Out of the Pool!

Back when I first became aware of Uber, and the other ridesharing aps, I remarked in this space that the whole concept was something in which I would only consider participating if that were one of the demands made by terrorists holding my wife hostage. Even granted that these services have become extremely popular in some areas, the first-hand accounts of people trying to make a living driving for Uber sound worse than any job I’ve ever had, and the idea of hitching a ride with someone I don’t know has not appealed to me since a classmate of mine was murdered while hitchhiking forty years ago. But none of that really compares to the company’s new policy of kicking people off of its service if their “rider rating” drops below 4 out of a possible 5…

You can pick up the Business Insider article here if you’d like, but they’re usually reliable to be going on with. Uber instituted a two-way rating system a number of years ago, with drivers allowed to rate their riders as well as the riders rating their drivers. I’ve also noted in this space that this has resulted in at least some percentage of Uber users and drivers developing a “quid pro quo” arrangement – you give me five stars, and I will give you five stars” deals that effectively gut both parts of the system. This doesn’t appear to have prevented a number of problem drivers from remaining “employed” by Uber, although in fairness we should note that the number of driver-related mass shootings has gone down in the last few years. It also hasn’t, apparently, prevented large numbers of riders treating their drivers as badly as they do most other service workers…

It isn’t clear from this article if the company already has such an arrangement with the drivers, and I certainly don’t plan to start driving for Uber in order to find out. Originally, of course, the whole business model was supposed to be self-correcting: drivers who compiled a bad record wouldn’t get any riders, and riders who were unpleasant enough (on whatever dimension) would not be offered any rides. But with the aforementioned accommodations reached between drivers and riders, it would appear that the company has felt the need to take a more active hand in managing the actual rides it sells…

Now, admittedly, I have no experience with Uber in either role, and no clear information on what effect (if any) being banned from using the service for six months at a time would have on the behavior of habitual riders. But as someone who does spend his working life dealing with anonymous rankings in a system where there is no verification of the complaints being made or appeal for inappropriately bad feedback, I can’t imagine doing business with a company (or its “driver partners”) under conditions where anyone who wanted to could give me a one-star ranking based on my appearance, political affiliation, favorite sports team, favorite food, alma mater, city of origin, city of residence, country of origin, age, height, weight, religion (or lack of it), profession, or reluctance to pay them off in return for a better rating…

Whether this new policy will have any impact on the problems Uber is trying to fix, whatever those might be, remains to be seen, of course. I’ll let you know if I spot any follow-up on this story, but for the moment, the idea of being kicked out of the ridesharing participation pool without warning or chance for appeal for whatever inappropriate (or dishonest) reason somebody feels like dreaming up isn’t making me any more likely to consider using their service…

Pull the Other One

There has been a lot of uproar over the last week over some of the current Administration’s more fantastical anti-immigrant policies in the Southwestern United States, with the Federal government going so far as to dispute whether people born in this country were actually born in this country, revoking passports from U.S. citizens without trial or evidence of wrong-doing, and demanding obscure documents – some of which have never been required to obtain any government license or permission before – in order to prove the bearer is actually a citizen. There are even cases where people born in this country have been rounded up and sent to deportation centers, again without benefit of a hearing. It’s difficult to see what, if anything, our current “Leadership” (and I use that term loosely) expects to gain from these activities. What, exactly, a bank would gain from copying them is anybody’s guess…

Regrettably, it would appear that this is exactly what Bank of American has been doing over the last year, however. You can pick up the original story from the Sacramento Bee website, or take a look at the American Banker magazine article about the backlash if you’d like to. The really bizarre aspect of these actions, at least from where I’m sitting, is that the Bank has been claiming that there have been no changes to any of its policies regarding consumer accounts, and they have been requiring exactly the same documentation for decades now. That is, the claims are bizarre because some of the affected customers have been doing business with B of A for decades, and there has never been any problem with their accounts until now…

We should probably note that there is no legal requirement that you must be a U.S. citizen to open or maintain a bank account in this country. You could understand why the bank might be having problems with someone who was using one of their accounts to commit a crime, or even using the funds in one of their accounts to finance criminal activities, but the only “crime” being alleged here is that the account holders may not be U.S. citizens. Moreover, given that banks make most of their money through commercial loans, in which they are using their depositors’ funds to earn interest from other parties, any action that annoys and offends people enough to make them close their accounts and change banks would make no financial sense even if those people were committing a crime…

I don’t believe that Bank of America has done anything quite as spectacularly stupid in recent years as, say, United Airlines having a passenger violently dragged off of an airplane because they had decided to give the seat he was already sitting in to a deadheading crew member, or Wells Fargo opening millions of fraudulent customer accounts. But stunts like trying to foreclose on people who never had a mortgage with them in the first place, ignoring court orders to compensate people for idiotic illegal foreclosures, and playing fast and loose with Federal fair lending laws have not given B of A the best public reputation. In fact, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that would be worse would be implementing a blatantly racist and apparently opportunistic policy that wouldn’t net them any additional money even if it was successful…

There’s a great tradition in this country known as “voting with one’s feet,” where people will stop doing business with a company that they feel is behaving in a way so stupid, greedy, bigoted, and fraudulent that it isn’t safe to maintain that business relationship – or just maintaining business practices that annoy them more than changing banks would. Bank of America may believe that they are “too big to fail,” but considering what happened the last time someone started implementing criminal business practices based on that belief, now might be a good time to sell off any stock you have in the company – and move your accounts to another financial institution, before this one goes under or just freezes your funds…