They’re hoping that Racine, Green Bay and others will join with Madison to preserve their local control. The ordinance passed (15-5) essentially levels the playing field to the extent possible, requiring Uber/Lyft and others if they come to Madison to follow the same rules about operating 24 hours a day, covering the entire city, insurance and other regulations just like the current cab companies.
This is the best I could do this morning, having technical difficulties.
Audio of public comment and questions of speakers is on this file.
My apologies, this is essentially live blogged and not much edited!
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Lisa Subeck asks about dual insurance in the state legislation. Carla Jacobs from Uber says that her experience in her condo where there are condo association and condo owners have insurance and how they spend a lot of time arguing between the two parties and the person owed ends up waiting. She says it is new to this industry. Both would be primary, offered as an add on to their current insurance. Subeck asks if it exists. She says that 4 companies have signed on and will offer them, some have tested it in other states. Until there are policies offered they can be covered by the company. And that is Uber’s intent? Yes. She says that if there is one policy they can drive for multiple companies.
Lauren Cnare asks about Union Cab insurance (to Jason)? Union Cab provides it after 6 months, that is how you become a member. It covers 60 – 70% of costs through GHC, they also pay a living wage. It is their primary goal to make sure that they can pay the city living wage. Cnare asks if they are unique in offering employee benefits. He doesn’t know, Green Cab are not employees.
Mark Clear asks what this ordinance gives you that they don’t have under current law. He says it doesn’t give them anything new, it just makes Uber/Lyft comply with the same things they do. They had an opportunity to make changes, but they didn’t ask, he just wants a level playing field. Clear asks if he would be unhappy if this didn’t pass, he says yes, right now they are not complying with any regulations and operating in the city. Clear asks if this law clarifies that TNCs as the operate today would not be permitted. He says that they define TNCs for what they are, great big taxi companies. Clear asks Carla about the discussions they have had with elected officials, city attorney etc. She says that they went to a number of TPC meetings, also at several subcommittees, they have offered to meet with all the alders, they had one on one meetings with a quarter of them. They want to work with the city, they want to make sure that they understand the implications and she thinks small changes would promote safety and allow them to operate.
Subeck asks how they are not a taxi company. She says that they don’t own or operate any vehicles and would not be able to fill out the state application. They are a technology company, they don’t set schedules of people, they operate a platform. Subeck says it’s still sounds like a taxi company. Why don’t the drivers just form a cab company and use your app? They could comply that way. She asks what nondiscrimination policy they have. She says drivers can’t discriminate against pickups, they have to hold a wheel chair and accept service animals. Subeck asks what basis they can’t discriminate based on. She says anything, Subeck clarifies it means protected classes. Subeck asks how they determine they can refuse ride. Carla says that they don’t refuse rides, they just don’t accept it. (sigh . . . enter stupid Clinton joke here) They can run the data on not accepting rides and address that with the individuals. Subeck asks if they track it by neighborhood and how to they monitor it. Carla says that they have a team that monitors that and run reports and look for patterns. Subeck asks if they forbid people from denying based on a certain neighborhood. Carla says that they would address it if they see a pattern. Subeck asks if that is a policy. She says it is understood. Subeck asks for a copy. Driver terms are available if you sign up to be a driver but they don’t share them. Subeck says it is disturbing. She offers a map of the areas that have been shares. Subeck says she is disturbed that she is unwilling to share the nondiscrimination policies.
Matt Phair asks Carla if she thinks this ordinance is a level playing field. She says they cannot operate. Why not? The insurance that we have, also the drivers are independent contractors and they can’t tell them when to work, they have data that shows they are available 24 hours a day. Their proposal works when there is dynamic pricing and that is prohibited, and they don’t have an office open 9 – 5. There are several items. She shared some printed materials that compares what is in Madison and other cities. Phair asks about not accepting calls in a specific neighborhood but it sounds like you don’t have any discipline if people don’t follow the laws, working with them is vague. She says that they could terminate their contract with someone if they don’t accept rides or a pattern of negative feedback, but they work with the drivers one on one. If they are not intending to accept rides and they don’t accept ton, that wouldn’t be a reason to end the contract, but if a pattern persists they can take action.
