Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Anti-Uber Taxi Protest Blocks Access To Airports In France 333

Posted by Soulskill from the meters-are-running dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Taxi drivers in France have been complaining that a recently passed law against unlicensed commercial drivers is being flouted by Uber, and going relatively unenforced by authorities. They claim to have lost 30% of their income to Uber over the past two years, and they've become fed-up with the situation. The taxi drivers have now started an indefinite, nation-wide strike in protest. Part of that strike involves blocking access to Paris's Roissy airport as well as the main road encircling the city. Protesters have also blocked access to train stations in Merseille and Aix. "The drivers — who have to pay thousands of euros for a license — say they are being unfairly undercut by Uber, which is not licensed by the authorities. Prosecutors have cracked down on Uber, filing almost 500 legal cases involving complaints about UberPOP. About 100 attacks on Uber drivers and passengers have been reported in recent weeks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Uber Taxi Protest Blocks Access To Airports In France More

Anti-Uber Taxi Protest Blocks Access To Airports In France

Comments Filter:

  • We strike for right to treat customers like shit! (Score:4, Funny)

    by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @10:59AM (#49985919)

    Uber is taking away our right to treat customers like shit! Now these Uber drivers with their fancy daily bathing practices, non-arrogant attitudes, and actual fair pricing are taking wine from our baby's mouths! WE WANT OUR MONOPOLY BACK!!!

    • Re:We strike for right to treat customers like shi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuasiSteve ( 2042606 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @11:10AM (#49986019)

      Technically, they should already have 'a monopoly'. They're putting up these blocks because the government is unwilling or unable to actually enforce previously existing laws OR the new law that was passed back in October 2014.

      And since governments don't take too kindly to protests against its own institution (you may protest.. you know, somewhere out in a field where nobody's bothered by it, sees it, and you accomplish nothing - there's a good little citizen), they've taken to these measures.

      Whether that will result in the law getting enforced, or ferrying people about is turned into a free for all (in which case the 'official' taxi drivers should not have to get a license and pay for that either), for the time being they have every right to be upset; not so much at Uber, but certainly at the French government.

      Though if you think this is bad - keep an eye on Calais and the French government's unwillingness to deal with that clusterfuck.

      • A monopoly is when one company owns the market. Therefore Taxi's aren't a monopoly. If there were only a few operators then it may be an oligopoly, but I'm afraid this isn't the case either. What the taxi industry has is known as a 'viable market'.

    • Re:We strike for right to treat customers like shi (Score:4, Informative)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @11:12AM (#49986031) Journal
      You'll want to avoid Paris in general when travelling by air; pick a different airport to change flights if you can. Good advice from my travel agent. If it isn't the cabbies on strike, it'll be the air traffic controllers, baggage handlers, caterers, customs officers, cleaning staff, or the guys with the lollipos guiding the planes to the terminal.

    • Re:We strike for right to treat customers like shi (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @12:01PM (#49986593)
      Is that better than you taking away the right for Uber to treat their employees.. er, contractors? No.. Let's just call them phone associates with no bargaining power whatsoever... is it better that Uber is allowed to treat them like shit? Just because people will do the job doesn't mean that it's right that people are in the position that they have no choice.

    • This is the biggest misunderstanding when it comes to not allowing uber drivers in a city. Yes, uber threatens another business model's bottom line and they are going to fight back. However, if you are a city planner and you know that you can not in any form or fashion have unlimited vehicles in a given city, then you have to limit it by charging high license fees. Secondly, the cities in question want people to utilize public transportation more because of their costs to maintain those system and their emp

  • I don't get the problem with going after Uber (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @11:02AM (#49985961) Journal

    You call for a ride, and arrest/fine the driver when her or she arrives. It's not like they're hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan.

  • Right to protest (Score:3)

    by CimmerianX ( 2478270 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @11:03AM (#49985971)

    They can protest the uneven playing field.... but attacking uber drivers just because they are taking a chunk of the customer base is way off line.... Jimmy Hoffa would be proud.

    • Yeah it sounds like taxi drivers are dangerous. If only there were some sort of ride share system providing reviews of taxis and passengers, as well as traceability so if you go missing we can question the last person you came into contact with, all including $1 million of insurance...

    • > They can protest the uneven playing field.

      They created the uneven playing field. I would like to cordially invite them to have sex with themselves.

  • I don't really have very strong feelings in this debate, but that kind of protesting isn't acceptable. Standing outside a government building or your company's HQ to protest, that's perfectly fine. However, once you start interfering with other people's lives (who aren't involved in this at all), I view that as unacceptable and utterly puerile. While I don't call for arrests like the other people who've posted ahead of me, I do hope the police force open the roads.

