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."

18 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. ignoring the law, just dumb. by Gravis+Zero · · 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.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:ignoring the law, just dumb. by jklovanc · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Not sure how to feel about this by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  3. Re: the establishment really does not like competi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except Uber is just exploiting people to enrich themselves.

  4. But they help also by SuperKendall · · 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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:But they help also by Shadow+of+Eternity · · 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.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:But they help also by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:But they help also by Anonymous Coward · · 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"

    4. Re:But they help also by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:But they help also by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, 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...
      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.

      --
      meep
    6. Re:But they help also by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      bickerdyke
    7. Re:But they help also by tehcyder · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Re: the establishment really does not like competi by JonathanR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think they call that "commerce". The drivers are probably exploiting Uber for their own enrichment.

  6. Re:the establishment really does not like competit by quantaman · · 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.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  7. Oligopoly by jklovanc · · 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.

  8. Re: the establishment really does not like competi by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Re: Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meanwhile, in right wing capitalist America, the law still doesn't matter if you're a corporation.

  10. Panama City by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.