Uber Banned in Germany and France, and Faces Lawsuits in Multiple States (nbcnews.com)

An anonymous reader writes that Uber "has suffered double-losses in Europe, as both France and Germany continue to reject the company's validity in their regions." Meanwhile, a Boston Uber driver filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday accusing Uber of illegally classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing full employee benefits. An Indianapolis driver has filed a similar suit, which also complains that Uber won't let them accept tips, and keeps any tips that customer's pay them through Uber's app. And remember when Uber and Lyft left Austin after losing a local election which would've required all their drivers to be fingerprinted? Now two lawsuits charge the companies were required to give 60 days notice to all their employees, and is demanding back pay and benefits.

But an anonymous reader quotes this column from the Los Angeles Times arguing that a federal judge's ultimate question is just "how sleazy" Uber really is. We're familiar with the Uber that talked about responding to bad publicity by digging up dirt on reporters following the company. Also the Uber that allegedly stalked passengers using its service, following their travel routes for the amusement of its party-goers... What about the Uber that secretly investigated a lawyer representing an adversary in a lawsuit, and then lied about it? That's the Uber that Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York wants to hear a lot more about. On Thursday he ordered Uber to turn over to the other side a pile of documents related to the investigation.
Slashdot reader chasm22 points out that the high-powered investigator hired by Uber is apparently a retired senior CIA officer -- a former chief strategy officer, chief of cyberthreat analysis and chief of counterintelligence.

Comments

Alas for the poor driver

[CrimsonAvenger]

He gets to work whenever he wants to, for as long (or as short) as he wants to, and yet he'd rather be classed as a wage slave...

I'm curious as to whether he'll still want to work for Uber if they actually treat him as an employee - regular hours, layoffs, that sort of thing....

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[beelsebob]

I think it's rather the reverse. If you're going to classify us as contractors, you need to give us all the benefits that independent business men have. Uber drivers should be able to set their own price, accept tips for their work that don't go to uber, etc.

The only interaction at that point between uber and the driver should be "Uber: we're going to charge you a finders fee of $x per mile for a passenger; Driver: Okay, I'm willing to pay you that".

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[JeffAtl]

If you're going to classify us as contractors, you need to give us all the benefits that independent business men have.

What type of contractors get to set the price to the end user?

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[rockmuelle]

All of them? When I contract, I tell my prospective customers my rate and they can either work with me, offer a different rate, or look for a different contractor. Uber drivers don't have this flexibility.

-Chris

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[NicBenjamin]

Interestingly enough, if you talk to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about a work schedule set by the employer is actually a minuscule bit of the IRS's three tests. Tenured college profs, for example, only actually have a set schedule on when they have to teach classes. Their office hours, when they're doing research, etc. are their own damn business. Even the much abused Associate Prof is an employee, and they don't even have to be in the state except for class time (which is negotiated with the school, not set from on-high) or office hours (which is set by the prof). Just about any high-level employee can similarly re-negotiate his work schedule and get a paid half-day off to help out at his kid's field trip.

It's also incredibly easy to find examples of contractors who have set schedules. You get hired as a contractor to fix an interior door in a building which is locked except during office hours, and the contract specifies you don't get paid unless you're done lickety–split, plus a nice juicy bonus if it's done tomorow, guess what you're doing from 9-5 tomorrow?

At-risk capital is much more important (Uber drivers own their vehicles, so they do have at--risk capital which indicates contractor), as is employer control (and since Uber drivers are damn near paranoid about pissing off the company, and act like Uber controls them, it does indicating employee), as is the nature of the business (if Uber's lawyers are right, and they aren't a transportation company this indicates contractor; if anyone sane is right and they sell cab rides it indicates employee).

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[LynnwoodRooster]

I contract. I set my own rates. And I typically vary it based upon each individual contract.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I am missing something, but isn't that what uber is doing? Your customer is uber, they tell you what they are going to pay for your services and you are hired to act as a driver. Whatever tips they collect through their app, is non of your business, since you agreed to work for specific pay. Unless you are saying uber prohibits customers tipping you directly. Even then, it is a contract you agreed to work for.
You are still free to set your own price and uber is free not to hire you for your price.
It seem that what you are saying is roughly this: "I don't like it that uber can make extra money for work I do, in fact, I don't like uber terms in general. If they would change to the terms I propose on slashdot, I would be fine with it." So propose those terms to uber and see where it gets you =)

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so tell uber your price and work out a deal. After all, your customer is uber and they hire you to be a driver.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is going to use Uber when the price of the fare is whatever random amount each driver individually thinks he's worth.

Re: Alas for the poor driver

[Jack_the_Tripper]

What type of contractors get to set the price to the end user?

Ironically enough, cab drivers can (at least in the AZ). You can flat rate fares to your little heart's content though, generally speaking, customers aren't going to get too interested in paying more than meter rate for a trip because what's the point in that?

