Uber Shut Down In Multiple Countries Following Raids 366
wired_parrot (768394) writes "Worldwide raids were carried out against Uber offices in Germany, France and South Korea. In Germany, the raids followed a court ruling banning Uber from operating without a license. In Paris, raids followed an investigation into deceptive practices. And in South Korea, 30 people, including Uber's CEO, were charged with running an illegal taxi service."
Mayber Uber will pay ... (Score:5, Funny)
... a fine using Bitcoin and stuff.
the establishment really does not like competition (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, licensing has a bit of a reason behind it, but still, I can't help feel that its the established players who want to kill any newcoming competition. that - in itself - really annoys me.
I wonder if this will backfire and people will want to support the underdog.
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Uber is just exploiting people to enrich themselves.
But they help also (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive or not. They simply provide a vastly better service than any taxi I have ever used.
To that extent, they are not "just" anything - they are also helping real people, people that will now have the same problems they did before uber in areas where competition with the driving monopolies are not allowed.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Informative)
To me it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive or not. They simply provide a vastly better service than any taxi I have ever used.
This is mostly the way I feel, with an exception: in Manhattan, I can't imagine why you'd want to bother with Uber. Uber requires starting an app on your phone, punching in a destination, waiting for someone to get to you, etc. With a taxi, you just stand on the side of the street and raise your arm, and one is there in seconds. But Manhattan is exceptional that way.
Everywhere else (meaning places that aren't as dense as Manhattan, mainly suburban areas), cabs are a total PITA. You have to look them up somehow, wait 30-60 minutes for them to arrive, then give the dumb driver turn-by-turn directions because he has no idea where your destination is, then at the end you find out the fare is astronomical. Uber is easy, fast, you can see how long it'll take the driver to get to you, and the cost is much less.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
if their product is so superior they should have no problems complying with basic licensing requirements that exist for very serious reasons.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... that so-called "basic licensing requirements" is a joke. There is no reason that Taxi Tokens (licenses) should be as expensive and hard to obtain as they are. Follow the money. Yes, Uber should follow the law, same as every Taxi company. Yes, the law needs to change to something based on science not bribery.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxi Tokens exist as a way to limit the number of Taxi's (and thus works as a "Taxi Union" of sorts) , and there are extremely specific licensing requirements just to have one.
Uber threatens that monopoly. Which is good. There is no reason a Taxi medallion should cost more than the fricken vehicle by a factor of 10. NYC is one example of where the Taxi Medallions are used as investment leverage and not for their intended purpose. Vancouver BC is another (Where Taxi's can't cross city boundaries to pick up fares.) Uber barely had a chance in Vancouver before the Taxi cartel swayed the government against them.
And in a way Uber is skirting the law much in the way Megaupload did. They know they are operating an illegal taxi service, and barely want to acknoledge the amount of scams going on that use it.
Hell CSI:Cyber today is basically saying just that "Uber is unsafe"
Re: (Score:3)
If Uber were running a cab service with professional, full-time drivers, then absolutely. Actually, they DO that, but nobody cares. The controversial part of Uber is the gypsy cab bit, where somebody with a credit card and a phone is suddenly a cabby.
Re: (Score:3)
part of the reason for the limit in the first place in places like NYC isn't to protect the existing companies even if it has that effect, but to protect the traffic flow from congestion. NYC traffic is still horribly congested, but past experience has shown that demand and supply for taxis service can easily exceeds the capacity of the streets to handle that much traffic. after all, in a place like NYC, they're quite limited when it comes to adding lanes or widening streets.
Panama City (Score:5, Insightful)
Panama City has essentially zero licensing restrictions on cab ownership. You can always catch a taxi...except that sometimes they won't take you more than a couple blocks because of congestion. You tell them where you want to go before you get in so that they have the opportunity to tell you to fuck off, and that happens as often as not. Generally speaking in those cases you're probably better off walking anyway. The taxis themselves are almost always roadworthy, though!
Anyone who wants to support Uber should spend some time in Panama City, as an object lesson on the reasons for taxi regulations.
Re:Panama City (Score:4, Insightful)
Or spend some time in one of the many places where the local advice is something along the lines of "always take the RED taxis, because they're at least all owned by a company. The others, well, you might make it, or you might not."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But they help also (Score:4, Insightful)
You just defended evil.
Oh, please. I am no friend of the rent-seeking, regulatory-capture taxi cartel, but Uber is unethical as hell. "Herp derp, we're cheaper because we're *disruptive*, definitely it's not because we don't have to comply with applicable regulations."
The present scenario with Uber is metastable. Either all regulation of commercial transportation should be repealed, or, as I personally prefer, remove the restriction on taxi medallions and reduce the cost of these medallions to be the token amount necessary to verify the safety regulations are being met.
Either way, the playing field would be leveled and the market could work.
Re:But they help also (Score:4, Insightful)
Its as if you are saying "Uber is unethical, therefore I want the very things that makes the existing system evil to triumph over Uber! Go evil!"
