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."
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
on the one hand Uber screws their drivers marginally less than real taxi cab companies; OTOH there's evidence they're gonna start acting just as bad, and I really don't like how they're getting away with calling what are very, very obviously employees "Independent Contractors". I hired a contractor to fix my fence. The fence has a 10 year warrantee and will likely stand for 20 before it has to be replaced again. Uber needs drivers every day or they go out of business. If Uber can call their drivers "contractors" what's to prevent everyone using that loophole to ignore minimum wage law?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Except Uber is just exploiting people to enrich themselves.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think they call that "commerce". The drivers are probably exploiting Uber for their own enrichment.
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.
I stole this Sig
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 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?
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.
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.
Meanwhile, in right wing capitalist America, the law still doesn't matter if you're a corporation.
So the question is.. would you put your money in a bank without regulation? ie. Uber
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You could save yourself a whole lot of typing by simply repeating, "I'm getting what I want, fuck everyone else."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
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.
That is all.
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*
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
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."