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[angel'o'sphere]

I'm likely sleeping till 9:00.
Then driving to the site, depending on distance I'm there between 10:00 and 11:00, and if the problem is like in all such cases, I'm either done around 13:00 or have to order parts for replacement which wont be available before in two days.
What would you do? Obviously you are there from 9:00 till 17:00 and charge the customer for being idle, telling him next day you need spare parts and give him a list, while I have ordered them already.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[NicBenjamin]

You seem to be being paid hourly. That's actually one of the big things the IRS looks for: hourly pay = increased likelihood of being declared an employee.

You remember that "at-risk amount" I mentioned that is necessary if you're gonna be declared a contractor? At-risk amount is much higher if you get a set amount for the job, with performance bonuses and performance penalties, rather then the ability to pad the bill by taking extra time.

Because if fixing the door takes weeks rather then a day you probably lost money on the job.

And yes, many, many of the "contractors" you know would actually have a fairly strong case to be reclassified as employees, particularly if their contract is "$150 an hour until we fire you," rather then "$5,000 to finish this program." The "$150 an hour until the program is finished" could be an edge case, particularly if they have emails/records indicating the company says they'll get hired on a new project pretty much immediately after their current one is finished.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I don't know any delivery contractors who only deliver for one company, and have so many regulations to follow... yet at the same time Uber's management throws a hissy fit when they have to follow any Federal, state, or local laws that the taxi companies have been following for decades.

But at least in 2014 Uber was pulling that bs: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much all of them. Well, maybe not the "end user" price. But they certainly can negotiate the price the company pays them. And if tips aren't allowed that's in the contract. If tips are allowed the company can't take any of it.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes. And? It's common to negotiate rates in much of the world (I do it all the time in China with Kuaidi, Thailand directly, etc). But it does make it hard for an app vendor (Uber) to claim a value of over $60 billion...

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! Someone finally got it!

Uber is trying to merge different ways of doing business, cherry-picking what laws and practices they want to follow, call this "the new sharing economy" and are raking in profits. That it is illegal, immoral and bad practice doesn't matter, as long as they are making money.

Of course no one will use Uber if they were adhering to the laws. It is because they are skirting laws that they can dump prices, set the prices themselves, not pay benefits and expect poor unemployed drivers to work for them since they have little other options. And you, the consumer, are helping Uber in this scam, because you do not care how they conduct their business. It is sad that people that would picket a store that have their clothes made by sweatshops in southeast Asia, accept Uber as their great savior on saturday nights when they want to go home after a party. But, hey, you are wasted by then so I don't expect you to make any good decisions. Luckily for Uber, et al.

Classify the drivers as contractors and allow them to set the price (otherwise Uber is a cartel == illegal practice) or hire them and set the price. This is a simple first step to make Uber a fair player in the taxi/ridesharing/whatever-the-buzzword-of-the-day-is industry.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[bluefoxlucid]

Layoffs are a result of the consumer market not buying enough of a product to support the productive labor required. If you find a way to make 100 units of a product with 100 employees, you charge 1 employee's wage per product, plus a profit margin; if you find a new way to make 100 units using 50 employees, you charge 1/2 employee's wage per product, plus profit margin. If people respond by buying twice as much, you keep all your employees; if they buy more, you hire more people; and if they buy less than twice as much, you lay off the difference (if they buy the same amount of the product, you lay off 50 employees).

With contract work like Uber, a reduction in demand for drivers results in less work. The process of staff reduction doesn't occur; you just get less work (you might get no work).

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[bluefoxlucid]

So you're bidding, and they've got a maximum budget for the bid, and you're over it. Cool. Go pound sand.

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[bluefoxlucid]

(if Uber's lawyers are right, and they aren't a transportation company this indicates contractor; if anyone sane is right and they sell cab rides it indicates employee).

This is actually a tricky business.

What if I have 40,000 licensed, independent cab services all comprised of one sole-proprietorship cab driver in New York City? Nobody knows to call 1-800-one-of-40,000-cab-drivers. I create a sort of portal that not only lists all of them, but will locate one, hail him via a smart phone app, and connect the passenger (buyer) with the cab operator (seller). Am I *also* a cab service, or am I supplying the service of locating a cab service?

That's kind of like Travelocity (compare airline rates) or Hotels.com (compare hotel rates), isn't it?

Now what if I do the same with ride-share drivers who aren't cabs, and provide the value-add service of background checks and insurance? I provide no transportation infrastructure (the drivers own their equipment); am I a transportation service, an information service, or an insurance reseller?

The thing is we've already defined travel agencies who appear to sell air travel and hotels as "Travel Agencies" and specifically not as airlines, even if you're using them to find airlines and they're getting a cut from the airline for the customer referral. We're trying to not do that with Uber and Lyft, even though the so-called employee is being referred to a customer by *both* Uber and Lyft, and using the same equipment for both so-called employers.

So is Expedia.com an airline? Is that sane?