So, from your perspective, low-cost taxi medallions available to any entity that can prove they have mechanically safe vehicles, drivers who are qualified/not debarred from transporting people, and that have adequate insurance/bonding to pay for injuries to their passengers... is evil.
Gotcha. Sorry to hear that you are opposed to market-based solutions.
So okay then, I guess, "go evil!"
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, the licensing requirements in some places might be absurd but that doesn't mean we should root for Uber. A lot of regulations for taxi drivers go beyond "has paid $N"; for instance, German taxi drivers are required to know things about traffic and transportation law that most peo
Re:But they help also (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'market based solutions' you are so in love with were the norm in the past, and they failed miserably. It is why we have the system we have now. It turns out people did not want so damn many taxis on the street that traffic didn't move, taxis running over people to get to a fare because they had to compete with each other, rates that changed at the drivers whim, no accountability, drivers squeezing the most out of each fare because it was unlikely they would get another, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
$1,000,000 medallions
This line is always trotted out by people who dont understand NYC medallions. Like it's "ooooh big scary number!"
That price is for a business medallion is purchased by a company that runs the car 24 hours a day in 3 shifts bringing in $300,000 / yr. or more.
Re:But they help also (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. But you cannot operate any taxi service without one. This means it isn't possible for one person to provide part-time or opportunistic taxi service: It isn't economical to provide a taxi service unless you can run your car continually, hiring multiple drivers. This is intentional, as a quality of service matter: The city doesn't want amateurs with a GPS unit turning up at airports and getting lost with their passengers. It also means Uber's business model cannot be used, and makes it difficult to start new taxi companies by imposing a substantial minimum investment.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand the Uber model guarantees that both parties are equipped with a device that works as GPS using recent (online) maps. If the driver "gets lots2 or "decides to show the passenger the scenic route" - he can't charge the passenger for that. So that type of scam is indeed left to professionals.
Re: (Score:3)
You just defended evil.
It seems to me he defended the idea that residents of a society obey its laws, which is a foundational block to a working society. He didnt say anything about whether the laws were actually good ones.
I know slashdot loves tout the wonders of anarchy, but lets not go labeling someone a "statist" because they think laws should be enforced and that people dont get to pick and choose which rules to follow.
Sometimes I have to wonder whether people believe the crap they post.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't. Just like the EPA has nothing to do with the environment, and the FDA isn't necessary at all for food safety.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The city licensing for taxi's has nothing nearly to do with safety. The State and Federal licensing for commercial drivers and vehicles is about safety to a large degree.
I will put it to you this way.Imagine if the FDA had a limit to the amount of slaughter houses it would licenses and only gave out new licenses very infrequently. Or what if the FDA did the same to drug companies after all wouldn't it be better if we only had 10 drug manufactures. It would simplify the FDA works enormously.
That is the situa
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it doesn't. Just like the EPA has nothing to do with the environment, and the FDA isn't necessary at all for food safety.
Or doctors need to have licenses, or airline mechanics need certifications,
It's the free market baby - when planes start falling out of the skies, and the monkey gland treatment kills all of Doctor Cutchyacockoff's patients, the invisible hand of free market will decide who is successful, not these namby pamby socialist regulations, I'll tell you what.
Re: (Score:3)
You completely miss the point. It's the drivers who need licensing, not the company. And AFAIK, every state has some sort of separate license requirement for this unrelated to ownership of a taxi company. Why do people have such a hard time making this distinction?
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
That "basic licensing requirement" has nothing at all to do with safety.
Which license? I think if you can show a license that does just amount to graft, then any reasonable person would get on board with the idea that license is bad regulation. Except, the person you are replying to, specifically mentioned safety.
Neither argument can really be assessed unless concrete specifics are used. While most of TFA mentions "unfair competition" if you click through and read about the original German injunction they mention this:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog... [nytimes.com]
The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app. There is a lot of talk about 'complying with the regulations' in the articles, then a lot of slashdotters calling that regulation bullshit, but no mention of what the regulations actually are. So how do you know they are bullshit? Or are you just arguing on a political / emotional level?
But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.
Beat up that straw man, yo.
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Informative)
Personenbeförderungsgesetz (PBefG): Contains rules for passenger transportation with trams, trolleybuses and motor vehicles. Apparently trains are covered elsewhere. Only some of the rules apply because cars (vehicles that can transport up to six people including the driver) have a special exception.
Verordnung über den Betrieb von Kraftfahrunternehmen im Personenverkehr (BOKraft): Contains rules for passenger transportation companies that use trolleybuses or motor vehicles. This seems the most important one for taxi companies and covers things like vehicle maintenance, whether subcontracting is allowed, notification requirements, how to deal with lost property
The taxi-specific sections cover things like technical requirements, such as an alarm wired to the horn and lights that the driver can activate from their seat, a calibrated and illuminated taximeter or an optional bulletproof divider. Taxis must be painted with the color RAL 1015 of the RAL 840 HR palette and must have a "TAXI" sign of specific orientation and dimensions on top. They must display their taxi registration number in a specific style and place and also display the name and address of the company where the passenger can easily read them. Taxi drivers must take the shortest possible route to their target; if another route would be cheaper or faster, this has to be cleared with the passenger beforehand.
