On Saturday, May 7th, Austin
citizens will have the chance to vote for a proposition called Prop 1. This
will decide how background checks for ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft
will be regulated.
Ridesharing Works for Austin is the
organization pushing the proposition, and a decent amount of people agree with
their views. After research, I personally disagree and believe that a no vote
is the better choice here.
Last December, the city council voted for
the ordinance put in place currently. This ordinance does have fingerprint
based background checks.
If Prop 1 passes, then the current
ordinance will be repealed, Uber and Lyft will be responsible for background
checks, and drivers will not have to give their fingerprints.
If Prop 1 is rejected, drivers will have
to undergo fingerprint based background checks done by the city and run through
the FBI’s database.
Officials with both companies have
criticized fingerprint requirements as overly burdensome and unnecessary.
Drivers working fewer than 20 hours a week are critical to the reliability of
their services, they say, and requiring them to visit an office to be
fingerprinted dissuades many from signing up. I can completely see their point,
and I acknowledge how the current laws are detrimental to them. However, having
people giving their fingerprints isn’t nearly as important as the public’s safety.
One of the main things that really unsettles
me about Uber and Lyft doing their own background checks is that in San
Francisco and Los Angeles, Uber had been ordered to pay 10-25 million.
Apparently, Uber had misleading claims
about the quality of its background checks. Do we really want that kind of
trouble in Austin? And that isn’t the only misleading thing.
Some of you may have seen the Prop 1
commercial explaining the benefits of Prop 1. But this commercial is deceptive.
The commercial implies that if Prop 1 pass and take effect, that background
checks will not be required, which is completely wrong.
The truth is that there will be background
checks no matter how the vote turns out. The ad was created to make the viewers
think they are voting for background checks, not for Uber and Lyft to do the
background checks. And let me ask you this: Why else would a group be deceptive
to the public if they weren’t lying or hiding something?
Uber’s aggressiveness for Prop 1 is
shown when Uber threatened to cease operations in Austin if the proposition is
not accepted. But in Houston, they have continued to operate despite a
regulation that requires drivers there to undergo fingerprint based background
checks.
Not to mention the companies are desperately
trying to buy out their opposers, donating 2.2 million dollars for Prop 1 to
pass.
The ballot will also ask
voters if the original ordinance should be repealed and replaced with a law
that would “prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to
identify the vehicles with a distinctive emblem" and "repeal the
prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane."
Prop 1 will cause the companies to be
able to control all background checks, allowing them to be deceptive just like
they were in San Francisco. However, if we keep our current regulations,
background checks become more thorough, and the people safer. So who do you
listen to: the deceptive, rich businesses, or the city council we have ourselves
voted for? Don’t fall for Prop 1, and vote a straight, fat, NO to Prop 1.