Re:Alas for the poor driver

[NicBenjamin]

It would be trickier if Uber actually gave people a choice between Uber drivers, which is what Expedia, Travelocity, and travel agents do. They give you a range of options, and you choose the option. As is you click the button, and you don't get a list of drivers. Their algorithm finds a driver, and then the driver gets to figure out whether he wants to be put in touch with you.

It would also be trickier if they had other lines of business. But as is, 100% of their revenue comes from people requesting cab service, and all those people get the driver they got assigned. I sincerely doubt any Judge will look at that and see anything but a ride company trying to dodge it's legal obligations.

Thank goodness

[110010001000]

Keep the status quo. It is good. Politicians need the bribe money from the taxi cab owners.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

And by bribes, you mean licensing fees and driver qualification tests that Uber cheerfully ignores despite the regulations predating both this Web company and the Internet itself. As a German citizen who cares about rudimentary quality control, good riddance.

Re:Thank goodness

[Mashiki]

Keep the status quo. It is good. Politicians need the bribe money from the taxi cab owners.

Status quo? You mean like paying for proper insurance(commercial and liability), required first aid training, proper drivers licenses, mandatory vehicle inspections, and background checks. Sounds good to me, you don't have a problem with any of that do you? Because Uber sure does, all the while it tries to say it isn't a taxi company because it dispatches taxi's just like a taxi company does.

Re: Thank goodness

[fluffernutter]

Not to mention an element of safety for the general public and the people in the industry, as well as equal opportunity for anyone to be a customer; not just the more profitable.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Uber is an overhyped taxi service. They have all this PR horseshit that says they are revolutionizing personal transportation with "ride sharing" and a bunch of very stupid people invested waaaayyyyyy too much money in it.

It's gotten to the point where I hear Silicon Valley and IPO in the same sentence, I just ignore it as bullshit. I haven't been wrong yet and I doubt I ever will. There's too much "stupid money" there.

Re:Thank goodness

[Kohath]

They need the money. This sort of propaganda doesn't pay for itself.

Re:Thank goodness

[jgeada]

Uber/Airbnb/etc exist because arbitrage around the law allows for lower priced products and increased profits. Never mind that not all laws were created to protect incumbents.

As a side comment: The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling in a democracy: you are getting exactly what you voted for; the reason we have such corrupt government is because we keep electing people that explicitly tell us that at the outset! We also elect people that explicitly tell us that they want to break the system and/or do not believe in it. Why are we surprised at the outcomes?

Re:Thank goodness

[110010001000]

I hate to break it to you, but the taxi industry doesn't do any of those things, except for the insurance.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, right, those monopolies--ones that do not exist. Now it makes perfect sense. Please, do point me to a single German taxi company--I will even generously waiver the monopoly requirement for you here so we don't stumble upon any economics knowledge gaps--whose drivers do not have to own a professional driver license. I am looking forward to not hearing from you again.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you, but the taxi industry doesn't do any of those things, except for the insurance.

Maybe where you are. Not everybody lives there though.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience here as well. If I want drugs and hookers, could always call a Taxi. If I want a ride in a decent clean car, Uber.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Source: My rectal cavity. Also, I live in country that doesn't enforce rudimentary safety standards, which is why I support a company that manages to do so on a whole new level to the point it gets its ass banned abroad.

Clever.

Re:Thank goodness

[Kohath]

Uber/Airbnb/etc exist because arbitrage around the law allows for lower priced products and increased profits.

Yes. Lots of mostly pointless laws raise everyone's costs. Thanks for noticing.

As a side comment: The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling...

Really? The government mistreats people sometimes and makes life worse for people sometimes and it's "puzzling" that this leads to anti-government attitudes?

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see the difference. The majority of the rides I've taken with Uber, the entire ride and experience were as if I had taken a taxi.

Re:Thank goodness

[SNRatio]

"mostly pointless". OK, so toss the pointless ones. But Uber/AirBnB have consistently tried to avoid enforcement of the ones concerned with safety and push all liability onto other parties.

Re: Thank goodness

[GNious]

As a German citizen who cares about rudimentary quality control

...this seems redundant ....

Re: Thank goodness

[JonnyCalcutta]

I agree totally. I'm pretty sure the only reason there is any question about what Uber is, is because Uber are paying lots of money to try and keep the question open..

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Many taxi companies can lose their license if they get too many complaints and don't address them properly. I take it you've never filed a complaint? There are down sides to a government mandated monopoly, but there are contractual obligations those monopolies have to live or up or they go away.

Fixed prices, can't discriminate, can't drop you off in the middle of your ride, can't discriminate based on destination, have to have driver and inspection and insurance displayed in the cab, minimum quality standards, etc... Smaller towns that don't have enforced monopolies don't have those requirements. I'm in a small town and the taxi is a little family owed business without any of that. There's also nothing to stop anyone else from starting their own taxi company.