There's also some stuff in there that most people don't know - for instance, BOKraft-covered transport vehicles must have a copy of the laws governing pricing pnboard and must show them to the passenger upon request.
Berufszugangsverordnung für den Straßenpersonenverkehr (PBZugV): Contains rules on who is allowed to transport other people. People with a criminal record or a record of severe traffic law violations are banned from working as drivers; company-level misbehavior might disqualify an entire company. Companies must have enough money to keep their fleet in shape. They must regularly check whether all drivers are still qualified to work as taxi drivers.
Drivers (in order to be hirable) must have an understanding of the laws governing passenger transportation, of vehicle maintenance, of radio protocols, of certain accounting procedures and even of environmental guidelines on vehicle operation and maintenance. They must pass two written and optionaly one additional oral exam of one hour each with the local chamber of industry and commerce; alternatively, five years of work in a different BPZugV-covered company can be seen as equivalent.
Paragraph 48 Fahrerlaubnisverordnung (FeV): contains rules on taxi driver licenses. Examples: Taxi drivers must prove they know the area they operate in and that they have an appropriate understanding of first aid. If the driver is found unreliable, the license can be revoked (e.g. this once happened after a driver repeatedly refused to make short distance trips). Taxi driver licenses have to be reapplied for every five years.
Others, like the FPersG and FPersV, cover legal technicalities like when and how to have your license card with you etc. Additionally, municipalities may pass additional regulations.
So yeah, the law is pretty clear: None of the people who work for Uber are licensed to do so, thus they can't guarantee that they know about stuff like applying laws or where to drive. They can't even guarantee that the drivers aren't explicitly banned from working as drivers. Of course the law is going to come down hard on them.
If ridesharing is here to stay the law might adapt, but only by relaxing the signage requirements for very small companies. You'd still have to have a taxi driver's license, you'd still have to register the car and you'd still have to demonstrate an u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this list sums up the core of the Uber debate. It's a massive pile of accumulated odds and ends that have built up over the years, some of which are clearly useful and others which are clearly irrelevant. Unfortunately taxi regulation is about as exciting as dish water and so there's nothing that can blow away the cobwebs and rationalise things, short of a full blown Uber style takedown.
Examples of crap in the list above: taxi drivers must know the area they operate in. Really? What does it even me
Re: (Score:3)
Examples of crap in the list above: taxi drivers must know the area they operate in. Really? What does it even mean to know the area? London black cab drivers have to pass an exam called The Knowledge that requires them to memorise street maps of the city, so at least it's well defined there, but this is nonsense from the pre-GPS era. There's no need for cab drivers to do it all in their heads these days, and I'd much rather they rely on the computer which will always pick the fastest route and can't decide to take a detour because the passengers looks like a tourist.
And then the GPS makes a silly mistake as they are apt to do and the driver can't tell. From my experience, car navigation systems aren't mature enough to blindly rely on.
Another example: drivers must know the radio protocols. Why?! Uber drivers receive instructions via an intuitive smartphone app. Controlling cabs via radio is an obsolete technology yet the requirement to use it lives on.
That depends on the size of the company. If you have a one-man operation that only works via Uber, yes. If you have a dozen cabs and use both Uber and regular phone lines to get customers, having a radio is really useful.
I do agree, however, that self-employed cabbies with only one car should be exempt from that one.
Yet another example: cars must be painted a particular colour. Why? Uber cars are located using modern technology, not by watching the roads for vehicles painted in a deliberately ugly colour. This is another obsolete convention progress has made irrelevant - yet it's mandated.
It's not irrelevant f
Re: (Score:3)
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog... [nytimes.com] The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app.
The argument that gets made is that it would be unacceptable to have different classes of companies competing for the same market and not be subject to the exact same regulation, ie that Uber either get to try and prove that the rules are illegal or get out. Ubers main argument seams to be the rather silly but were not a taxi company so we dont need to follow any regulations and that just wont fly anywhere civilized.
The real problem for uber is not the volume regulation but the two main set of regulati
Re:Why make it complicated? (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. Where licenses are available, there are in the order of 50 bucks. If they are expensive, they are because no new licenses are given and you have to purchase one from someone who already holds one - and that can get expensive. But it's certainly not true that local authorities are making big profits from this that they can't live without.
Around these parts, we have a very different idea of how society is supposed to work. Whereas countries like the US are run by free-market radicals who believe that everyone should be left to fend for themselves, we here in Germany any many other European countries have some notion left that sometimes, the weak and needy need to be protected and helped. For that reason, we have a lot of laws and regulations (like concerning public health insurance) that people like you would no doubt consider far-left.
The reason the taxi market is so heavily regulated is that taxis are considered part of the public transportation system. Taxis have to accept every passenger but also get certain privileges like being allowed to park where others aren't. And because they are part of the public transportation system, they also have to make extra sure that no harm comes to the passengers, and this includes a proper insurance for their passengers and having their car checked more often for technical issues.
This isn't some evil plot to rip off a poor poor American company, this is about basic safety standards.