John Strasser asks for data on percent of drivers they terminate their relationship with based on these types of behaviors, they could get that information for them. Strasser asks if it is significant? They hear 10 – 15% of drivers says they don’t pick up in certain areas, do you have a corresponding separation rate. She doesn’t think it is true, our number would be lower. Strasser says companies have major expenses on the vehicles, your drivers have warranties, if I drove on Uber, my warranty would be void, who picks up the maintenance costs. Can they use the warranty and how much of this is your margin. Carla says that the concept is not unique to TNCs, there are realtors, attorneys etc, they are not excluded from the warranties. They haven’t seen this excluded in contracts. Strasser asks if their business model makes a profit off not having to maintain vehicles. She says that is one of the differences, they operate an app. Strasser asks what you need to be able to get a ride? Smart phone or computer. Strasser says I don’t have a computer. She says they could go to the library. She says that they pay with a credit card. He says not everyone has one. She says a bank account, he says the reality is that many people don’t have it. She says this is just one option people should have. Strasser asks if there are cities there are in where they negatively impacted taxi companies over time. Have their actions reduced accessibility of taxi companies to the public. She says they haven’t seen that data yet.
Larry Palm asks if the drivers have to follow the discrimination ordinances in Madison? She says whatever you passed tonight, if we can comply with it, we will. She says they comply in lots of different ways in different cities. Palm asks about a driver being pinged and they ping the nearest driver and then goes out. he says that if they didn’t want to take rides in a certain area, wouldn’t they just not go near the area. She says people can drive as much or little as they want, they are serving their community, they might be at home. They serve their neighbors. So do you have date on holes in service? Do you have data on denied rides? She seems confused. He asks if they have data on the requester. She says they can pull that. How many drivers does it ask if there is no one taking the ride, does it stop at some point – she says it times out after a certain amount of time. It is not rare for the cars to be full. What if there is no one on duty. She says the app would not allow you to request if there was no cars on the road. He says you don’t accept pings if they have their car full? Correct. Palm asks if there is no driver on duty does it say that? She says if there are two cars on the road, one might not mean to have their app on and another might not accept. Palm asks why there are 3 periods, is this a cost savings, why not say on or off the clock? If someone is driving around and crash into a police car, that is still business related. She says they worked with the insurance companies, just because the app is on doesn’t mean that they are working in commercial activities. Someone could turn on the app to be covered by the commercial. Palm asks how you make money if no one is in the car. She says that they make a percentage. She explains period 2 is from when they accept the request until they pick up. Period one is personal use. Period two is commercial. Period three is the same? Correct. Why do you have two periods. To differentiate the time periods.
Marsha Rummel asks about what it means to be an independent contractor. She asks how many people drive for Lyft. She says they can drive for both, they don’t make and distinction. What happens if they drive for both and there is an accident, who pays? She says for periods 2 and three, they are connected through on app and that app would provide the insurance, they can track that. Rummel asks if customers could be using both apps. She says the difference is when the connection is made. It’s only commercial activity when the connection is made. She asks how they see their business model working if they are only an app, local companies will eventually have apps. Is it just the $41M that funds you. She says it is ride on demand, they can do that, a safe, comfortable, clean ride and their standards are high. Rummel asks about 24/7 and citywide service, if this ordinance passes, would you be able to comply? She says they provide it 24 hours a day and geographically cover the city, but they cannot set the schedule of the drivers. They have data but they cannot require it. Marsha asks if they can see they maps, she says yes.
Subeck asks about ads she sees about guaranteeing a certain wage, what happens if a driver is injured, do they get workers comp. She says this is ride based not hourly. How do their drivers get workers comp? They don’t. It’s the nature of contracted services. Subeck asks if they are contracting with the drivers, how does this work, you’re saying “they just use our app”, is that what you are saying. Yes, they pay for the license. Subeck asks why you are here to talk about TNCs if you are an app. Why are you lobbying us for your company that, according to you, doesn’t provide a service in the city. She says it is a new technology and service and cities have frameworks we can work in and there are some that don’t. The City of Madison has made an ordinance that we can’t operate under. Subeck says she thinks the changes have been generous since they are taxi drivers. Subeck asks about the feedback loop – is this like comments on Facebook. They have a team that looks at the info. They can email it and after the ride the rider and driver have to give feedback. If there is a concern they can contact them. They can also provide positive feedback. She asks if she had a horrific experience, if she is in a Badger Cab she would pick up the phone and call them, but there is no number to call to get immediate contact. If I’m feeling that ride put me in danger, I should be able to call. She says that the ordinance only requires 9 – 5 service. She says the other benefit of the app is that the record of your trip is available. If you get out of cab you don’t remember the driver or cab number. Subeck says if it was a bad experience it is, she says this makes her uncomfortable, why not just do it, why not have a staff person that answers a phone. She says it is more efficient to go through an app. Subeck asks if they would have a phone number to operate here.
