Modern communication is complicated. Between the algorithms, opinions, corporate ties and potentially misleading and/or biased data that flow constantly around us in competing formats, it's often genuinely hard for even the most dedicatedly truth-bound individuals, media outlets and private or public leaders to always uncover the "true" big picture, let alone all the details.
When public messaging contradicts what a majority of people have experienced for themselves, or bucks matters of public record, however, communicators should be prepared to get called out by those (so to speak) who have kept their receipts.
And lately, conversation around regulating Uber and Lyft in New York City has accountably been a mess. If you've been lucky enough to miss it, or haven't followed it from the beginning, here's a recap of the very public and dirty fight sprawling across the Big Apple:
In late July, New York's City Council announced a package of bills meant to rein in ride-hail companies and improve conditions for drivers in our transportationally challenged metropolis, with an expected vote date of Wednesday, August 8.
Ever since, Uber and its smaller, necessarily subtler sidekicks Lyft and Via have been pouring their all into an aggressive, pre-planned citywide campaign against the proposed rules, particularly one that would temporarily 'cap' the number of for-hire vehicles (FHVs) allowed to operate in NYC.
See also: Uber HR Head Resigns After Alleged Discrimination, And Months Of Subtle Change
Whether or not you'd already heard about the massive resources and impacts of Uber and Lyft's earlier concentrated lobbying efforts in NYC and many other cities, states and countries, the past week or so's spectacle has been something to see.
Ride-hail companies' ongoing surge within New York media has included dramatic TV and radio commercials, numerous expansive or menacing statements, gestures and social media pushes, direct pitches to drivers themselves, and a rather surprising level of warmth -- at least, to many of us following along at home -- from certain mainstream voices.
Throughout the five boroughs and across the Net, the campaign and its various media responses have also served to draw steadier attention to Uber's worst labor and discriminatory practices from more parties than we've seen in recent years, despite all manner of local ups and downs.
In broad strokes, the companies' coordinated message is that the freeze on FHV licenses (not to be confused with drivers' TLC licenses, also courtesy of New York's Taxi and Limousine Commission) could or would significantly reduce the numbers of app-based vehicles on the road, force companies to raise prices and cut drivers' wages, and leave customers in already underserved or vulnerable populations far worse off.
Don’t tell me what to say to my city council. Stay in your damn lane
— Rob M (@ambassadorcow) July 26, 2018
On Friday, July 27, by the time the New York Times broke the news that the city's interborough council had proposed a new bill package, representatives for Uber, Lyft and Via were already on record opposing the vehicle cap in strong and fairly catastrophic terms. With that, plus a wave of new commercials and some energetic hashtagging, Uber seemingly proceeded full bore into the #DontStrandNYC campaign it had preemptively launched two days earlier.
On Saturday morning, Reverend Al Sharpton told attendees and viewers of his weekly live-streamed Saturday Action Rally (as well as his followers on Twitter) that the City Council's proposed rules weren't "about Uber," and argued that New Yorkers of color will go back to having even fewer options for transportation, given the taxi industry's demonstrated history of bias during street hails and against driving in certain neighborhoods.
Some Twitter users were quick to point out that Uber has its own history of biased treatment toward its passengers and workers (both contracted and white-collar), and that the proposed bills don't seek to reduce the current number of drivers, anyway. Others tried to draw attention to Uber's practice of recruiting far more drivers, particularly immigrants of color, that it can ever seem to retain.
Then on Sunday, the New York Times published an article entitled "Uber Gains Civil Rights Allies Against New York’s Proposed Freeze: ‘It’s a Racial Issue,’" which highlighted Sharpton & Co.'s argument, with some context and counter-points.
See also: After NYC Suicides, Drivers Urge Lawmakers To End Uber's Exploitative Ways [UPDATED]
Corey Johnson, the City Council speaker, told the paper, “I understand the concerns about people of color being denied service, but I want to make clear that we are not diminishing service ... The vehicles that are out there now will remain out there.” He also noted that the proposed legislation would involve a year-long study of how neighborhoods are being served, potentially helping regulators and companies to redistribute driver workforces more evenly and efficiently.
Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Worker's Alliance, commented to the Times, “Defending the oversaturation which has resulted in the deep poverty of a workforce made up of immigrants of color is not a civil rights position--it is the antithesis."