It's probably also worth mentioning that the way Uber handles the (non)employment of their drivers is annoying everyone here, as well. If you are employed, you pay unemployment and pension insurance fees, and if/when you lose your job or you are too old to work, the insurance will pay for your needs. If you don't have such insurance, like the Uber drivers, the state will have to pay. While there sadly are many companies that handle things this way, it's not exactly met with appreciation by most people around here...
Re: (Score:3)
I get that they have shitty terms of semi-employment. However, I'm not sure I understand who is being forced to work for them.
It sucks to be a coal miner, so I decided that I really have no interest in being one and consequently, I am not. Presumably, Uber drivers in a place like Germany would have options for better employment terms? So, why do they work for Uber?
Re:But they help also (Score:5, Insightful)
That "basic licensing requirement" has nothing at all to do with safety. Drivers need to be licensed for safety, the company license is government-granted monopoly, pure and simple.
But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.
Yes, and some other people don't want the government to control anything. They're called The Rich.
If you're a billionaire, I can understand the argument, assuming you're some sort of Randian libertarian and base your entire world view on selfishness. But as part of the 99.9% it's madness.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a taxi can suck in Manhattan. If you want to go to the airport, or to Brooklyn or Queens, or happen to be a minority a lot of the time they won't stop let alone agree to take you to your destination. Forcing you to get a new cab...sure you could report them, but that doesn't help the current situation.
Uber just works. The drivers are nicer, the cars are cleaner, the prices are cheaper. The app takes seconds to smart and is transparent to pay for.
Why someone would prefer a yellow cab is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
you must be white.
(sorry, cliche joke, having never been to Manhattan, or a minority, I can't confirm the validity of this.)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think an Uber driver will be so much better at this?
Wow, are you stupid? Really, I want to know. Anyone who has the slightest clue about Uber knows that the app they use has built-in GPS navigation, and that the customer usually enters his destination address into his app, so the driver doesn't even have to ask, the app automatically guides him there.
you can see how long it'll take the driver to get to you
This is not technology that is confined to Uber.
It's not? Please enlighten me then, b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To me it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive or not. They simply provide a vastly better service than any taxi I have ever used.
So you dont care how a product is made, as long as it's served to you nicely?
Well you are an Apple fanboy.
The problem is, every Uber car I've ever gotten into has been a terrible mess, unwashed and bad smelling, much like the drivers. The last one was a Pug 208 deisel that looked like it had never been cleaned since the dealer got rid of it (and it looks like the dealer got rid of by chucking it out with some food scraps). It looked, smelled and sounded like a farmyard. Compared to this where all the
Wrong Take, Liar (Score:2)
So you dont care how a product is made, as long as it's served to you nicely?
So long as it serves ME better than any existing product, yes.
To frame the discussion, Uber is far less dire a company than most cabbie unions. I have been cheated by nearly every cab driver I've ever used, had them refuse to accept payment from my wife, etc. None of that is even possible on Uber.
You say that typing on a device that was produced by workers paid half those of Apple workers.
Yeah, I think I'm going to pass on that c
Re: (Score:3)
I have been cheated by nearly every cab driver I've ever used, had them refuse to accept payment from my wife, etc. None of that is even possible on Uber.
See, that's a pretty reasonable argument for why you support and use Uber. I may not totally agree, (I have mixed feeling about Uber personally), but that would have been a valid point. Instead you went with... "it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive" ...This is just inflammatory rhetoric and you know it. You were responding to a troll AC after all. So I don't know about mjwx, but your comment was a bit ridiculous also.
If you actually want to promote something, might want to find a better line of
Re: (Score:3)
Exploitive of whom? The drivers? Uber can't possibly hold a candle to cab companies in that respect! Cab companies are fucking brutal when it comes to drivers who don't own their own cars, and provide a strong incentive to work 48-hour shifts in many markets - that doesn't help anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I didnt call them exploitative -- that was some troll AC a few posts up. I'm just saying that not caring if they were, is a bad argument.
Frankly, your post is full of hyperbole too though. It would be nice if we could drop the BS and have a discussion. (I know, I know this is slashdot and all). But if you are going to make specific claims, "48 hour shifts" in (weasel word) "many" markets -- it'd be nice if you had a source. Was just reading at 48 hours without sleep you start having involuntary micro-sl
Re:Wrong Take, Liar (Score:4, Insightful)
You could save yourself a whole lot of typing by simply repeating, "I'm getting what I want, fuck everyone else."
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they call that "commerce". The drivers are probably exploiting Uber for their own enrichment.
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they call that "commerce". The drivers are probably exploiting Uber for their own enrichment.
Hahahaha no. Uber doesn't pay to maintain the vehicles, the drivers do. Both cleaning and mechanical upkeep. Uber doesn't pay for the insurance on the vehicle, and many of these drivers will find out the hard way that using it for Commercial Contract work falls outside their insurance terms & conditions. In many cases they will also find out the hard way that what they are doing is technically Commercial vehicle operation, which requires a different class of driver's license in most places- a license which is harder to get and easier to lose. The drivers are the ones liable in the event a passenger decides to sue them for something, and will have to foot their own legal bills to defend themselves. They're going to realize that their tax filing has to be done differently. They're going to find out they're the ones on the hook for not carrying the proper levels of insurance/bonding.
