Slashdot Mirror
Uber Raided By Dutch Authorities, Seen As 'Criminal Organization'
An anonymous reader writes: Uber offices in Amsterdam have been raided by Dutch authorities, as reported by several local media sources (Google translation of original in Dutch). This follows intimidatory deterrence practices earlier in The Netherlands, with Uber drivers being fined in the past months, and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice). Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere?
Uber's lawyers must be incredibly busy. Proposed regulations in London would effectively end the company's service there, while the mayor of Rio de Janeiro said he would ban Uber's operations outright. They're receiving mixed messages from Australia — just a day after running afoul of regulations in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory is moving to legalize it.
It is currently not allowed to offer taxi services without a permit (and related stuff: insurance, markings on the car etc. depending on EU-country).
Work to change the law before you start the business.
There are lots of things you can't do without certification/permits/etc. If your plan is to fuck it all then you ARE working outside of the law. (car analogy: building your own car and not approving it - or in tax-insane Finland: paying car import tax on the burocrat-estimated worth of your self-built car).
Why the scare quotes around 'criminal organisation'? Uber's business model is to break the laws of every country they operate in and then hoping that the authorities are too timid to crack down on them. That by definition makes them a criminal organisation.
Oh, and nice bit of LOLbertarian bias in the summary.
In an attempt to cut through the bullshit of what *might* happen and work directly from evidence, I came across a report of a Cato institute study:
A Cato Institute study shows key differences between rideshare services and taxis, but passenger safety isn't one of them.
The other differences are not as important and will probably get solved by other means. For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.
The economists here are quick to point out the importance of liquidity, and Uber adds much needed liquidity to the taxi system.
Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?
"Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere?"
how about, Time for tech companies to stop thinking local laws don't fucking apply to them. Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market. NO company should get to decide what laws they will and won't obey, that is a slippery slope that no one wants to be on.
What doesn't Uber understand about municipal codes? Yes, taxi service sucks, but just because I think I want to get to work faster doesn't mean I can break the speed limit. We have laws for a reason; if Uber wants to compete,it has to compete according to the LAW. If it wants to change the law, the ballot is where that should happen. After all, Uber is lining the pockets of politicians now, anyway - to let them help Uber break the law. It's absurd.
Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.
As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.
Fuck the taxi cartels and the governments that support them.
You mean fuck the Dutch government for abolishing the taxi cartels in 2000 ?
Uber is as always trying to avoid the costs of running a business by skirting around proper insurance, standardised equipment and related local laws. Even if there was an artificially high cost of entry into the market (which I could find no hint of) it would be hard to keep an international giant like Uber from operating legally.
COMPANIES have no right to commit civil disobedience, only individuals can do that. For a company that just makes them a criminal organization.
that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.
It's more than that, and you know it. Uber are choosing to have their drivers operate outside the local rules. Their drivers do not have insurance for passengers, and they do not have full background checks performed. So fuck yourself instead, moron.
Uber are more than welcome to compete, but like all the other companies, they have to adhere to the local laws. They have a system that works, they merely need to play by the rules.
Don't like the laws? The fuck off back to Murica, you won't be missed.
So you admit to trolling the forum? "Fighting emotions with emotions?" Then you are no better than the people you are trying to fight.
If you want to fight with facts or analysis, don't come up with cheap shots, come up with facts and analysis by yourself.
Speaking of facts: how do you know that these "fukin' law-breakers" commenters are angry taxi drivers? Perhaps they are just like me, EU citizens that don't like that a foreign company come over here and piss all over our welfare system (yes, the one giving me education and healthcare, that is paid by taxes, the same taxes Uber et al are trying to skirt with their "disruptive technology") because they want to make a profit. Anyone can undercut someone else if they stop worrying about laws, regulations or moral consequences, there is nothing new about that. Where I live taxis are plentiful and unless a special event is happening, getting a taxi is as easy as picking up your phone. The cab is there before I can get my jacket on and walk down to the door. Most big taxi companies here already have their apps, so you don't have to worry about using your phone to make an actual call to a living person. What does Uber offer me? Cheaper rides. There are already illegal cabs offering that service if the price is all you care about. Still, Uber is trying to get into the scene by not employing drivers (thus not paying taxes/healthcare for them) because it will be more profitable for them. But not for the city I live in and it's inhabitants.
