Opinion
Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion Opinion L.A.
Opinion

Uber and Lyft's nasty tactics don't help their cause

I thought the 'sharing economy' was supposed to be all kumbaya and mutual respect
What is on the line is the image and trustworthiness of the new ride-sharing business
The technique reminds me of the tactics the Nixon reelection campaign used with malicious zest

Really, now, Uber and Lyft. Tsk, tsk.

I thought the “sharing economy” was supposed to be on the up and up, all kumbaya and mutual respect.

Instead, the two leading dial-a-ride companies seem to be warring with business tactics that Don Draper would relish in “Mad Men.”

Lyft accuses Uber-affiliated people of ordering Lyft rides more than 5,000 times in the last nine months -- and then canceling, thus tying up Lyft cars, costing drivers time and gas, and frustrating customers -- who might, gosh, turn to Uber instead.

CNN Money says Lyft data show that one person -- identified as an Uber recruiter with 22 Lyft accounts on a single phone number -- ordered and then canceled 300 rides over two weeks this spring. A different Uber recruiter is said to have used 14 accounts to order and cancel 680 Lyft rides.  

All told, according to CNN Money, nearly 5,500 rides were canceled after Uber pledged to “tone down” such tactics, having been caught playing a similar game against a rideshare app called Gett.

Lyft drivers also say that when these setup callers do actually take the rides they've arranged, it's for short distances during which the rider lobbies Lyft drivers to jump to Uber.

For its part, Uber accuses Lyft of gaming its commissions and fares to undercut Uber’s rates.

Forbes, that font of financial sagacity, says each has been poaching the other’s drivers -- Uber by offering bonuses and Lyft by offering, among other enticements, free tacos.

The fake-ride call technique reminds me of the kind of political tactics whose obscene frat-boy nickname we cannot use here, but which the Nixon reelection campaign used against Democrats with malicious zest.

I don’t mean the kind of behavior for which the Watergate break-in was just the tip of the iceberg, the profoundly vile and possibly criminal forging of material on an official letterhead, the stalking of candidates’ families, investigating Democratic campaign staffers’ lives, stealing confidential files.

The “pranks” I mean ran to jamming phones at candidates’ headquarters, ordering quantities of pizzas, booze and limos to be sent and billed to an opposing candidate, letters inviting voters to nonexistent “free food” Democratic rallies, fake billboards grossly misrepresenting a Democrat’s position.

The future of democracy isn’t at stake in fake, anti-competitive and anti-capitalist dial-a-ride shenanigans.

What is on the line is the image and trustworthiness of the whole brand-spanking-new ride-sharing business, at the moment it’s trying to make the case for being superior -- a better business model and a more enlightened one -- to the old-line taxi trade.

Follow Patt Morrison on Twitter @pattmlatimes

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • How not to solve the ride-sharing industry's insurance gap

    How not to solve the ride-sharing industry's insurance gap

    Pressed by taxi and insurance company lobbyists, state lawmakers may force Web-based transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft to insure their drivers more extensively. Their proposal, AB 2293, would require the companies to cover drivers not only when they're picking up or ferrying passengers,...

  • How Justice Kennedy could have baked a better fortune cookie

    How Justice Kennedy could have baked a better fortune cookie

    Last week’s historic Supreme Court decision Obergefell vs. Hodges gave supporters of marriage equality a deserved victory, but one based on unfortunate reasoning. Yes, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy arrived at the right conclusion, but his analysis was at times laughable in its freewheeling, extra-legal...

  • What the court did, and didn't do, about coal-fired power plants

    What the court did, and didn't do, about coal-fired power plants

    The Supreme Court decision blocking federal regulations on mercury and other pollutants isn't the tremendous victory for Big Coal that it first appeared to be. In the majority opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with industry representatives that the Environmental Protection Agency had erred...

  • Supreme Court decision a victory for 'we the people'

    Supreme Court decision a victory for 'we the people'

    Just a note to those California Democratic Party leaders who have been spending the last few months sketching new congressional districts in anticipation of Monday's Supreme Court ruling in a case out of Arizona: Put down your pencils and put away your maps. The court rejected a challenge to Arizona's...

  • California wins with Arizona in SCOTUS redistricting case

    California wins with Arizona in SCOTUS redistricting case

    Who supports gerrymandering? Not voters, who regularly prefer to give independent commissions the power to set voting boundaries. Not the Supreme Court, which ruled Monday in favor of Arizona's voters and their redistricting commission. That leaves one group: politicians interested in keeping their...

  • With NSF funds limited, is $697,177 for climate change musical worth it?

    With NSF funds limited, is $697,177 for climate change musical worth it?

    The National Science Foundation too often shortchanges American taxpayers by funding low-value, low-priority social science projects.

  • The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act

    The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act

    In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s...

  • How not to regulate billboards in L.A.

    How not to regulate billboards in L.A.

    This week, City Council members will begin debating whether to make Los Angeles uglier. How? By eviscerating a proposed ordinance that would sharply curtail where new, bright, blinking digital billboards can be installed. Instead, they're considering allowing sign companies, which spend generously...

Comments
Loading