Look, it's pretty simple. If you get paid to give someone a ride, you're operating the vehicle for Commercial Purposes. There's a whole host of things you have to adhere to in order to do that legally. What Uber is doing is shifting that burden onto the drivers, most of whom don't understand the actual costs involved.
I like the idea behind what the Uber App itself does, but I dislike how the company actually operates. It's not "ride sharing" if you pay anything at all for the ride, period.
Re: (Score:3)
I spoke to hundred of Uber drivers about this here in SF (basically every ride I take..) - not a single one so far echo'd that stuff. I'm sure they could be paid more and have more advantage, but every single time they're telling me that they make more with Uber (even on 7USD pool rides, they get more than 7 USD) than they would with most jobs they could take at this time in their lives - certainly more than taxi drivers too!
So I don't know but that deal seems to work good enough for them.
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:4, Informative)
The AC has a good point, that you seem to have missed. It's particularly easy with cars to think that you're getting a good deal in the short term. Oh, I burned $100 in gas and made $300! This is awesome! Except you forgot to account for commercial insurance (or getting sued if you don't have it), a commercial drivers license (or getting fined if you don't have it), maintenance, amortization of the car (particularly if you're leasing it and discover that, whoops, your lease doesn't cover commercial use), unemployment insurance, pension, health care (especially if you "forget" to pay them and the government comes knocking one day).
Those happy Uber drivers might be fooling themselves. But if they are and they wise up one day and quit, well, there are lots of other suckers, er, employees, for Uber.
Re: the establishment really does not like competi (Score:4, Insightful)
I asked my last Uber driver (who was driving her BMW 328i) how she liked it, the money, etc. Her answer was "I drove for a week and quit my two other jobs. It's all I do now."
Now, if you did some kind of spreadsheet and factored in maintenance, correct insurance, etc, it might end up being "not so good of a deal" but that's really impossible to say unless you're the driver.
Calling it "exploitation" is hyperbolic in the same way that a Marxist calls anyone working for a capitalist "exploited". OK, within a specific analytic framework and with a specific set of value judgements made maybe it is, but at the same time you can find a lot of other people who one group calls "exploited" who say "What? I'm totally satisfied with this arrangement."
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there are fairly well worked out regulations for this kind of thing, in the aviation and marine industries. They very likely apply to cars as well.
The basic guideline is your "it certainly should not have an expectation of profit." For example, if you're a pilot or skipper and you're taking some people up or out, they can pay for their share of the fuel, but no more. They cannot pay you for your time. I'd have to look up the rules on non-monetary compensation (lunch), but I'm sure it's covered
Re: (Score:3)
So are taxi companies. And most of the drivers get paid better on Uber; much better! So they're exploiting people less than the big players, giving drivers more money, people cheaper fairs and they still turn enough money to keep them going.
The laws in place were designed to make sure taxi drivers got a fare shake and earned a decent amount of money; not to get pushed out by cheap-fly-by-night shit shops. But here we see the only people benefiting from this are the established taxi regimes.
Re: (Score:3)
apparently heinlein existed in a universe where the rich and powerful don't take advantage of the poor and weak, as has been the case since, gee, all of history and every society
people who believe stuff like that heinlein quote are known by those with money and power as "useful fools" and "good slaves"
Re: (Score:3)
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire.
Besides, Heinlein is overrated, eternally stuck in the 1950ies and had a strange obsession with slide rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, licensing has a bit of a reason behind it, but still, I can't help feel that its the established players who want to kill any newcoming competition. that - in itself - really annoys me.
I wonder if this will backfire and people will want to support the underdog.
Maybe that's the reason why the laws weren't changed, but it's not the reason Uber is getting shut down.
They based their business model on breaking the law. When they were told they were breaking the law they ignored the authorities and kept on breaking it.
There are times when you break laws as a matter of civil disobedience, and there are other times when you break them because they're really hard to follow. This was neither, this was Uber saying they know they're breaking the law with every transaction they make and they're going to keep on breaking the law until you legalize what they're doing because they're make more money that way. That's not how things work, if you pretend the law doesn't exist then you experience the consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Even when the law is wrong? Really?
Telling someone they can't make a living by running a pretty darn good service sounds awfully wrong to me.
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:4, Insightful)
Even when the law is wrong? Really?
Yes. You obey it or pay the consequences. That's why civil disobedience is so powerful. You are doing something and paying the price to show that something is unjust.
Sadly, Uber (and most of their supporters) are just a bunch of whining asshats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't help feel that its the established players who want to kill any newcoming competition. that - in itself - really annoys me.
Is it that they want to kill competition or is it that they want Uber to abide by the same laws and regulations and pay the same taxes and fees that they do? Is it so annoying that Uber is being punished for not abiding by the laws? If you feel so, then you are an anarchist and opposed to a society based on law. Because only an anarchist sees no value in the rule of law. These laws aren't put into place to restrict competition, as much as they are for consumer protection. How many news articles have you re
Re: (Score:3)
Is it that they want to kill competition or is it that they want Uber to abide by the same laws and regulations and pay the same taxes and fees that they do?