Resnick asks for a point of order, he says it has been answered.
Subeck wants to know if they would be willing, Carla says that they would look at it.
Palm (1:14) asks question that I missed. It was about insurance policies people can buy. I’m sorry I missed this, but as they are parsing words, Palm asks why they would put a press release out about only one part of the law, implying he doesn’t believe her. Sorry I gave up on the rest of it, about 4 minutes.
Shiva Bidar asks if they have been lobbying the state to make changes. She says they are willing to work with anyone. Bidar asks yes or no. She says not her. She says she wants to work with the city.
Steve King says that he works with independent contractors have hours assigned. She says that is the contract. He says you choose not to? She says they can’t. He says her understanding is wrong. (Ah, Carla Jacobs! took forever for someone to say their full name)
Subeck asks Tom Nelms about having 24/7 service. He has been working for over 30 years and they have had service on the road the entire time, they are independent contractors but they work with them, they are insured from the time they get in the car until it is returned, it is the same insurance all the time no matter what. AS independent contractors, they pay workman’s comp, he paid $800,000 last year, they are covered and have been the whole time he owned Badger Cab. Do you schedule your drivers. They have schedules, they have hours per day, they pick shifts that are open that might be lucrative or works with the schedule. Subeck says they are an old school app? Giggle. She asks if they can refuse rides. He says they will have an app next month, the dispatcher assigns call to someone in the area, if they refuse it they better have a good reason. Subeck says there is no problem doing that because they are contractors. He says no, they service all areas of the city. He says Badger Cab supports the proposal, it’s not much of a change, just includes the TNCS, the same regulations we have been working under.
Palm asks about the insurance policies, is it because you own it, your personal car you drove here isn’t covered right? He says yes. Palm asks if they insure their asset. He says they do it as required by the city. If a vehicle is added or removed, it is notified. Palm asks if they didn’t need to, what kind of insurance would they have. He says they didn’t think about it, but he would be making more money.
Phair asks about fighting it at the state capital and the chances don’t look good, how will you compete. He says that they will go out of business after 70 years. They will not be in existence. Phair asks if anyone else wants to answer. Adam Churn from Steering Committee on Union Cab, weekend evenings is most notably down, but they are down 10 – 15% in profits. The profitable hours have been picked clean, while it has helped them give very good service, but it won’t do us much good. They will be out of service.
Mayor asks to speak, Ms. Jacobs is called back up by Rummel. She asks if she has registered as a lobbyist.
MAYOR
This is the audio of 25 minutes of the mayor speaking. If I have time I’ll come back and type if I have time.
DISCUSSION
Here’s the audio:
Daley says he is not a fan, it’s a pretty bad company, but it part of a growing business model and they will be impacted by what we pass today, his intention isn’t to allow them to operate but to craft and ordinance that will allow future businesses to flourish. He has a couple amendments, 4 of them. Schmidt tells Daley he can’t make amendments after he speaks, but then asks if there are objections, and there are none.
He moves to amend to expand definition of insurance to allow surplus insurance.
Strasser passes since it is on the amendment, they ask everyone to ring out.
Palm asks why was this excluded from the definition. Besides from the concern he has that it is only one company that does it. City Attorney says that Uber and Lyft are insured by the same company, they are not licensed to do business in the State of Wisconsin, so that language was addressed at the subcommittee and they decided not to make the change. Surplus providers are not subject to the state insurance solvency fund, a consumer would be without a remedy if they go out of business. Wow, did it to Larry again, I missed part of the discussion here! Only 4:50 into the audio. Palm asks if they allow the providers and they are not accredited in the State of Wisconsin they still don’t have the ability to comply? No they can operate here and aren’t licensed. So what is the difference? They aren’t covered by the solvency.
Clear says if they are not based here, it doesn’t matter that they are not licensed by the state because the client isn’t here. Oh, they can do business here, Clear misunderstood.
