Slashdot Mirror
Uber Now Blocked All Over Germany
An anonymous reader writes Following the blocking of Uber in Berlin, DE, the district court of Frankfurt/Main has issued a restraining order for Uber services all over Germany (German original). The district court is alleging "uncompetitive behavior" (Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten) on Uber's part, and has proclaimed that not following the restraining order will result in a fine of €250.000 or imprisonment. This ruling is related to the German "Personenbeförderungsgesetz" and is outlining that no legal entity (person, enterprise) is allowed to transfer passengers without having passed the relevant tests and having the appropriate insurance coverage.
You want to play in our market? Play by our rules. Don't claim that your 'innovative new paradigm' renders those rules obselete and ignore them.
- no insurance in case of accidents (insurance for person transport costs about 10x what a normal car owner pays for his car alone) ...shall I continue?
- no rigorous technical car checks as they are required for cabs
- no transport obligation (a cab here HAS to transport you, even if you just want to go around the corner)
- no reliable costs (cabs here cost the same all the time, no matter whether it's an early morning in march or New Year's eve)
- no proper filing of taxes
- no right for the drivers to form a workers council, therefore dumping payment is to be expected
- no health insurance, no social insurance, no pension payments for the drivers
(it might be, that some of these points don't apply to US cabs as well, here they don't)
The term "Unlauteres Wettbewerbsverhalten" does not mean "uncompetitive behavior"; it means "competition that violates good taste" or "competition that violates moral standards". A better translation might be "unfair competition".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
How so?
The rules in question here are questions of insurance, of proper training for drivers, of car maintenance... the same rules that cab drivers and companies in Germany have been following for many years.
How are these rules 'made to prevent US companies from gaining traction'?
Unless of course, having local law that everybody (local companies as well as US companies) have to follow is preventing US companies in your eyes. I mean, sure, they are not used to actually having to follow laws they don't like. It's real mean of European governments and regulators to actually check whether companies follow the law...
This isn't about protectionism.
This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.
Sure, US companies are not used to do that, but that is a problem of the US, not of the other countries.
Germany has laws regulating persons and companies that want to be active in the transport business. These laws where not made to keep US companies out. The laws are a lot older than Uber. They are there to protect consumers and give them a certain amount of safety.
Ubers profits are not more important than everybodies safety.
It's a grey area and the companies you link already have had some problems. However, the companies themselves already link the limits on their sites themselves:
Keep in mind they would not be facing these injunctions if they were playing by the same rules as the competition. It is kinda like a street vender skipping on sales tax, of course they can offer lower prices if they do not have to pay taxes, but that is pretty unfair to the stores that are collecting it. Thus unfair trade practices.
That is at the core of the issue. Either allow all taxi drivers to operate without license or regulation, or require uber drivers to meet those requirements. Anything else would seem unfair to me.
Yes, attacking government revenue streams is not exactly anti competative though. But this is the world we live in. This is such a hard thing to explain to the layperson.
You realize are real costs involved Uber isn't paying? Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers. They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times. They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.
And that's about what's happening with Uber and Lyft. We will end up paying the costs they are ignoring. To make matters worse, those costs will be spread out over everyone even those most will never use these services. As it's a semi-elite market, that translate to those who can least afford it will subsidize cheaper rides for those who can and we'll all pay added tax dollars essentially straight into the pockets of Uber's founders. I can't blame Germany for being smart and making them follow the rules.
This applies for all taxicab companies, no matter their size. What Uber is doing is to make an end-run around those laws by offering taxicab rides from drivers who *don't* meet those requirements. Makes it easy to undercut people who do abide by the law eh? Sounds like unfair competition to me.
So how the hell is enforcing such laws "Socialist"?
And whoever decided this Anonymous Coward's drive-by comment qualifies as "insightful"?
The NYC medallions are transferable property, so the fee for the medallion doesn't go to the city, it goes to the seller.
To be fair (you're responding to my post), in San Francisco the permit sticker (equivalent to NYC medallion) is non-transferable, so you're paying ~$150,000 to the city. But it's not a real source of income to the city, because they city rarely issues new ones, and turn-over is low. Usually what happens is 3 or 4 guys put up the money together, and also some banks will issue business loans to acquire the permit.
So, again, the whole point of the monopoly is to benefit taxi drivers. It's definitely not a taxation scam by the city or state; not in any way, shape, or form. You can research the history yourself. IIRC it started in either NYC or maybe Chicago, because prior to these schemes everybody with four wheels and an engine would pretend to be a taxi. It didn't provide a stable income, which meant there were serious quality and consistency issues.
I'm just pointing out the facts in the hopes of pointing out some cognitive dissonance here. I don't personally have any strong opinions wrt Uber. Times have changed, and it would be wrong to simple argue that without these regulations we would necessarily revert to the bad old times. But you can't simply ignore their function, either. And that doesn't even get into the whole insurance issue.
Uber, Lyft, etc drivers absolutely-fscking-lutely should be properly insured, often times they're not, and that's just plain wrong.
"suddenly there is unfair competition?"
It's not the app. Yes, you can drive people around the city in your car, but once you start charging them to take them somewhere, you are operating a taxi service.
Either we overregulate these services and all taxi companies should be able to operate in an unregulated manner, or we have sufficient regulation and therefore Uber must play by the rules. But the status quo is certainly neither fair nor sustainable.
In Europe trying to refute an action by calling it socialist doesn't work.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The dirty tricks you listed all take the same form: excluding people from the market. If you believe that we all have a fundamental right to buy and sell and provide services and otherwise participate in commerce, then the only discussion is how best to approach that ideal. Laws that grant monopolies or create significant barriers to entry are wholly bad under that lens.
Of course there's a tension there between that freedom and a different set of dirty tricks: fraud and unsafe products. There's very little dissent, outside of the extreme corners of libertarianism, that regulations to insure some sort of minimum quality/safety are good in principle. But it's quite odd how, whenever someone suggests that the market is unduly restricted by heavy-handed government monopoly granting, the speaker is accused of wanting to destroy safety regulations.
If you want a market where it's easy for anyone to participate, you want both minimum-possible government barriers to entry and a significant government role in fraud prevention and safety. It's not a "more vs less government" argument at all, really. That's just a distraction. The real question is "given that we need some government role in product safety and fraud prevention, how do we prevent that grant of power to the government from being twisted and corrupted into monopoly-granting?"
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.