Re:Thank goodness

[khallow]

As a side comment: The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling in a democracy: you are getting exactly what you voted for; the reason we have such corrupt government is because we keep electing people that explicitly tell us that at the outset! We also elect people that explicitly tell us that they want to break the system and/or do not believe in it. Why are we surprised at the outcomes?

Who is "we"? For example, for US President, the last person I voted for who got elected was Bill Clinton in 1992. So tarring me with the bad choices since is just guilt by association. Then there is the odd assertion you make about people who "explicitly tell us that they want to break the system and/or do not believe in it". Nobody like that has been elected to the level of US President in living memory.

Sure, there's some such people in lower offices. But they aren't that numerous or that harmful. I don't see the point of the concern here.

IMHO, it helps to reduce the puzzlement, if you actually observe what goes on rather than project some fantasy.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you listed except background checks are already prerequisites to owning a driving license and a car in (I'm fairly sure) all European Union countries including France and Germany. As for background checks - who gives a shit?

Re:Thank goodness

[jgeada]

Under the Constitution, the law making body is Congress, not the Executive. And in this country, most of the immediate decisions are made at State, county and town level. That is mostly the level of politics that has observable effects on your daily life and where exactly such people in "lower offices" exist.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, now you're just full of crap. So what are you saying? Uber is better because they flat out refuse to follow safety regulations?

Re:Thank goodness

[Mashiki]

I hate to break it to you, but the taxi industry doesn't do any of those things, except for the insurance.

They don't? You should let them know, because they're mandatory requirements in most of north american and europe. I'd also suggest calling your local vehicle inspection office or the head of it, since in most places mandatory vehicle inspections for vehicles used for commercial use is a mandatory requirement to get your insurance and plates renewed.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite the opposite, in fact: insurance, first aid training, driving licenses and annual vehicle inspections are mandatory (in Germany and France at least) for everyone on the road. There is virtually no guarantee that a taxi driver will be any better (or worse) than someone driving for Uber.

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no taxi monopolies. Anyone can drive a taxi, provided the legal requirements (proper insurance, proper licence, independently calibrated meter, background checks) are met.

Re:Thank goodness

[dbIII]

The reflexive anti-government attitudes of many is particularly puzzling in a democracy

They want a "strong" leader like King George back. Koch is available.
It's all about being naive and having no clue how utterly fucked over they will be if they end up with a "strong" leader. Rand and her book about how wonderful it would be to have a Tsarist nobility in the USA (so long as you are a jailbait princess screwing your way to the top that is) helped add to the delusion.

Re:Thank goodness

[bluefoxlucid]

Uber provides more insurance than taxi companies; and they provide proper background checks of as high a quality as the taxi companies.

Re:Thank goodness

[bluefoxlucid]

Really? The government mistreats people sometimes and makes life worse for people sometimes and it's "puzzling" that this leads to anti-government attitudes?

The observations that "Government regulation X is inefficient and incurs costs for no benefit" and "the Government is big and evil and must be torn down! Down with big Government!" are not identical. Government is both beneficial and imperfect.

Re:Thank goodness

[bluefoxlucid]

Risk transfer is called "insurance".

Re:Thank goodness

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes but the Constitution is dumb. It's broken in many areas and, from a technical perspective, needs improvement; from a less-technical perspective, what Americans want and expect is a *dictator*. They elect a President so *he* can make laws and carry out actions, and criticize him for the acts of Congress. They demand the powerful executive *make* Congress do what he said they'd do. They want one man to fix it all.

When we threw out the Monarchy, we threw out accountability for the people making the rules, and continued to behave as if the guy who isn't allowed to do anything is still the Monarchy.

Re:Thank goodness

[khallow]

Well, guess what? I don't vote for crazy or corrupt people at those levels either.

Re:Thank goodness

[dave420]

They do need those in Germany, however. I hate to break it to you, but other countries have figured out how to have a functioning taxi service, and while Uber might be a massive step forward where you live, in other places it is a dangerous step backwards.

Problem

[fluffernutter]

The problem with capitalism is that a company can be successful even if it's bad for everyone.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, competition is bad and you're much better off with a monopoly that abuses its customers with high prices and poor service.

Offering a service that people can opt to use at their discretion is also bad. The public should be told what to do and what to think by politicians who always act in the public's best interests!

All these people who ant to use Uber for the convenience, service and prices it offers are wrong and should be sent away for re-education.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with capitalism is that a company can be successful even if it's illegally operating

.

there. FTFY.

Re:Problem

[beelsebob]

Yes, competition is bad and you're much better off with a monopoly that abuses its customers with high prices and poor service.

You say this like you're being sarcastic, but at the same time, you seem to be supporting a company that's well on its way to establishing a taxi monopoly by abusing the shit out of capitalism...

