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."
... a fine using Bitcoin and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
Just know that Germany is extremely protectionist on many fronts. For instance, every household has to pay over 20 euro each month to the VERY WELL OFF TV companies whether you want to or not. Or if you have a painting and auction it off, a portion goes off to the artists and their families for several generations, (often to collection agencies since said artist is dead), regardless of how you bought the painting/artwork and the arrangement at time of purchase. Let's not mention how their RIAA (GEMA) was so greedy, they couldn't make a deal with youtube for videos. You can't even buy common off-the-shelf drugs that would cost $20 for a couple hundred in the US, but rather have to pay a pharmacy like a buck a piece for there.
It's quite hostile to the free market on multiple fronts.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Ubers plan for for entering a new markets has always been to start the service under the radar without asking permission. Once the have reached a certain number of users, a critical mass of sorts, they start advertising the service heavily relying on the user base to make a big stink if the regulatory agencies or courts try to stop them. In South Korea they went as far as offering free rides to everyone in order to keep in line with regulations but mostly to influence public opinion. The powers that be were clearly not amused.
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
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.
I think they call that "commerce". The drivers are probably exploiting Uber for their own enrichment.
So are taxi companies. And most of the drivers get paid better on Uber; much better! So they're exploiting people less than the big players, giving drivers more money, people cheaper fairs and they still turn enough money to keep them going.
The laws in place were designed to make sure taxi drivers got a fare shake and earned a decent amount of money; not to get pushed out by cheap-fly-by-night shit shops. But here we see the only people benefiting from this are the established taxi regimes.
The problem wasn't the identity check,
The problem was that the driver provided a false criminal records check and Uber did not verify it's authenticity. It is weel know that many criminal records checks are forged in India. Had they done the check they would have found it false and not allowed him to drive.
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?
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?
I don't have any problems with Uber not following the same laws and regulations, the same taxes and fees as established oligopolies do. But then I don't have any problem with the established oligopolies not having to follow that crap either.
These laws aren't put into place to restrict competition, as much as they are for consumer protection.
I don't buy it. Maybe that was the intent at one time. It's just barrier to entry now.
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?
I guess Uber doesn't buy better press. Last I checked, rape was illegal in the countries mentioned in the story. Maybe these localities should enforce existing law, assuming there actually is a problem to worry about.
Funny how taxi companies seem to be more tightly regulated than banks.
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.
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 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.
I have been cheated by nearly every cab driver I've ever used, had them refuse to accept payment from my wife, etc. None of that is even possible on Uber.
See, that's a pretty reasonable argument for why you support and use Uber. I may not totally agree, (I have mixed feeling about Uber personally), but that would have been a valid point. Instead you went with... "it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive" ...This is just inflammatory rhetoric and you know it. You were responding to a troll AC after all. So I don't know about mjwx, but your comment was a bit ridiculous also.
If you actually want to promote something, might want to find a better line of reasoning than 'they can scorch the earth, as long as it works for me'.
meep
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.
Exploitive of whom? The drivers? Uber can't possibly hold a candle to cab companies in that respect! Cab companies are fucking brutal when it comes to drivers who don't own their own cars, and provide a strong incentive to work 48-hour shifts in many markets - that doesn't help anyone.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
I guess Uber doesn't buy better press. Last I checked, rape was illegal in the countries mentioned in the story. Maybe these localities should enforce existing law, assuming there actually is a problem to worry about.
Perhaps you should read the article, that's exactly what they are doing- enforcing the law. Laws which say things such as "You have to conduct background checks and if someone has a rape conviction... don't let them drive people around for you."
But then I don't have any problem with the established oligopolies not having to follow that crap either.
That's a pretty broad claim to make. This isn't just a few places in the US getting pissed, it's pretty much every country they've started up business in.
Look, if you want to drive people around and get paid for it, there are things you have to do as a result. You need to carry insurance which covers your passengers. You need to prove your drivers are competent. You need to keep your vehicle maintained. You need to pay taxes on your income. You need to know who you're employing or contracting with. You're using the public roadways to make a profit, so some of that should go back to the public to help maintain the roadways.
Uber's business model it to try and circumvent or outright ignore as many costs as possible. They aren't trying to find ways to make things cheaper, but rather finding ways to shift the burden onto other people- the drivers, the public, and the passengers.
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?
Just take your pick. I'm not necessarily defending Uber, as they're not exactly a white knight in this story, but the notion that a government-issued license is going to somehow prevent sickos from assaulting women is naive.
The popularity of Uber and the dissatisfaction of traditional taxi's customers clearly show that a better solution can and should be found, so that services like Uber can legitimately compete for services, while at the same time not eschewing reasonable safety regulations that other taxi services must comply with.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Meanwhile, in right wing capitalist America, the law still doesn't matter if you're a corporation.
I spoke to hundred of Uber drivers about this here in SF (basically every ride I take..) - not a single one so far echo'd that stuff. I'm sure they could be paid more and have more advantage, but every single time they're telling me that they make more with Uber (even on 7USD pool rides, they get more than 7 USD) than they would with most jobs they could take at this time in their lives - certainly more than taxi drivers too!
So I don't know but that deal seems to work good enough for them.
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but why can't they simply fall under limo laws? A limo can't be hailed, but can pick you up at the airport.
apparently heinlein existed in a universe where the rich and powerful don't take advantage of the poor and weak, as has been the case since, gee, all of history and every society
people who believe stuff like that heinlein quote are known by those with money and power as "useful fools" and "good slaves"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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?
So, to prevent crime... make the thing that was criminal, no longer criminal? Brilliant!
Not saying it's a bad decision, mind you.
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?
Telling someone they can't make a living by running a pretty darn good service sounds awfully wrong to me.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
If you RTFA, you'll see that Uber is going to be doing business in accordance with the law, while this sorts out.
The issue, it would seem, is that Uber is trying to do an end run around regulations. It's whether you accept the concept that they are not a taxi company, but a service connecting drivers and riders. The problem is, they collect 20 percent of the drivers fares.
It takes a special kind of eel-snot slickness to try to make that argument, one that only anarchists and bottom of the barrel libertarians would accept - you know, the type of people who say doctors shouldn't be certified, because after enough patients of the incompetent ones die, the free market will prevail.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That - in itself - really annoys me.
Well, I'll guess you'll just have to get in line behind us folks who think that just because you come up with a business idea, you still shouldn't be able to ignore laws. But I guess that's just those of us who believe in civilization.
That is all.
I get that they have shitty terms of semi-employment. However, I'm not sure I understand who is being forced to work for them.
It sucks to be a coal miner, so I decided that I really have no interest in being one and consequently, I am not. Presumably, Uber drivers in a place like Germany would have options for better employment terms? So, why do they work for Uber?
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.
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire.
Besides, Heinlein is overrated, eternally stuck in the 1950ies and had a strange obsession with slide rules.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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."
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.
Actually, there are fairly well worked out regulations for this kind of thing, in the aviation and marine industries. They very likely apply to cars as well.
The basic guideline is your "it certainly should not have an expectation of profit." For example, if you're a pilot or skipper and you're taking some people up or out, they can pay for their share of the fuel, but no more. They cannot pay you for your time. I'd have to look up the rules on non-monetary compensation (lunch), but I'm sure it's covered.
Uber isn't ride sharing not because money changes hands, but because Uber drivers are making far more than the passenger's share of the fuel. Uber's own ads advertise "now your car is a money maker."