I don't have any problems with Uber not following the same laws and regulations, the same taxes and fees as established oligopolies do. But then I don't have any problem with the established oligopolies not having to follow that crap either.
These laws aren't put into place to restrict competition, as much as they are for consumer protection.
I don't buy it. Maybe that was the intent at one time. It's just barrier to entry now.
How many news articles have you read about Uber drivers raping or otherwise assaulting riders -- I can think of several off hand in the last year. How many news articles have you read about legally licensed cabbies doing the same?
I guess Uber doesn't buy better press. Last I checked, rape was illegal in the countries mentioned in the story. Maybe these localities should enforce existing law, assuming there actua
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:5, Informative)
It's definitely just a way to kill competition. The taxi companies are mad that Uber isn't buying million-dollar medallions for each taxi - which would make their business model completely un-viable.
You want to know how to handle it properly and prevent crime? Look at what Portsmouth, NH did in response - not surprising since they're the home to the Free State Project. They disbanded the entire Taxi Comission and removed any extra restrictions on the normal cab companies that would prevent them from competing on a level playing field with Uber.
This doesn't mean there are no regulations - it means that Uber drivers are required to pay for the cost of a background check by the police department, and provide proof of insurance. This cost is tiny in comparison to buying a medallion, and provides the same level of safety as the background checks the taxi companies were running.
It's sad that a logical response by government is a surprise - adapting to changes while protecting citizens should be the basic mandate of government, not an exceptional feat.
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind however that only a handful of cities use Medallions. Outside of NYC and those other cities, Uber is getting busted for exactly what you propose: they refuse to do things like pay for police background checks and require drivers to hold a commercial driver's license. Uber is managing to break the law even in cities with a limited number of common sense laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind however that only a handful of cities use Medallions.
At least the medallion system, as abhorrent as it is, allows the licenses to be transfered to other individuals. In most other places its even worse than the medallion system where there not only is an artificially limited supply, you've got to also be on the good graces of the local bureaucrat gatekeeper when there is an opening.
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:4, Informative)
Portmout, NH sa one [seacoastonline.com] Uber driver. The taxi business in a town of 20,000 is very different that in a city of 20,000,000.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, to prevent crime... make the thing that was criminal, no longer criminal? Brilliant!
Not saying it's a bad decision, mind you.
Re: (Score:3)
How many news articles have you read about Uber drivers raping or otherwise assaulting riders -- I can think of several off hand in the last year.
How many news articles have you read about legally licensed cabbies doing the same?
Just take your pick. [google.com] I'm not necessarily defending Uber, as they're not exactly a white knight in this story, but the notion that a government-issued license is going to somehow prevent sickos from assaulting women is naive.
The popularity of Uber and the dissatisfaction of traditional taxi's customers clearly show that a better solution can and should be found, so that services like Uber can legitimately compete for services, while at the same time not eschewing reasonable safety regulations that other tax
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:5, Informative)
Silly hater? Illogical nonsense? Hey asshole -- how about you at least bother to fucking google
Here's a comprehensive list of incidents, and in the US and Europe, not just in India and Pakistan http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/... [whosdrivingyou.org]
Fact is any psycho can become an uber driver and use the service to cruise for victims and that's exactly what has happened and will happen until they start screening and licensing their drivers as per the tai regulations EVERYWHERE mandate.
So fuck you, fuck your "mod point" and fuck your inability to even fucking use a fucking search engine.
Re:the establishment really does not like competit (Score:4, Informative)
Look at AirBNB. Same crowd-sourcing business plan, competing with heavily regulated established players, but a wholly more endearing image. They do get some guff, but no where near what Uber has been facing.
Re: (Score:3)
I know, licensing has a bit of a reason behind it, but still, I can't help feel that its the established players who want to kill any newcoming competition. that - in itself - really annoys me.
I wonder if this will backfire and people will want to support the underdog.
If you RTFA, you'll see that Uber is going to be doing business in accordance with the law, while this sorts out.
The issue, it would seem, is that Uber is trying to do an end run around regulations. It's whether you accept the concept that they are not a taxi company, but a service connecting drivers and riders. The problem is, they collect 20 percent of the drivers fares.
It takes a special kind of eel-snot slickness to try to make that argument, one that only anarchists and bottom of the barrel libert
Re: (Score:3)
That - in itself - really annoys me.
Well, I'll guess you'll just have to get in line behind us folks who think that just because you come up with a business idea, you still shouldn't be able to ignore laws. But I guess that's just those of us who believe in civilization.
ignoring the law, just dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
ignoring the law is not a good business strategy because you go to jail or at least court. they should have done what other companies do and buy some people in the government and have the laws changed in their favor.
on second thought, maybe it's for the best.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they should have just required all their drivers to hold the correct drivers licence.