Re:Problem

[roman_mir]

I don't agree at all that Uber is bad for anybody except for monopolies. Nobody forces you to work as an uber driver, nobody forces you to buy uber service. The company is great, AFAIC, the problem is government and all forms of collectivism, not yet another business model you don't like.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't exactly a problem unique to capitalism.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

I don't think you know what monopoly means. I live in a small city and I have a choice of companies to call for a cab ride. The term you're looking for is 'regulated market'. Yes, some markets need regulation in order to function properly.

Re: Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the definition of all communist industries. They survive despite being terrible for all.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

Fair enough.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Uber's business practices have been pretty sleazy, right?

Maybe instead of sending people for re-education, we just sent you for some basic education.

Re:Problem

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

The small city where you apparently drive a cab is not indicitive of most locations. Uber provides ME with lower prices and immediately available drivers. Yellow Cab abused its position, and they're paying the price. It's a shame that short sighted local governments are accepting bribes and trying to shore up prices.

Re: Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I don't see how Uber can survive once we enter the era of autonomous cars..?

Re:Problem

[Kohath]

If Uber's drivers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to drive for Uber? If Uber's customers think Uber is bad for them, why do they continue to use Uber?

Uber must actually be pretty good for both of these groups.

Re: Problem

[Hognoxious]

Replacing someone you practically own and pay next to nothing with something you actually own and don't need to pay at all is a big step?

Re: Problem

[SNRatio]

Frankly, I don't see how Uber can survive once we enter the era of autonomous cars..?

By developing their own self driving cars (already in process), firing their drivers, and renting out their own cars instead?

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tragedy of the commons" for us commoners, huh?

Captcha: overtake

Re:Problem

[BitterOak]

The problem with capitalism is that a company can be successful even if it's bad for everyone.

No it can't. If the company is bad for everyone, then no one will do business with that company and they will fail.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the selfish argument. You even capitalized it to make sure we knew you were arguing from a position of selfishness. Very magnanimous of you.

Re: Problem

[beelsebob]

Well, they've already asserted that their end goal is to be the place that rents out all the autonomous cars. Getting people relying on paying fees each time they borrow a car (with an 'autonomous' driver) is just step 1 towards that goal.

Re:Problem

[Leafwiz]

The problem with capitalism is that a company can be successful even if it's bad for everyone.

What you are saying here does not make sense. In capitalism people choose freely which company they want to buy services from. If there services actually was bad they would not choose to use them. You can always refrain from using them.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

You're talking about two trees, I'm talking about the forest.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

Consumers are not interested in the greater good. They're not supposed to be. Nor are individual drivers. The government is interested in greater good and that is why the regulations were created in the first place. It's kind of like saying you should be able to eat nothing but McDonalds food because McDonalds can do business so it must be good.

Re:Problem

[SvnLyrBrto]

And why shouldn't he be selfish vs a corporation? Because that's what we're really and truly talking about here. This is not some David vs Goliath situation. It's more like Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah. Yellow Cab, Luxor Cab, Checker Cab, and so and and so on, are every bit the same sort of soulless, faceless, profit-above-all-else, corporations that Uber or Lyft are. The latter have simply "built a better mousetrap" and have been more successful of late. No corporation has an inherent right to my business or my money though. And the government should not be the one choosing winners.

And hell... Uber had my business almost from the day they launched... back when the app was called Ubercab and the only service available was the town cars. Back then, Uber cost a good 50% more versus a taxi. But the service was and still is so dramatically better that it was worth every penny. And honestly, I have a hard time believing Uber and Lyft's detractors have ever had to actually rely on the legacy taxi companies. The service really is just that much dramatically better. Yeah, Travis Kalanick is an utterly ruthless businessman and comes off kind of douchey. I probably wouldn't choose to socialize with him. But I DID rely on the legacy taxi companies before Uber came about. And that lot can all bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:Problem

[swillden]

The problem with capitalism is that a company can be successful even if it's bad for everyone.

Utter nonsense. The fundamental strength of capitalism is that if a company isn't sufficiently good for its customers and suppliers, it will fail (barring government interference to prop it up).

There are negatives associated with capitalism, mostly around its tendency to ignore any costs it can externalize, but the one you claim is absolutely not one of them.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> Luxor Cab

> back when the app was called Ubercab and the only service available was the town cars

Based on this, Iâ(TM)m going to go out on a limb and guess that youâ(TM)re in San Francisco. I lived there about ten years ago and yes, the taxi industry there is a special kind of terrible. Itâ(TM)s at least as bad as Chicago and perhaps even as bad as Washington DC. The cabbies in SF are a bunch of human shitstains and the companies do nothing to hold them accountable for all of the crap they pull. Itâ(TM)s no surprise at all that Uber got its start there. And I understand and agree with your attitude towards them. But Iâ(TM)m also going to go out on a limb and guess that you donâ(TM)t have a lot of experience with taxis outside of San Francisco and the bay area. You, along with Chi-Town and DC have probably the three worst taxi cartels in the US. Even in New York, the cabs are better than SF to the point that Uber would probably have not gained enough traction to grow to what it is now. And there are places in Europe where taxis are downright pleasant.