    • > I don't really have very strong feelings in this debate, but that kind of protesting isn't acceptable. Standing outside a government building or your company's HQ to protest, that's perfectly fine. However, once you start interfering with other people's lives (who aren't involved in this at all), I view that as unacceptable and utterly puerile. While I don't call for arrests like the other people who've posted ahead of me, I do hope the police force open the roads.

      Democracy is about convincing the voti

      • > I don't really have very strong feelings in this debate, but that kind of protesting isn't acceptable. Standing outside a government building or your company's HQ to protest, that's perfectly fine. However, once you start interfering with other people's lives (who aren't involved in this at all), I view that as unacceptable and utterly puerile. While I don't call for arrests like the other people who've posted ahead of me, I do hope the police force open the roads.

        Democracy is about convincing the voting public. If you annoy the voting public so much, that they call on the government to give in just to shut up the protesters, then it's a job well done!

        Of course though, it's a gamble. the police could use questionable (potentially illegal) strong-arm tactics to remove the protesters, with the blessing of the annoyed public. But this is France, a very pro-union country that regularly sees strikes by the public sector, and often with the public's support.

        But then why don't the taxi drivers actually compete in the market? Offer better quality service, make apps that allow the same convenience as with uber, improve the condition of the cars, etc. THAT would be what's supposed to happen in a free market, and it's not like they can't compete. Maybe petition to lower the cost of licenses.

        Besides, it's not like the taxi drivers are in the minority here. They've already won this argument; Uber is illegal in France, so I really don't see what they're protesting fo

        • Because a free market in the case of transportation will just devolve into the cheapest possible service in which no one wins but for the corporation and is a general safety threat to the public. No one thinks they will get into an accident when they get into a car so they won't pay for the protection they have a right to. unless regulation forces them to buy into it.

      • Agreed.

        I am fine with them striking. They have that right. They can picket, they can petition the government, they can withold their personal services. That is a form of collective bargaining. Love it.

        When you become aggressive however, you lose my support.

        To bring MLK into it (since FranTaylor apparently loves him so much), if the Birmingham bus boycott had instead been people BLOCKING buses in Birmingham, things would have looked a lot different.

  • I guess the name Uber would upset the French, after all they get to hear deutschland über alles everytime the Germans invade...

    • Don't worry. What they hear sounds completely different. I doubt anyone learned to pronounce the umlaut correctly. Actually, it would sound more like what you'd get when French or English speakers sing "deutschland über alles".....

  • If the police won't enforce the law against unlicensed commercial drivers providing taxi services using improperly licensed vehicles, then what choice do those following the law have?

    The fact of the matter is that Uber's business model appears to be, "We're on the Internet, so we don't have to follow your regulations."

    • No, Uber's model is to bring in real competition to a service industry that has rested easily on a state-imposed monopoly for WAY too long.

      • Re:Understandable in this case (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FranTaylor ( 164577 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @11:41AM (#49986385)

        No, Uber's model is to bring in real competition to a service industry that has rested easily on a state-imposed monopoly for WAY too long.

        if that were ACTUALLY true then they would be working WITH governments to improve competition instead of blatantly breaking existing laws and feigning ignorance.

        Silly silly you, their model is to make as much money as possible for the stakeholders while not caring about anyone else. They really don't care if their drivers are ruined financially if they get in an accident. They don't care if their passengers are robbed or raped. They are a corporation, they are not allowed to care about these things.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          working WITH governments

          But it is these very governments who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And the bureaucracy to support it.

      • So if you feel that strongly that the law is unjust, stand up and change it and then start a company. Don't stand behind someone who is breaking the law and hurl insults.

  • The acceptance or otherwise of a market disrupter like Uber is a good predictor of the future progress and well-being of a country or locality. If statists rule and the status quo becomes a reason unto itself, then expect a drift downwards. The results are not immediate, it is a slow process. First you have France, then Greece, then Cuba, and finally North Korea.

    On the other hand, if you welcome change and are willing to let the buggy whip makers perish, then you are Silicon Valley, the USA, South Korea, an

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FranTaylor ( 164577 )

      "progress" means we go from a safe cab ride from a licensed cab drivers, to scary joy rides from unknown unlicensed unaccountable strangers who downloaded an app.

      • Nobody is forcing you to use Uber. On the other hand, you are being forced to use licensed taxis. So much for freedom.

        • Unfortunately, that isn't really true. In my area, flagging a taxi on a Friday night was no big deal. Weekends were "gravy" for taxi drivers, so they busted their asses to get fares and actually earn a few bucks. Uber absorbed 80% of the weekend evening traffic within 12 months, making it difficult to actually find a taxi willing to do a $10 fare.