Lawrence Hanley, international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the largest labor union representing transit and allied workers in the U.S. and Canada, also commented in a public statement, "By halting the issuance of new for-hire vehicle licenses, the City Council is taking the first step in regulating a manipulative industry. Although civil rights leaders have good intentions, some are on the wrong side of this debate. We call on Reverand Sharpton and other civil rights leaders to join us and stop being complicit in Uber and Lyft’s exploitation of our neighbors."
The Times also reported, "Mr. Sharpton and Ms. Rice say their nonprofits have received donations from for-hire companies such as Uber and Lyft. The taxi industry has donated money to the campaigns of [Mayor Bill de Blasio] and members of the City Council, including Rubén Díaz Sr., chairman of the Committee on For-Hire Vehicles" (the latter two have both seen successes and failures with Uber-related bills, incidentally).
. @uber is misleading the public about a legislative proposal the @NYCCouncil is considering. Here’s what you need to know: pic.twitter.com/IB9JmQE8O3
— NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson (@NYCSpeakerCoJo) July 27, 2018
See also: Uber Riders Sue Company Over Alleged Rapes, Offer Ideas For Change
On Tuesday, WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show held an on-air discussion entitled Would Capping Uber Hurt New Yorkers? in which representatives of both the pro and con positions got to air their views. By the end of the day, New York Taxi and Limousine Commission announced it would duly create an Office of Inclusion to ensure all passengers start getting the service they're entitled to under law, while Uber announced it would discontinue its self-driving truck program to better focus on its autonomous passenger vehicles.
On Wednesday, August 1, a New York Times opinion piece argued that Uber should "stop flooding New York." That day, a coalition of Uber, Lyft and Via also announced their offer of a $100 million "hardship fund" to help ease the financial burden of individual taxi medallion owners, who've seen the value of their house-size investments plummet in value in recent years (as is the case in Australia, where as many as 11 drivers have reportedly died by suicide; in NYC, 6 professional drivers have died by suicide this year).
The proposal would have required the City Council to drop its proposed cap and set a wage floor for drivers, and would supposedly have paid "tens of thousands of dollars" to impacted and/or financially ruined medallion owners "right away" from a pool that companies would pay into over the next five years.
The council "summarily rejected" the effectively paltry and disrespectful offer, to which Joe Okpaku, Lyft's vice president for public policy, responded, "It's a little bit astonishing to us."
Council spokeswoman Jennifer Fermino commented, “Lyft and other high-volume for-hire vehicle companies are welcome to establish such a fund with a nonprofit and assist drivers who are experiencing serious financial difficulties. They don’t need any Council authority to do that.”
See also: New York Gives Uber Drivers Unemployment Rights In Blow To Nonemployee Model
On Thursday, WNYC and others reported that a group of Williamsburg business owners had gathered at Brooklyn Bowl to protest the cap and certain expected repercussions.
North Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce member Elaine Brodsy told Gothamist (recently resurrected as part of WNYC) that, in light of the upcoming L train shutdown, Brooklyn "will become a transit desert" if the proposed one-year moratorium on new FHV licenses (with the exception of wheelchair-accessible vehicles) is enacted.
Business owners also told WNYC reporters that Uber and Lyft are partly to thank for the "Williamsburg boom" -- a sentiment which longtime or former residents and anyone who tries to bicycle through on a Saturday night may find bewildering -- while others predicted an "economic tsunami" to Patch.com (having grown up on a tropical island, I admit I also find this a bit odd).
In this context, apparently, WNYC conducted an admittedly "very informal" poll Thursday among passersby in Williamsburg, the results of which seemed "negative," according to an afternoon news report. One person interviewed, seemingly a younger man with an Australian accent, agreed that less access to transportation in the area through Uber and Lyft sounded like a bad thing.
StreetBlog also pointed out that, despite what Lyft had suggested by organizing the "cynical" event, the L train shutdown and a vehicle cap are very much separate issues.
Over the past weekend, and since this showdown began, Uber and Lyft have also continued hammering home their points through social media as well as other digital means. As The Verge reported,
A message appears on the home page of [Uber's] app for New York City users with the title, 'Arriving now: Higher prices and increased wait times.' The company has been calling Uber customers directly, asking them to send messages of support for Uber to their council members, according to BuzzFeed. Lyft has been emailing customers with its own appeal to 'speak up for ridesharing.'