I now live in London. You might not believe it, and I wouldnâ(TM)t have believed it ten years ago either. But the taxis here are clean, come on time, and are abundant and easy to hail. And the drivers are polite, know how to get from point A to point B, donâ(TM)t rip you off, and donâ(TM)t refuse to drive you out of the city center.

I do agree that the government shouldnâ(TM)t pick the winners between various companies. But itâ(TM)s not as simple as âoeTaxis and cabbies are scum and deserve to be out of business.â The ones in San Francisco and in some other places are and should be, undeniably so. But there are places where they are really not so bad. And these taxis deserve a fair chance at competing against Uber; which they donâ(TM)t get when Uber exploits loopholes in the laws that govern the industry.

Re: Problem

[fluffernutter]

A customer finding a company good for them as an individual is drastically different then a company being good for a general population. Therein lies the problem. You are confusing individual good with common good.

Re: Problem

[swillden]

A customer finding a company good for them as an individual is drastically different then a company being good for a general population. Therein lies the problem. You are confusing individual good with common good.

Individual good multiplied by a sufficiently large number of individuals common good. That's not to say there may not be other negatives associated with it, but the mere fact that common people find a good or service sufficiently attractive that they're willing to give their money for it is, by definition, a common good.

Re: Problem

[fluffernutter]

So what about the people who don't give money? When do they get their say? They're allowed to abstain from the vote by not participating in it but they aren't really ever allowed to vote against it. Under capitalism, a company can easily be supported by a minority who pays for it; so we know it is good for that minority, but if the majority don't pay for it and it still runs then it says nothing about whether all people find it good that it exists.

Re:Problem

[Kohath]

All of us out here are individual trees. We're not interested in being sacrificed for your idea of what makes a utopian forest.

Uber benefits from Uber. Uber riders benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop using Uber. Uber drivers benefit from Uber -- else they'd stop driving for Uber. Add the phone makers and credit card companies and that's literally everyone involved in the transaction. Everyone involved benefits.

Who is "the forest" then? Corrupt politicians? Rich taxi medallion owners? People who imagine scary stories about Uber drivers?

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

'The forest' is a society that is capable of protecting itself from these attacks. Unfortunately people like you will forever subject the US to these attacks because you're too worried about your individual protection to do what really needs to be done.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

That reply was to the wrong conversation.. 'The forest' is essentially a society that doesn't turn its back on the weakest members of it, ever. I'm not saying it is possible, all I ever said was that capitalism definitely wasn't it. Unfortunately people like you keep it from being possible. You're way too self interested to be a part of anything bigger then yourself.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

You know what.. third reply, because 'the forest' to me really isn't utopia. The forest is a society that isn't breaking down around us. That's what the forest is.

Re:Problem

[Kohath]

I see. People being able to offer each other car rides causes society to "break down around us". And the only cure is more police minding everyone's business, imposing an order that protects and enriches politicians and their friends. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

You really need to get over yourself. Can Uber alone kill society? No. But a society cannot be made up of Ubers. Anyway obviously it doesn't matter what I say, America is on it's way down and no one will be interested in fixing it because it will take some sort of sacrifice. If there was a draft today, people like you would be dodging it, because you have no interest in inconveniencing yourself for the sake of your country or doing what it takes to change anything. You have come to feel entitled to the things that you have that others sacrifices have brought you and aren't willing to do anything on your own to keep it.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

People drive for Uber because they are desperate for work. People use uber because it is cheaper than a Taxi. Problem is instead of taking care of their workers and gathering grass roots support uber has figured it's better to maximise profits and bribe the right people while the going is good.

What we need is a non-profit open source uber like Taxi service (i wouldn't be surprised if it already exists). Although that would also face stiff opposition. At least uber showed that there is a need for it.

Re:Problem

[Kohath]

But a society cannot be made up of Ubers. Anyway obviously it doesn't matter what I say, America is on it's way down and no one will be interested in fixing it because it will take some sort of sacrifice.

Why should anyone "sacrifice" to protect and enrich corrupt politicians and their friends? Let's "sacrifice" corruption. Let's "sacrifice" government waste. How about we ask government employees to "sacrifice" their cushy jobs and bloated pensions? How about we ask the politicians and the police to "sacrifice" their bullying disregard for individuals and their general inhumanity and start acting like their job is to serve the public?

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

Listen, I get it.. you have lost faith in the US. I don't blame you. If I was you I would move. Who wants to live in a country they don't trust.

Re:Problem

[dave420]

Because not all areas screwed up something as simple as regulating the taxi market? Uber might have worked wonders where you are, but in some other countries Taxi services have been great. Where Uber's business model might improve your taxi service, for great swathes of the world Uber's standards are lowering the taxi service.