Re:ignoring the law, just dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla is actually following or fighting the dealership laws. They do not have dealerships in States that do not allow them. Another difference is scale. Tesla may have one dealership in a city while Uber could have hundreds of drivers.
For all of Uber's Faults (Score:3, Interesting)
Just know that Germany is extremely protectionist on many fronts. For instance, every household has to pay over 20 euro each month to the VERY WELL OFF TV companies whether you want to or not. Or if you have a painting and auction it off, a portion goes off to the artists and their families for several generations, (often to collection agencies since said artist is dead), regardless of how you bought the painting/artwork and the arrangement at time of purchase. Let's not mention how their RIAA (GEMA) was so greedy, they couldn't make a deal with youtube for videos. You can't even buy common off-the-shelf drugs that would cost $20 for a couple hundred in the US, but rather have to pay a pharmacy like a buck a piece for there.
It's quite hostile to the free market on multiple fronts.
Re: (Score:3)
Just know that Germany is extremely protectionist on many fronts.
Recent discussions on GEZ or GEMA do not make me feel that there are lots of fans of them. The problem is that nobody can suggest a workable alternative.
But on-topic, Uber has to simply comply with the local law. The case in Frankfurt was heard in local court and its decision is only valid in state of Hessen. But the premise of the case was so simple that it didn't take long for judge to reach the verdict: Uber operates a taxi service, but doesn't comply with the relevant laws.
Uber's case has nothing to
Re: (Score:2)
Just know that Germany is extremely protectionist on many fronts. For instance, every household has to pay over 20 euro each month to the VERY WELL OFF TV companies whether you want to or not. Or if you have a painting and auction it off, a portion goes off to the artists and their families for several generations, (often to collection agencies since said artist is dead), regardless of how you bought the painting/artwork and the arrangement at time of purchase. Let's not mention how their RIAA (GEMA) was so greedy, they couldn't make a deal with youtube for videos. You can't even buy common off-the-shelf drugs that would cost $20 for a couple hundred in the US, but rather have to pay a pharmacy like a buck a piece for there.
It's quite hostile to the free market on multiple fronts.
Eh, what? Medicine is free, your health insurance (provided for free, of course, by the government) will pay for pretty much any medicine out there. They also test that stuff way more than they do in the United States, and I've at least found it to work much better. And if you think Germany has a screwed up cable system, I assure you, it's nowhere near as bad as in the United States. They pay for it each month like you do - but they pay 80 dollars, or about 75 Euros, and it's of far worse quality.
They (uber) seem not to care much about people (Score:2)
This driver has now confessed to having raped more women earlier, using the same modus operandi .
Re: (Score:3)
The problem wasn't the identity check,
The problem was that the driver provided a false criminal records check and Uber did not verify it's authenticity. It is weel know that many criminal records checks are forged in India. Had they done the check they would have found it false and not allowed him to drive.
Not sure how to feel about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure how to feel about this (Score:4, Insightful)
If Uber can call their drivers "contractors" what's to prevent everyone using that loophole to ignore minimum wage law?
Technically, it's against IRS regulations, but in reality, tons of small businesses do this for years and nothing ever happens to them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If Uber can call their drivers "contractors" what's to prevent everyone using that loophole to ignore minimum wage law?
I don't know about US Law, but in Canada, there are specific things that determine it for just this reason. A list of them is here: http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/employee.htm
A few that sound like they apply to Uber:
Control – Is the person under the direction and control of another regarding the time, place, and way in which the work is done?
Ownership of tools – Does the person use tools, space, supplies and equipment owned by someone else? If so, this would indicate an employment rela
Re: (Score:2)
Control – Is the person under the direction and control of another regarding the time, place, and way in which the work is done?
Uber drivers can only pick up passengers through the Uber system. They have to follow Uber rules of conduct. Check.
Ownership of tools – Does the person use tools, space, supplies and equipment owned by someone else? If so, this would indicate an employment relationship.
Uber drivers must use uber apps and Uber servers to communicate get fares. Check
An Uber driver is much closer to a employee paid on commission than a contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are closer to a contractor, which is why they are self employed. All Uber provides is the platform.
When I do contract work for a company I may be bound by that companies codes as well. Doesn't make me anything other than a contractor.
Re:Not sure how to feel about this (Score:4, Insightful)
The quote about tools is incomplete. Here is the rest of it.
However, it is recognized that some employers require employees to provide their own tools or vehicles.
You completely ignore the fact that Uber controls who they pick up. Uber drivers are not allowed to work for Lyft while working for Uber and are not allowed to pick up street fares.
A driver who is in his vehicle 10 hours a day five days a week picking up only Uber dispatched calls and who's only source of income is Uber is an Uber employee. Are all Uber drivers employees? Probably not. Are some Uber drivers Uber employees? Definitely.
Uber does not want them designated as employees as they would have to give them things like holiday pay, minimum wage, EI payments, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe with Uber a driver can refuse a job.
But they can not take other fares than from Uber.
Uber drivers own their own car, or lease it from a third party.
They also use Uber servers and software to receive dispatches.
Uber drives get paid per job.
So does anyone doing commissioned sales.