Resnick asks about surplus lines, they are used in construction projects if we got rid of them across the board, other industries would be upset (also missed some here, about 8 minutes in)
Vote on the Amendment.
Aye’s – Cnare, DeMarb, Daley, King, Phair, Resnick, Schmidt, Ahrens, Bidar-Sielaff, Clear, the rest are no’s. It’s a 10-10 tie, normally the chair breaks the tie but the mayor is not in the seat so the amendment fails.
Strasser says that when he thinks about Uber and the taxi companies, he thinks about his mother, in her 80s, has a flip phone, doesn’t use a computer, she is excluded from using Uber or Lyft and if we look in cities where they have been around the longest, and you see what happened to the cab companies, he is concerned about people like his other, if this didn’t have a negative effect on the industry and it was something for wealthy people it would be one thing, but there is a significant portion for the community that relies on taxis and we have to create a level playing field. The people will pay the price will be the people who can afford it least. he supports the mayor’s version.
Subeck supports TRPC recommendations, she says this is about getting back to equity and access. She has been on the ADA transit subcommittee and was on the TPC and we need to ensure that people with disabilities have access to service, we don’t have the money to provide paratransit throughout the city, and people need these options. Cab companies currently provide those services. Uber only takes away from that, if we bend our rules too far and let them not follow the rules we create an uneven playing field and our taxi companies can’t survive. We put 24/7 rules in place because we understand the valuable service, and we need this regulation to make sure service is available when people need it. Cab companies will go out of business, it might take time. Uber has picked fights like this in just about every city across the country, we are not crazy progressives, Uber comes in, don’t play by the rules, demand changes and if they don’t get them go to the state level. All of that is to operate a non-taxi companies that looks smells and drives and app. Clearly they are not just an app, otherwise they wouldn’t be here asking for changes and objecting. We are trying to provide a transportation system, we are being reasonable, we made changes to accommodate them. She says she supports the mayors ordinance because it keeps 24/7, equal opportunities to get service, insuring that everyone has access to the services, smart insurance regulation to make sure victims are covered, app on or office. She thinks office and phone number is important. She googled God-view and she found lots of stories about being stalked, this is not acceptable. She was dissatisfied, with Carla, she can’t believe they couldn’t share their nondiscrimination policy, that is concerning and all the more reason that we need to make sure that regulations are in place and we maintain accountability. Don’t worry about what the state is going to do, the state will or will not act whether we do something or not. Then we can lobby the state about local control and why the state can set floors, but they cannot be setting a ceiling to meet the needs of our residents.
Rummel says that if this is a new business model, then it is a failed model, it is predatory, privatizes all the risks with drivers who might not understand all the risks. You might be able to solve insurance, but you still have to provide your car and service, but there is no way to register a complaint, there is no guarantee says they will follow this law. She did hear some benefits, it regulates them, but it adds them to the definitions. At some point Ms. Jacobs said there will be implications if this is passed, I interpreted that to mean they won’t follow the rules. The other thing she heard is it gives “tools” to the police, maybe they can do more, collect drivers licenses. When the mayor calls this an outlaw ordinance and when we talk about stalkers, and we call it leveling the playing field, let’s get real.
Anita Weier sat on one of the subcommittee and came up with some compromises, their main concern was surge pricing and 24/7 service, but another frightening things were about assaults and rapes and that worries her as well. She hopes they accept the TPC version before them.