Some parts of the world figured out taxi services. Yours didn't, apparently.

Re:Problem

[Kohath]

Sympathy isn't the point. Moving to a less corrupt, less coercive, less divided society is the point. Perhaps corruption and coercion and a general societal construction that favors giving more power to politicians and pressure groups is working for you -- people can sometimes get away with benefitting from the mistreatment of others. But I'd rather we stop mistreating people to protect and enrich politicians and their friends.

Re:Problem

[fluffernutter]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with Uber. If you're talking about taxi regulations, there are some downsides but there are also upsides.. and society has already determined the upsides we get from the regulations are worth the downsides. So keeping Uber out may persist some empires, but there is a reason why the structure exists in which people have built those empires. The only way we will get better cohesion as a society is to better enforce the regulations that we come up with, not allow companies to ignore them. The only soapbox society has collectively are governments and the laws that they create. Your suspicion may be correct, that we can no longer trust government to represent our interests. If that is the case, then we really have nowhere else to turn as individuals. Capitalism only looks out for profitable companies, which are about the exact opposite of what is good for a nation. This takes me back to my original comment, the only solution is to move to a country with a government that does protect your interests.

I've never used it, but

[thinkwaitfast]

Didn't slashdot used to love uber?

Re: I've never used it, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear user, please find your mandatory useless "Slashdot isn't one person and opinions change as one better understands the matter" reply to your equally useless question.

Re:I've never used it, but

[wvmarle]

It's just a situation of a great idea being brought down by terrible implementation.

In many countries Uber could be legal, if only they bothered to follow local legislation.

Re:I've never used it, but

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know slashdot is just a cog in the machine right, it's beholden to a corporation and most likely got paid off to publish "feel good" stories about uber (in disguise of course)

Re:I've never used it, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice loved Uber, specifically Uber paid Dice.

Re:I've never used it, but

[angel'o'sphere]

Uber only would need to hire drivers with a passenger transport license and they would be legal in Germany.

Re:I've never used it, but

[Anonymous Coward]

We loved the idea of a ride-sharing app. Uber isn't ride-sharing and is more corrupt than Walmart.

Re:I've never used it, but

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot is infested with gumpy socialists, all acting against their own interests. this place used to be something good.

Uberdrivers of the world unite!

[goombah99]

The hell with capitalism it only brings greater and greater misery to the people! The hell with the bosses and their governments and their wars! Long live Lenin and Trotsky!

Yes commrade, after Ubergate the mechanisms of the state will melt aways and we will all become Uber comrades. Everyone will be required to drive and to be a passenger.

Re:Uberdrivers of the world unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

and the gorgeous people will have to exclusively make love to the hideous

WTF

[edittard]

keeps any tips that customer's pay them through Uber's app.

I'm curious. What thing that the customer owns gives tips?

Re:WTF

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

That claim is horseshit. the app doesn't even allow tipping. you have to tip the driver cash.

rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[Joe_Dragon]

rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked.

The thing is uber clams there works are 1099's but uber sets the prices can kick people off for not taking X # of open calls / etc. Ban's tips.

Others have really pushed the limes of 1099's like fedex, handy, cable co's, and others.

Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to pay my neighbor a few bucks to drive me to the store, that is my right, and his. I don't see why government has any authority over private agreements like this.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[danbob999]

On your own private road, you might have a point. But chances are you'll be a on public road. You need permit, insurance, and to pay any applicable toll and/or tax.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[jonbryce]

What you are describing is Blablacar, which is very popular in Europe, and is legal. Unlike Über, it is an actual ride-sharing service. If you are a driver, you log in, put details of your journey, and if other people want to go the same way, they can join you and pay a proportion of the petrol money.

Re: Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

ITT: why does government make me pay taxes.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to pay my neighbor a few bucks to drive me to the store, that is my right, and his. I don't see why government has any authority over private agreements like this.

Scale

If you want to sell a few of your extra tomatoes to your neighbor, same thing. If you want to plant 1000 acres of tomatoes, get some friends to bundle up the ones you can't eat, and offer them in the grocery store parking lot, then state and federal regulators are going to get interested.

Uber drivers may be 'independent contractors' and 'just doing favors for a few friends,' but Uber itself, as an aggregator of those transactions, is functionally indistinguishable from a taxi company. It's in society's interest that for-hire ride companies maintain high standards for their drivers and vehicles, otherwise known as taxi regulations. Nobody's going to get to bent out of shape if you give your neighbor a ride to the grocery store. They'll get bent out of shape if you claim you have 50 neighbors in different parts of the city who all need rides, today, to different places.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yuck, is that what our concept of public roads has become? Regulation and bureaucracy?

Re: Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid the public that owns the roads determines how they are to be used.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Kohath]

Public maintenance of roads didn't start out as a justification for government bullying road users. We don't need to agree to be bullied to use our own public roads.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[SNRatio]

Public maintenance of roads didn't start out as a justification for government bullying road users. We don't need to agree to be bullied to use our own public roads.

