Tag Archives: Sixfigure

Uber paid academics six-figure sums for research to feed to the media | Uber

Uber paid high-profile academics in Europe and the US hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce reports that could be used as part of the company’s lobbying campaign.

The Uber files, a cache of thousands of confidential documents leaked to the Guardian, reveal lucrative deals with several leading academics who were paid to publish research on the benefits of its economic model. The reports were commissioned as Uber wrestled with regulators in key cities around the world.

University economists were targeted in France and Germany where enforcement by the authorities was increasingly fierce in 2014-15.

One report by a French academic, who asked for a €100,000 consultancy fee, was cited in a 2016 Financial Times report as evidence that Uber was a “route out of the French banlieues”, delighting Uber executives.

The Uber files is a global investigation based on a trove of 124,000 documents that were leaked to the Guardian by Mark MacGann, Uber’s former chief lobbyist in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The data consist of emails, iMessages and WhatsApp exchanges between the Silicon Valley giant’s most senior executives, as well as memos, presentations, notebooks, briefing papers and invoices.

The leaked records cover 40 countries and span 2013 to 2017, the period in which Uber was aggressively expanding across the world. They reveal how the company broke the law, duped police and regulators, exploited violence against drivers and secretly lobbied governments across the world.

To facilitate a global investigation in the public interest, the Guardian shared the data with 180 journalists in 29 countries via the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The investigation was managed and led by the Guardian with the ICIJ.

In a statement, Uber said: “We have not and will not make excuses for past behaviour that is clearly not in line with our present values. Instead, we ask the public to judge us by what we’ve done over the last five years and what we will do in the years to come.”

“,”credit”:””,”pillar”:5}”>

Q&A

What are the Uber files?

Show

The Uber files is a global investigation based on a trove of 124,000 documents that were leaked to the Guardian by Mark MacGann, Uber’s former chief lobbyist in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The data consist of emails, iMessages and WhatsApp exchanges between the Silicon Valley giant’s most senior executives, as well as memos, presentations, notebooks, briefing papers and invoices.

The leaked records cover 40 countries and span 2013 to 2017, the period in which Uber was aggressively expanding across the world. They reveal how the company broke the law, duped police and regulators, exploited violence against drivers and secretly lobbied governments across the world.

To facilitate a global investigation in the public interest, the Guardian shared the data with 180 journalists in 29 countries via the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The investigation was managed and led by the Guardian with the ICIJ.

In a statement, Uber said: “We have not and will not make excuses for past behaviour that is clearly not in line with our present values. Instead, we ask the public to judge us by what we’ve done over the last five years and what we will do in the years to come.”

Thank you for your feedback.

Using techniques common in party political campaigns, Uber targeted academics and thinktanks to help it construct a positive narrative, namely that it created well-paid jobs that drivers liked, delivered cheap transport to consumers and boosted productivity.

Documents show how its lobbyists planned to use academic research as part of a production line of political ammunition that could be fed to politicians and the media.

The aim was to use the research to increase pressure for changing the rules Uber was evading. While Uber’s involvement in reports was mentioned, leaked files expose how it wanted to use academics’ work and their reputations to further its aims, and how much it was prepared to pay them.

In France, the €100,000 consultancy arrangement was negotiated with a rising star of university economics, Prof Augustin Landier of the Toulouse School of Economics. Landier agreed to produce a report that he described in emails to Uber’s policy and communications team as “actionable for direct PR to prove Uber’s positive economic role”.

Landier proposed collaborating with David Thesmar, another high-profile professor from France’s top business school, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris (HEC).

In discussions in February 2015, Uber executives noted that although the price was high, it was worth it, especially if they worked on the report’s messages “to ensure it’s not presented in a potentially negative light”.

The report came amid intense debate about job losses caused by Uber, with Emmanuel Macron, who was then France’s economy minister, trying to force through economic changes.

An Uber policy team member wrote at the time that “a quantified validation of the new type of work Uber creates in Europe, especially when conducted by an economist of Landier’s renowned stature, would help us tremendously”.

Scholars were excited about Uber’s data because it gave them rare real-time evidence about the effect of prices on markets – one of the key issues among liberal economists arguing for free markets.

Uber says opening its data to researchers has provided important insights into the changing nature of work and mobility. Photograph: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Rex/Shutterstock

In return for the consultancy fee, Landier also wanted to produce a separate unpaid study using Uber data. The leak shows Uber executives were concerned that would mean “we lose editorial control”, but a senior staffer concluded: “We see low risk here because we can work with Landier on framing the study and we also decide what data we share with him.”

The day before the publication of Landier and Thesmar’s report in March 2016, the FT story citing it appeared. “Ride-hailing apps have created jobs for Paris’s poorer youth, but a regulatory clampdown looms,” the article said.

Thesmar was quoted in the piece saying that Uber was a “social gamechanger”.

The report had a third co-author, Daniel Szomoru, an internal Uber economist. While his employment and the academic consultancy arrangement with Uber were acknowledged in a footnote, details of the fee were not. Neither Szomoru nor the fact the report was paid for by Uber were mentioned in the FT piece.