Scott Resnick is at about 23 minutes in. He says that cab companies and Uber/Lyft are not the same, Sidecar should be included with Uber and Lyft, and there might be a new company in the future. The first time he ever worked on Taxi Cab law in Madison was a woman in his district, a sorority girl, who reported a taxi cab driver texted her after he dropped her off – we had a great conversation I’d like to continue it and it happened to many other sorority girls in the same house. While the mayor has his examples, we have our own in our own backyard. He says he tried to look at other progressive communities, Seattle and ?? and they both have Uber and Lyft and they found a progressive way to regulate the companies. He says it would have been easy to just use D.C. language and have a separate class. WE decided that was not right, it would take longer and be more complex and respect the demand of the taxi cab companies and they hit the issues one by one. Background checks, in talking to the Madison Police Department, they collect finger prints but when was the last time it was used to solve a crime, so they came up with language that works for background checks. They talked about insurance, if we ban surplus lines across Madison, wait til the developers show up and say they nee this. We talk about coverage across the city and better reporting mechanisms, this is what other communities did, like Chicago and Minneapolis, to make sure people are served. If you talk to people of color, there are issues across the system today (I think that was his point) He talks bout a dollars to a fund to provide accessible taxis, Attorney May says that is illegal in Wisconsin. This is about more than Madison, when we talk about workman’s comp and warranties, there are other bodies who have to set the laws. If we want to insure that everyone in the city of Madison has a credit card, try buying a house without one, we are moving in a direction of new forms of technology. He says in other areas (Washington, Colorado) the state has acted. There are 42 cosponsor and it has been out since Monday, we have 12 democrats, we’re going to see just like our housing laws, that they don’t have the same focus, 24/7 and all areas of the city being covered. WE haven’t been able to deal with the details, he doesn’t approve of surge pricing, in many cases he doesn’t use Uber or Lyft, we need to create a level playing field because what will happen when the state takes action, he doesn’t see that not happening. There are so many substantive issues to move forward for Madison and at this point he doesn’t see those conversations being had.
Clear says that if you read AB143, there are 34 sponsors in assembly and 8 in Senate on the first day, if we don’t think the state will step in, we are fooling ourselves. He says that if they pass the ordinance, they have a better chance. Our own constituents like this, whether if works for the drivers or not. The bill has bipartisan support – in the legislature if you have bipartisan support and a chance to kick Madison at the same time, he thinks we should reject this version at this time.
Cheeks says that Clear mentioned that we have constituents that use this, but we also have constituents who rely on it for income. He says that they won’t have the opportunity any more. He says our job is to regulate this community with what we believe is in the best interest for the city. This conversation has been muddied between the vilification of a company and veneration? of companies in our community upholding our values. If we stand behind equity and safety and our values, if we find ourselves in a world where we get undercut by the state, then there will be a unlevel playing field and we will have to remember the values, but how will we help those looking to level the playing field. If we find ourselves having another conversation in 6 months or 2 years, if the companies who worked for 70 years, don’t forget those values that were important to you tonight.
Subeck says that they hear that under these regulations they can’t operate, I don’t buy it, they have a lot of money and can find a way to comply. We are not unique, this is happening all over the country, eventually everyone bends, and we are bending, but we can say this is our best and final offer, and maybe they can’t operate here. Don’t let the state scare us, she is in a funny position now, in other cases they preempt us if we act or don’t act. It has the same effect. yes, there are some folks that want to screw Madison, but it’s not all about us. Green Bay voted to stop Uber from operating. Milwaukee went through a long period of figuring it out. If there are people in the state legislature, they will make it one, either way. It’s about an attitude, and we need to say that this is about public control, we have unique needs like Green Bay and Milwaukee. Many of the Dems that signed on are from Milwaukee and they have one cab company that has held a monopoly, that is very different where we have 4 companies and one is new. We are not stifling competition, Milwaukee maybe. We need to say that loud and clear, they might as well preempt us if we are pre-empted by not acting.
Joe Clausius says this impacts downtown more. He is leaning toward supporting TPC, his clients are worried about public safety. Uber has been operating for over a year illegally, are they in abeyance now, would that make them legal? What would happen to the violations. Michael May says the individual driver issues have been completed, they paid fines. The action against Uber for 42 dates of illegal operating, they asked for $1000 but that is tied up. They say they are not subject to the ordinance and only a court can decide. The advantage of the new ordinance is that it clearly covers them. Whether they would comply it doesn’t know. Clausius says so then we would have more leverage. May says yes.
Matt Phair says that Subeck talked about stifling competition but one of his concerns is stifling innovation, the industry is changing. The question about competition is not a soft ball. He says the economic world is changing, millenials are going to have a completely different world, we have to think long term. Cheeks raised an interesting point, he is making the assumption that the state will pre-empt us and then we will have to change how we regulate the cab companies because they will need to compete. WE will have to go back and help them out, because ethyl e won’t be able to compete, then it is up to them to figure out how to compete with the new world order. That is dramatic, but the world is changing. Like Air B-nB, this will continue, we need to balance flexibility with community values and what works and how it can change.
David Ahrens calls the question. And miraculously there is no objection. Most have never seen that happen!
Final vote
15 – 5, with the 5 no’s being Daley, Phair, Resnick, Cheeks, Clear
And with that it all abruptly ends!