It is a grey area and depends on how one looks at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Very thin reasoning there.
Re: (Score:2)
If I hire a guy to build my fence and he doesn't turn up and do it, I'll "fire" him. He's not my employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Reposting an older comment, because... well, why not.
I've never understood how Uber drivers (or taxi drivers, for that matter) can even remotely be considered "independent contractors". The IRS says [irs.gov]:
Ube
Re:Not sure how to feel about this (Score:4, Informative)
If Uber can call their drivers "contractors" what's to prevent everyone using that loophole to ignore minimum wage law?
This is a great question, it comes up a lot more than one would normally think.
Most jurisdictions have established legal tests to determine if the relationship between two individuals is an employment relationship (contract of service) or a contractual relationship (contract for service). Common elements of the tests are:
1. Does the individual use his or her own equipment, or does the individual use equipment that is provided by the employer/contractee? If the individual uses his or her own equipment, then he or she is most likely a contractor.
2. Does the individual have a duty to obey or does the employee/contractor have greater autonomy over the tasks that he or she chooses to perform? If the individual can choose when to work and selects work from a provided list of work orders then he or she is likely a contractor. If the individual is obligated to perform whatever tasks are assigned to him or her as long as they are within the parameters of a job description, then he or she is most likely an employee.
3. Is there a framework for discipline? An employer can discipline an employee (within reason) according to company policy. A contractee cannot discipline a contractor; any grievances must be dealt with per the contract and disputes settled either by arbitration or in court. A contractee may of course ask a contractor to discipline his or her own employee.
4. When does the legal relationship terminate? A contract for service nominally ends whenever the contracted service has been completed. A contract of service ends whenever the relationship is severed by those involved. Companies that hire individuals on a "renewable contract basis" and do not provide them with specific work that constitutes service often find themselves on the undesirable side of a court decision.
There are many more elements involved and they do vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general though, the court will examine both the de-joure relationship and the de-facto relationship. When they do not align, the court often will decide in the best interest of the individual.
Free rides for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Not doing well in The Netherlands either (Score:5, Informative)
The Netherlands regulates taxis in order to maintain various standards of safety and fair competition. But Uber is an app that doesn't play by the rules. So they've been busted, several times.
Initially the drivers received warnings.
Then the fines started to increase, which Uber Corp. seems happy to pay. In January the penalties were 10,000 euros, and unlicensed drivers risk a criminal record:
(in Dutch) http://www.nu.nl/internet/3978... [www.nu.nl]
(English [google.com], machine translation)
Did that stop Uber, even when they were warned the next time, and subsequent violations would become 100,000 euros. No way!
(in Dutch) http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/... [www.nrc.nl]
(English [google.com], machine translation)
Uber defends itself by saying that innovation is faster than legislation. Uber says The Taxi Act of 2000, is outdated, and just keeps on truckin'
Re:Not doing well in The Netherlands either (Score:4, Interesting)
If Uber were a food company they would be one of the ones written about by Upton Sinclair.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxi companies have to settle for Paul Schrader [imdb.com]...
And who here really feels bad for the Uber CEO? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at this article [salon.com]. While many points are driver issues there are a significant number that are company issues that the CEO is responsible for. Some of those are "surge pricing", cancelling fares on competitors, high fees/low fares, poor background checks, privacy issues, muck raking journalists, etc.
Regulation (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how taxi companies seem to be more tightly regulated than banks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oligopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxis in most cities are oligopolies in that the business is controlled by a few companies. The reason oligopolies are created is that they are compensation for requirements put on them by the government. Here are a few examples of what taxi companies are required to do or have that Uber is not.
1. Commercial licenses for drivers.
2. Minimum number of cars on the road
3. Vehicle inspections
4. Insurance requirements.
5. Minimum wage for drivers
6. Minimum number of handicap accessible vehicles.
7. Requirement to pick up anyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
8. Set rate fares
9. Background checks
10. Accountability for drivers' actions (Uber just throws their hands in the air and says "they are a contractor I have no control" while taxi companies get fined)
11. Governance by a taxi board who decides on fines for poor service.
The laws for taxis have grown through the years and no jurisdiction in their right mind would want to go back to the days of no taxi regulations.
If Uber is allowed to flourish they may drive conventional taxis out of business. When the fad of driving for Uber fades we will be in a much worse situation.
overdue (Score:2)
Well many of us predicted this day was coming rapidly. You can't just ignore a countries laws because you don't like them and expect them to just sit idly by, especially after receiving so many warnings. I predict many more shutdowns and potentially arrests to come yet! and thoroughly deserved. No company should ever be permitted to make decisions on what laws to obey, It can be excusable for individuals out of protest etc, but companies get away with enough shit without allowing them to dictate which laws
Like a limo? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but why can't they simply fall under limo laws? A limo can't be hailed, but can pick you up at the airport.
Re: Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, in right wing capitalist America, the law still doesn't matter if you're a corporation.
Re:capitalism = race to bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
You could almost say capitalism is... a race to the top? Improving the living standard of everyone, where even the poorest of the poor have A/C and television?
*gives cookie*