          Some of the taxi drivers figured out that they were in trouble quickly, and couldn't afford the gate fees from the taxi company, so they went from Taxi drivers

          • Just like taxis, Uber is not the only game in town. I will be quite happy if Lyft, SideCar or some other upstart competes.

        • When licensed cabs go out of business due to the lower cost of operating unlicensed internet based cabs you will be forced to use unlicensed internet based cabs. So much for freedom.

          • Some people don't see that the taxi industry are just trying to keep themselves viable.

            • Some people just don't see the reasons behind regulation of the taxi industry and the costs associated with that regulation. Regulation was created due to bad actors when there were no regulations. No large city would ever want to go back to an unregulated taxi industry.

          • If licensed taxis offer genuine value (cost, training, insurance, courtesy, redress) then they will not go out of business. If they do not, they have no place and will not be missed.

      • Progress also means a de-evolution of employment standards. People get to start a company and have associates by phone now. No obligation to the worker whatsoever. I can't wait until the company I work for picks up on this.

    • Evidence please?

      North Korea historically disrupted a lot of markets, but that wasn't good. Greece didn't really try to stop market disruptions... they had a bubble burst.

      Meanwhile, I don't expect China to welcome market innovation at all... they use tried and true methods at a huge scale.

      Hell, Cuba has a lung cancer vaccine!

      Before you complain about Nitpicking... I'm saying that the majority of your examples seem off. You kinda just made a socialism and/or communism vs. capitalism argument in a different

      • I'm saying that the majority of your examples seem off. You kinda just made a socialism and/or communism vs. capitalism argument in a different cloth. Which has nothing to do with whether regulations exist.

        My example are indeed "off", because there are no perfect examples. Some states in the USA are ok with Uber, while at the same time enforcing "certificate of need" laws. My argument is not about socialism and/or communism vs. capitalism, is is about socialism and/or communism vs, a free market. There are varying degrees of either and I postulate that acceptance of Uber is a good indicator of local opinion, and therefore of future prosperity.

    • Any argument which puts Albania ahead of France in any way except alphabetically is simply ridiculous.

  • Sooo.... why don't the taxi drivers just quit their jobs and go work for Uber instead?

    Like, seriously?

    Wtf is the problem?

    • Like, seriously?

      Wtf is the problem?

      " Prosecutors have cracked down on Uber, filing almost 500 legal cases "

      can you still drive a taxi when you are in jail?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        Uber just pays the fine/bail and the driver is out in 90 minutes or less. This is a non-event everywhere where uber is "illegal". Personally I'm in favor of Uber over Taxis, if Uber stopped operating in my city, I would just buy a car and stop using ride services. Because Taxis are awful.
         
        You have a lot of posts in this thread already.

    • Most Uber drivers aren't full-time. You need your own car which is up to their standards. Driving for Uber is a lot like a second job at McDonalds... only where you need to spend a lot more to make marginally above minimum wage.

      • People are only doing it because of desperate economy. Basically, Uber is banking on the economy remaining desperate, and may actually be helping to continue it.
    • Because they want a chance to make a living capable of supporting a family and making a comfortable life, as opposed to popping bennies and driving for 72 hours straight just to keep things going? Just a guess. Also, they've made expensive business investments in the licenses to drive, which is now becoming useless. How would you feel if several families suddenly decided to move into your house and the government refused to do anything about them?

    • Most Uber drivers work part time for extra money. They generally have another job that pays the bills. It is very difficult to make a living wage driving full time for Uber.

    • Because that would require they (taxi drivers) buy and maintain a car themselves, instead of the Taxi Company's fleet vehicles

  • The difference is that when these protesters break the law it inconveniences people. When uber breaks the law, it actually makes people's lives more convenient.

  • ... where people could sign up to be drivers for people who wanted to share rides to work during rush hour commutes.

    It was expected that passengers would at least be willing to compensate drivers for gasoline used, but there was also a general practice of passengers giving drivers an honorarium for their time, typically once every other week or so. The latter of these two was not actually permitted to be demanded by the driver, but it was still a general practice among club members, so in the long run,

    • Scale, and an explicit transaction. The carpool club's manager doesn't get a cut for facilitating the carpool club. Someone can't facilitate a dozen carpool clubs and take a percentage. That's why Uber is a taxi company and not a carpool club.

  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @12:39PM (#49987033)

    "About 100 attacks on Uber drivers and passengers have been reported in recent weeks."

    Taking a page out the Unions' playbook eh?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @12:51PM (#49987197)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Uber is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by prefec2 ( 875483 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @04:03PM (#49989757)

    Uber is a company which provides an app and additional technology using cheapest labor (average driver) on the back of cheap labor (taxi drivers) to generate lots of money for those who already have enough. Therefore, do not use Uber. Do not support Uber. Instead support the protest.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close