Some of the key qualifiers in the report did not appear in press coverage – including the academics’ conclusion that Uber drivers who did not make good money tended to drop off the platform.

The report detailed how these drivers received “payouts” on average of €19.90 an hour. But that did not factor in the substantial costs that drivers have to pay – such as car hire, insurance and fuel – that had to be deducted from this average “payout” before earnings could be calculated. In the FT’s story, which was retweeted by Landier and others, this became simply: “Most earn €20 an hour, more than twice the minimum wage.”

Uber was thrilled with the FT story. “Wow!” wrote one person, congratulating the team who “landed it”.

The FT said its article was based on its own extensive field reporting that covered the downsides of driving for Uber, including low pay, as well as the benefits, and that it had not been proactively approached or briefed by Uber. It quoted experts other than Thesmar and made clear his work was based on Uber data, and it stood by its reporting, a spokesperson said.

Landier and Thesmar said their paid consultancy for Uber was declared and transparent. They declined to comment further.

Support Guardian investigations like this

With your help, we can expose wrongdoing and demand redress

Support the Guardian

” frameborder=”0″ class=”dcr-9vd5ud”>

Hubert Horan, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Stigler Center and a long-term critic of Uber’s model, said academics generally ignored the fact that Uber was spending billions of dollars of investor cash to subsidise both drivers and passengers and that “payouts” to drivers were not the same as income. Claims about the quality of jobs or prices were therefore unsustainable, he argued.

“Uber used techniques that had proven successful in partisan political settings to create the widespread belief that a company that has lost over £20bn was highly innovative and created huge benefits for consumers and cities,” he said. “It became an unstoppable PR juggernaut.”

When discussing a quick €10,000 commission for another French economist, Nicolas Bouzou, described as having “high potential to leverage this work in the mainstream media”, Uber executives agreed that organising this through a thinktank would “add credibility to the analysis” . They also talked about “milking” the Landier report at the same time.

Bouzou published his report for Uber in January 2016. He said that the report made no claim to be an academic study and the Uber funding was declared. He acknowledged that the reliability of data from corporate clients was “for us a major risk”, but said he never framed his reports to suit a client’s marketing needs.

Prof Justus Haucap. Photograph: Ullstein Bild/Getty Images

In Germany, where authorities were clamping down on Uber’s breaches of regulations in 2014, Prof Justus Haucap, a leading economist at Düsseldorf University’s Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), agreed to produce a study on “consumer benefits from a liberalisation of the German taxi market”.

The study was conducted in collaboration with a consultancy arm of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), described by Uber executives in internal emails as “the thinktank that has greatest sway with the current [German] government”, for what the leak suggested was a fee of €48,000 plus VAT.

The academics were expected to help promote the research at events and in the press, a leaked service agreement and invoices suggest.

Haucap launched the report at events for influencers and politicians in Berlin.

Haucap, his consultancy firm DICE Consult and DIW all said that while the data was provided by Uber, the study met rigorous independent, scientific standards and was not predetermined by Uber. They added that it was identified as a paid report for Uber.

Get in touch embed

One of the first deals sealed by Uber with top academics was with Prof Alan Krueger at Princeton University in the US in 2015. Krueger had been Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser and was famous as an authority on raising the legal minimum wage, so held particular influence when it came to advocating for Uber’s impact on employment.

The Uber files reveal for the first time that he was paid about $100,000 for a study that was widely quoted in support of Uber as a creator of good jobs precisely because it operated outside the rules. Internal Uber emails note that he was “helpful with the press”.

The study subsequently attracted controversy. Krueger, who died in 2019, acknowledged his paid consultancy work for Uber but never said how much he had been paid. Other academics said its conclusions could not be peer-reviewed because its data was not openly shared.

Uber said that opening its data to researchers provided important insights into the changing nature of work and mobility, and that where it paid academics the relationship was always disclosed. The Landier and Thesmar report made clear that the “payout” figures it gave did not take drivers’ costs into account, it said, adding that Uber datasets were available to people wanting to review research if they signed a data use agreement.



Read original article here

U.S. to compensate some ‘Havana syndrome’ victims with six-figure payments

Placeholder while article actions load

The Biden administration plans to pay some diplomats and intelligence officers roughly $100,000 to $200,000 each to compensate for the mysterious health problems known as “Havana syndrome,” according to congressional aides and a former official familiar with the matter.

The payment plan is the culmination of a multiyear push by Congress, which passed a law last fall mandating that the State Department and CIA compensate current and former officials suffering from what the government calls Anomalous Health Incidents, or AHIs.

Despite six years of investigations, the United States still lacks certainty about what is causing the symptoms, which include headaches, vision problems, dizziness and brain fog, among other ailments. The health problems were first reported among U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers serving in Cuba’s capital but have since been reported on every continent except Antarctica.

The six-figure payments will go to those determined to have suffered the most significant setbacks, such as job loss or career derailment, said people briefed on the plan who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not been approved for release.