Those who work closely with the ride-hail industry all year round have expressed varying levels of surprise and frustration (and occasional amusement) over the companies' gloves-off campaign, but mostly a commitment to getting their own messages across.
Regarding companies' suggestion that NYC's outer boroughs will suffer under the proposed cap, Independent Drivers Guild (IDG) Executive Director Ryan Price commented by phone, "Our members live in the outer boroughs, and those areas are important sources of income to them. Their neighbors are taxi drivers and app-based drivers, and [under the new rules] they're going to get a raise, which raises up the whole neighborhood."
Overall, Price added, "Trying to pit communities of color against the City Council is a little bit absurd."
Hailing "Henry" Chen, 26, who's been driving for Uber and Lyft for three years, and helping organize fellow drivers for over a year, suggested that drivers have also been unimpressed with the companies' aggressive campaign, as well as media and political responses to it.
"Everyone has some kind of stake in this industry, and everyone is trying to get something out of the misery of the drivers, who have been suffering for so long," Chen commented by phone. "We have come to the point where we're trying to solve these issues, and everyone wants to get credit or something else out of it."
See also: Uber Riders Report High Fees From 'Vomit Fraud' And Ghost Trips
When he's not driving, Chen manages 10 different online chat rooms for drivers with between 300 and 500 members each, where a large portion of the city's Chinese-American Uber and Lyft drivers compare notes and organize around their experiences. Over the past few weeks, he said, "Uber and Lyft have been sending out many emails to drivers, telling drivers to support #DontStrandNyc, and telling them they'll get a raise if they [help defeat the bills]."
"For years, they have been treating drivers like garbage, and now they are asking people who work for them, who sacrifice their time for them, to help Uber keep things the way they are," Chen continued. "People aren't responding to these emails."
"When you walk into any of Uber's offices, you feel like a useless person -- you are seen as a machine, treated as a machine," he said. "If you're working, you have some value. If you stop driving, you're thrown out with nothing."
Chen pointed out that immigrants and non-native English speakers have particularly suffered as a result of Uber and Lyft's constant hiring in recent years, including a large number of Chinese immigrants in his neighborhood of Flushing, Queens. As a determinedly nonemploying employer, Uber doesn't offer training or transport for its drivers, who often buy or lease new vehicles in the hope of consistently earning Uber's advertised wages.
After getting the hang of things by themselves over a total of 53 rides, Chen said, drivers often then find themselves suspended from the app if they don't have an average rating from customers of close to 5 out of 5 stars. Recently, they've had the option to pay $70 for training from private schools that have partnered with Uber, and potentially keep working on the app and trying to make ends meet.
In countless cases, however, immigrant drivers have ended up with a car they don't need, payments they can't afford, and no one (other than each other) to complain to about it. Chen reflected, "There are a thousand ways to take advantage of people who are weaker than you, and that's what Uber did."
IDG spokeswoman Moira Muntz, who joined the phone call with Chen, added, "It's cruel to continue onboarding new drivers when it costs a fair amount of money to become a driver. Many of them speak very little English, there's very little hope they will remain on the platform, and nothing is being done to stop that."
Regarding recent and ongoing media treatment of these issues, Chen said he's felt that major problems have often gone ignored, while the coverage we do see often puts drivers rather than companies and passengers in a critical light.
"The media makes it seem like drivers are treating riders badly very often, but it's the other way around."
See also: While Uber Invests In Lobbying And AI, Drivers Are Fighting For Decent Pay
Many media outlets have also made mention of some recent data on Uber and its peers' numbers in New York City, whether to emphasize or dismiss it.
Earlier this year, transportation policy researcher Bruce Schaller published a report on the scope and impacts of transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft in NYC, as well as recommendations for future steps. As media outlets reported widely, Schaller found that combined taxi and TNC ridership has soared in recent years (adding to Manhattan's already legendary congestion), and that a large number of vehicles cruising the streets each day often have empty seats.
In all, he found, "unoccupied time" has increased 81% for taxis and TNCs over the past four years. According to most estimates, the total number of professional drivers (including taxi, limo or black car, and app-based workers) has at least quintupled since Uber and Lyft hit town.
Schaller, who has frequently analyzed how TNCs and the cities where they operate have fared in recent years, said he feels that public understanding and representation of his work have generally been strong, even if the public discourse around ride-hails hasn't always been easy to follow.
