Slashdot Mirror
Uber Shut Down In Multiple Countries Following Raids
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."
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...
(English, 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/...
(English, 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 Uber says The Taxi Act of 2000, is outdated, and just keeps on truckin'
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
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.
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 relationship.
Payment – Is the person paid regular amounts at set intervals? Does the person get paid regardless of customer satisfaction or customer payment? These factors indicate an employment relationship.
I don't know enough about how uber works to have a clear answer, but if they get to choose what fairs to take and use their own vehicle it sounds like those are satisfied as contractor.
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.
I know that established taxi companies are fighting this, and I'm sure that's a big part of why Uber is getting harassed, but Uber is a really sleazy company. If Uber were more sympathetic I imagine there'd be more of a push to defend them.
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.
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.
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/...
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.
Portmout, NH sa one Uber driver. The taxi business in a town of 20,000 is very different that in a city of 20,000,000.
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.
IANAL but a bit of googling revealed that apparently German taxis are subject to at least these laws or parts of them: (I'll selectively paraphrase; there's quite a bite more in there.)
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
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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...
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
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.