I find forums like these are equally filled with Uber fanbois unquestionably hailing the new economy and thinking other cities/countries should bow down to the Uber overlords that has given us backwards living cavemen the illumination of divine insight. These fanboys were here long before the "fukin' law-breaker" commenters started showing up and those with Uber-opposing views were quite moderate in their choice of words when criticising Uber. Might one have given birth to the other? I too get fed up when I hear the same things over and over again. I understand that some people finally stop trying to be civil and start using explicatives.
Some laws and regulations might be wrong, but as a company you either adhere to them or face the consequences, which Uber now is doing. And while on the subject of civil disobedience, facing the consequence IS the desired effect. As an individual you can oppose the law with the intention of being brought to justice, hoping that the judicial system will expose the unjust laws and change them. This is allowed since you yourself are willing to take the risk. If you are found right, laws are changed and you are potentially freed. If wrong, you face the consequences of breaking the law.
If you do "civil disobedience" and have no intention of getting caught/changing the system, you are just a law-breaker that thinks the laws are dumb and cannot call the "civil disobedience card".
Actually the Dutch taxi market is pretty open nowadays, with several thousand not affiliated taxis in Amsterdam only. But the Netherlands is a pretty regulated country. For driving a taxi for example you need a license (easily obtainable) and there are fixed tariff regulations. Obviously Uber drivers have no such license and don't comply with the tariff regulation. I don't know any democratic nation where an organization which actively organizes and supports activities which don't comply with the law is not seen as a criminal organization.
Doesn't mean that Uber won't be seen as a kind of emancipationary club somewhere down the line. But now...
Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes. But i don't think the attitude towards Uber taxis will change anytime soon.
And you might change that opinion if you are ever in an accident while being a passenger in an Uber 'taxi' and it turns out he's missing all the liability insurance that are requisite for any form of public transport company in the netherlands and it turns out his personal insurance doesn't cover 'professional services' as every consumer car insurance policy in the Netherlands does.
--- Sometimes even music cannot substitute for tears. --Paul Simon, Cool Cool River
Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.
Uber is "ride sharing" in the same way pizza delivery is "food sharing". Namely it is not. With Uber you hire a vehicle and driver to take you from one location to another. There is no "sharing" involved. Sharing would be if the driver planned to go from A to B and picked up someone else who happened to be going the same way. For example, many non-profit commuter services are ride sharing as do just that. That is not what Uber does.Being an Uber driver is a part time job and nothing else.
jcr, you're a regular poster as am I, you're a level headed guy, but as an ex taxi driver I have to say you have your head up your arse on this one.
IMO Uber are the worst kind of rent seeker, the kind that prey on people who are desperate enough to sign up as a driver. Uber's over-inflated "market value" has to collapse because at some point the "market" will become bored with the legal battles over 'freedom' and want a real ROI. I don't have any pity for the investors, just the honest drivers who go in with a reliable car and no money, and come out a year or two later with an unroadworthy clunker, and still no money.
If you think I'm exaggerating, the oldest taxi I ever drove was 5yrs off the showroom floor, it had 1.1 million kilometers on the clock, only the body work was original, even the seat sliders had been replaced at least once. Unless the Uber driver is also a mechanic, it would be cheaper for them to buy a 'runout-model' used car once a year. Most taxi's are a one man / one car operations, they lease/rent it to another regular driver or two to keep it on the road 24X7, and buying a 'new' car once every year or so is how they handle the entropy problem. They don't earn a lot of money, the 'plates' (medallion in the US) is the taxi owner's superannuation. The "hidden costs" are the reason Uber refuses to play by the rules, driving a cab doesn't pay enough to satisfy them so they insert themselves in the middle, they even "generously" offer to pay the drivers fines while at the same time offloading all the real costs onto the poor sap.
Also they are not a 'taxi' company as they would like you to think, in most places they are a traditional 'limo' company using sub-contractors, fuck me they were around when I was driving in the 80's, nobody had heard of the internet but we did have phones. Limos can't be flagged down, nor can they use taxi rank infrastructure. Using sub-contractors and ordering it on a computer is hardly revolutionary, so it's not the regulations that are broken, it's Uber's business model. For good reasons it was illegal before the internet was born, "on a computer" doesn't change that.
Again, I'm genuinely surprised you have swallowed Uber's 'hipster' marketing.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.