U.S. officials cautioned that the range of compensation is not yet final and could change as the State Department’s regulation goes through the final stages of a review process, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget.

The CIA determined this winter that a foreign country is probably not behind a “worldwide campaign harming U.S. personnel with a weapon or mechanism” — an assessment that raised doubts about years of speculation that the health issues were the result of a mysterious directed energy weapon wielded by Russian or Chinese agents.

Government investigators have reviewed more than 1,000 cases, with the majority being attributed to a preexisting medical condition or environmental or other factors. Dozens of other reported cases remain unexplained.

As word of the compensation packages has trickled out to the federal workforce, some officials have remarked that the packages were generous while others have said the compensation range seems insufficient, given the loss of future and past income for those who suffered severe neurological damage and can no longer work.

The Biden administration has not yet released the criteria for how it will determine eligibility for compensation, but it is expected to be made public shortly. Current and former officials as well as their family members will be eligible to make claims, said those briefed on the plan.

Under the Havana Act, Congress gave the secretary of state and CIA director the authority to determine eligibility, which has already caused concerns about whether diplomats and intelligence officers will be treated the same.

“It is crucial that CIA and State implement the Havana Act in an identical fashion. To include using the exact same criteria who qualifies for compensation. There cannot be any daylight between agencies, which previously was an unfortunate hallmark in how the USG responded to the AHIs,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA officer. He retired in 2019 while suffering symptoms, including painful headaches, after a trip to Moscow in 2017, when he was helping run clandestine operations in Russia.

Devising a compensation plan has been particularly difficult for U.S. government officials, given the lack of hard evidence for what’s causing the ailments and the inability to establish a clear diagnosis for the broad range of symptoms that while sometimes debilitating can also be common.

Officials with the State Department and CIA said Thursday that the Havana Act authorized the agencies to provide payments to personnel for “qualifying injuries to the brain.”

The two agencies have been working in partnership with the National Security Council on how the payment system will work and will have more information on it soon, the CIA official said.

The official added that the legislation provides the CIA and other agencies “the authority to make payments to employees, eligible family members, and other individuals affiliated with the CIA.”

“As Director Burns has emphasized, nothing is more important to him and CIA leaders than taking care of our people,” the official said, referencing CIA Director William J. Burns.

Officials from the National Institutes of Health, the Pentagon and other agencies have jointly developed a new, two-hour medical exam to screen potential new cases that can be administered by doctors or other practitioners to U.S. personnel assigned to overseas missions.

The triage process includes visual, vestibular and blood testing but not brain imaging, a fact that reflects constantly changing and sometimes-disputed science on the injuries. Even though some doctors previously identified “perceptible changes” in the brain as a result of apparent attacks, State Department physicians say they now believe the scans have no scientific validity.

Officials are also seeking to better educate medical staffers at missions worldwide, instructing them to be receptive to potential victims’ experiences — and they stress that skepticism is no longer the norm.

In January, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the State Department, like the CIA, was focused on providing medical care to those needing it, and would continue to seek a cause behind the health issues.

“We are going to continue to bring all of our resources to bear in learning more about these incidents, and there will be additional reports to follow. We will leave no stone unturned,” he wrote.

Read original article here

Six-figure Tesla Model S Plaid burst into flames with driver inside, attorney says

A base-priced $129,900 Tesla Model S Plaid burst into flames while being driven this week, forcing the driver to push his way out before the car became engulfed in fire, the lawyer for the car’s Pennsylvania owner said, according to reports. 

The unidentified driver had to “use force” to get the door open after he noticed smoke coming from the back of the car because its electronic door system malfunctioned Tuesday, Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos further claimed, according to Reuters. 

“It was a harrowing and horrifying experience,” Geragos said.

After the driver escaped, the car reportedly continued to move on its own about 40 feet down a residential street near the owner’s home in Haverford, Pennsylvania. The owner had reportedly received the car only three days earlier. 

The Model S Plaid was launched last month and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has called it “faster than any Porsche, safer than any Volvo.”

Musk admitted in April there were “more challenges than expected” in developing the model’s new battery pack. “It took quite a bit of development to ensure that the battery of the new S and X is safe,” he said at the time, according to CNBC. 

TESLA RECALLS OVER 285,000 VEHICLES IN CHINA, MOST OF THEM LOCALLY MADE 

Musk had originally told Joe Rogan on his podcast the cars would be available in February. 

Lower Merion Township Fire Department Chief Charles McGarvey told CNBC two teams of firefighters worked for more than three hours to put out the fire and in a since-deleted Facebook post local authorities said teams cooled the “batteries down to ensure complete extinguishment,” Reuters reported. 

McGarvey told CNBC the department had been in touch with Tesla over the incident. 

It’s unclear why the fire department deleted the post. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it is investigating the incident. 

“If data or investigations show a defect or an inherent risk to safety exists, NHTSA will take action as appropriate to protect the public,” it said, according to Reuters. 

There were no reports of the driver being injured. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Tesla did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site