"I think the discussion has focused very productively on the two key issues of Manhattan congestion and driver wages. Media have covered this quite well, I think, highlighting key arguments by both sides and bringing relevant information to the discussion," Schaller commented by email. "There's been intense disagreement on how a cap should be applied, but that has not obscured broad consensus on other issues such as driver minimum wages."
"I think the public understands at a broad level that congestion has gotten much worse in Manhattan and, as they can see first-hand out on the street, that ride-hailing is a big part of that," he continued. "The data has many nuances that are not necessarily part of the public discussion but I think the key facts have been prominent in the debate in a good way."
Schaller also said he was "personally very pleased" that key findings from his research are helping to drive the discussion.
City Councilman Donovan Richards, who's been helping to draft the proposed legislation, commented by phone on Saturday that he, too, believes that NYC residents and riders are ultimately coming to understand the different factors in front of them.
"Obviously, it's a complicated issue," Richards said. "We know that the yellow taxi industry has been hurting for a long time, and that the app-based industry has to a great degree taken over. I'm a firm believer that no one group or corporation should have a monopoly on services, and in New York, the feeling on the ground for a long time has been that that's where we're headed."
In addition, Richards said, "When people are crying out for help, it's our job as government to look for merit in those cries, and work to find strategic things we should be doing to help alleviate many of those concerns." He continued, "When you take all these issues together, from driver pay to oversaturation of drivers by Uber and Lyft to traffic congestion, it's clear we need to step in."
Richards said he's stopped driving into the city from his South Queens constituency because of increased traffic in recent years, and that "when you are on the road, you see FHVs all around you, and that most of them are in fact empty."
"The more cars that are on the road, the worse things are for drivers and the environment, and so on, and we can't let these services keep ballooning without control. It's our job to provide these checks and balances," he added.
Richards also acknowledged the point that Uber and others have been making (if underhandedly, in some cases) about how black and brown New Yorkers have historically been denied the same level of service from yellow cabs that white residents have received. Richards, who is black, commented, "Just because I'm an elected official doesn't mean it's been any easier for me to get a cab in New York City."
He further noted that he realized only recently that he's likely experienced the app-based version of racial discrimination on several occasions, when he has suddenly seen drivers' names change on orders he's placed for Lyft rides.
There seems to be a pattern of eggs with zero to few followers tweeting for the first time in years (or ever for that matter) pushing #DontStrandNYC pic.twitter.com/y2kkIQ83yb
— Soul Cab (@TheSoulCab) July 29, 2018
"One of the things that's important to my community, and something I agree with, is that we can't reward bad behavior," Richards continued. "As we level the playing field, we have to remember that one of the reasons that Uber and Lyft have been so successful is that passengers with my skin tone have gotten better access to for-hire vehicles."
Richards said he hopes that training and accountability for drivers will help combat ride refusals and other discriminatory practices, which "hurts everyone," including the industry.
"No matter what we do -- whether it's a cap, or something else -- if behavior doesn't change in the [taxi] industry, folks will continue to overwhelmingly use Uber and Lyft, and not turn to options like yellow cabs."
Richards also stressed that the proposed cap includes flexibility meant to ensure riders maintain service in their areas and even see it improve. FHV that are wheelchair-accessible won't be limited, he said, and if the City Council determines that certain neighborhoods don't have enough service, the city can choose to issue more licenses in those areas.
On the subject of Uber, Lyft and Via's recent media explosion, Richards commented, "When industries start to get regulated, you hear a lot of the same arguments -- 'The sky is falling,' 'There'll be no more Ubers on the road,' things like that."
"When this happened to the airline industry, there was the same doomsday attitude, but availability is still such that you can pretty easily hop on a flight."
With the City Council's vote swiftly approaching, it seems likely that Uber and peers will continue broadcasting their stances on all available frequencies, adding numerous half-truths and outright misrepresentations to the media storm surrounding New York City.
Media outlets will likely also keep chiming in, sometimes with content that begs the question of what their aims are, if any, and why -- something it's been difficult for many New Yorkers to figure out, especially if (unlike drivers, and some journalists) you haven't been dogging these issues from day one.
Which presumably -- from companies' perspective, at least -- is the point. And one that NYC residents aren't likely to miss.
