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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.