a clothing store manager with the gender-neutral name “Sam” and watch a video presentation featuring Sam. The videos came in four versions: a serious male speaker, a humorous male speaker, a serious female speaker and a humorous female speaker.

According to the researchers, “humorous males are ascribed higher status compared with nonhumorous males, while humorous females are ascribed lower status compared with nonhumorous females.” Translation: Male workers earn respect for being funny while their funny female coworkers are often seen in a more negative light.

There are, of course, several reasons this could be the case. The researchers behind this particular study pointed to the stereotype that women are more dedicated to their families than their work, and being perceived as humorous could convey the sense they don’t take their work as seriously as men.

Psychiatrist Prudy Gourguechon offered another take, putting the blame directly on Sam the clothing store manager, calling out their seemingly narcissistic behavior and how society’s tolerance for such behavior is “distinctly gender-based.” She says these biases go back to the social programming of our childhoods and the roles mothers and fathers tend to play in our upbringing.

So what are women supposed to do with this information?

Gourgechon’s status quo advice includes telling women to not stop being funny, but “to be aware of the the feelings and subjectivities of the people around you.” While recommending an empathetic stance isn’t necessarily bad advice, it still puts the onus on women to change their behavior, worry about what everyone else thinks and attempt to please everyone around them.

We already know that professional women can have an extremely hard time remaining true to themselves in the workplace — especially women in the tech industry — and authenticity is often a privilege saved for those who conform to the accepted culture. We obviously still have a long way to go before women stop being “punished” for being funny at work, but things seem to be progressing, however slowly.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama shared her thoughts last year on the improvements that have been made and the changes that still need to happen, including encouraging men to step up and do their part. In the wake of the #metoo movement, CNBC recommended five things men can do to support women at work. There are amazing women in STEM positions around the world we can all admire and shine a spotlight on.

All of these steps — both big and small — will continue to chip away at the gender inequality that permeates today’s workplaces. And perhaps one day in the near future, female clothing store manager Sam will be allowed to be just as funny as male clothing store manager Sam.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!