Luckily it is a privilege, revokable upon abuse. If you want to live someplace where drivers aren't required to be licensed or insured, vehicles don't have to meet safety standards, and all problems will be solved with libertarian fairy dust (civil law suits), please tell me about places where this has been tried and how it is working out.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

Roads used to be private, and you had to pay tolls everywhere, and you got mugged and killed.

You go for that chump.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[JonnyCalcutta]

Funny how AC Uber supporters are always out in force.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Kohath]

That's just it though. We don't need to agree to an arbitrary amount of bullying to have some basic safety and responsibility rules. The government has a responsibility to serve us, not the other way around. And "safety" isn't a magic word that justifies mistreating the public or creating corrupt carve-outs for insiders and government cronies to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.

Re:Right to Freely Associate

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Public maintenance of roads didn't start out as a justification for government bullying road users.

No, it started as an excuse for the feds to bully the states *cough*drinking age*cough*...

The stalking customers bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time Uber enters a city, they hold a party. At this event they had a big screen with a map of the city, along with where all the cabs were and where customers were each marked by little icons. At this event the names of all the customers were there for everyone else to see.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-uber-allegedly-stalked-users-for-party-goers-viewing-pleasure/#3ddb18803f84

The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[goombah99]

Reading TFA on the indianna contractor who sued the basis of his suit is that
1) Uber requires him to bring and maintain his own tools
2) expects him to work a certain number of contracted hours.

As far as I know that's exactly the dividing line between contractor and employee. According to the IRS If you hire a maid, then it's an employee if the employer supplies the tools and otherwise its could be claimed to be a contractor.

Now the part about Tips is intriguing. I wonder why drivers don't tell their passengers that. Thus I'm skeptical.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[TechyImmigrant]

Reading TFA on the indianna contractor who sued the basis of his suit is that
1) Uber requires him to bring and maintain his own tools
2) expects him to work a certain number of contracted hours.

As far as I know that's exactly the dividing line between contractor and employee. According to the IRS If you hire a maid, then it's an employee if the employer supplies the tools and otherwise its could be claimed to be a contractor.

Now the part about Tips is intriguing. I wonder why drivers don't tell their passengers that. Thus I'm skeptical.

The Uber app doesn't handle tips (or it didn't when I last used Uber). The Lyft app does handle tips. This is why I use the Lyft app. Most of the drivers I've encountered when using Uber and Lyft seem happy to be able to earn money driving because it's a side-job, not their primary job and the barriers to entry are low, and they can choose the hours that they do the work so they can fit it into their schedule.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[ShanghaiBill]

As far as I know that's exactly the dividing line between contractor and employee.

No. There is no "exact dividing line" between an employee and a contractor. Rather, there is a 20 factor test. Almost no worker relationship is going to match all twenty, or exactly zero. So it is subjective, which is why so many of these cases end up in court.

According to the IRS If you hire a maid, then it's an employee if the employer supplies the tools and otherwise its could be claimed to be a contractor.

This is one of the twenty criteria. There are 19 others.

Now the part about Tips is intriguing.

When I use Uber, I do not tip, and the drivers don't seem to expect a tip. The listed price should be the full price.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Well, if the app doesn't let passengers add a tip and the drivers aren't allowed to say anything bad about Uber (including whining that customers can't tip with the app) then of course they don't seem to expect a tip. You could also not be a cheap fuck and toss these suckers who are tearing up their personal vehicles for basically nothing a dollar once in a while, it really won't kill you...err, parting with the dollar I mean not the driver because who knows what kind of crazy fucker is going to "invite" you into their car.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[ShanghaiBill]

You could also not be a cheap fuck and toss these suckers who are tearing up their personal vehicles for basically nothing a dollar once in a while

If people tip, then drivers will accept lower wages, driving down the market price, and their earnings will be erratic. If nobody tips, in order to attract enough drivers, Uber will have to pay them more, and raise prices. Either way, the drivers will be paid about the same. Many other countries do not have the "tipping culture" (and resulting lower base wages) that America has. Workers are generally happier with higher base wages, customers appreciate avoiding the hassle and uncertainty of knowing how much to tip, and I have seen no sign of lower quality of service.

Tipping is stupid. Workers should get a fair wage, and the listed price should be the price.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Hognoxious]

No. There is no "exact dividing line" between an employee and a contractor. Rather, there is a 20 factor test [angelo.edu].

Unless it's possible to be 37.2% contractor and 62.8% employee then there totally is an exact dividing line; you're either on one side or the other.

Now it might not be easy to determine where the line is, but that's not the same thing as it not existing.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Speaking of Uber -- you will never see a change in the quality of service if you don't tip because they live or die based on keeping their 4.5 star rating (or whatever the cutoff is today). Same with Lyft and peeps can actually tip on their app. Those drivers have to put up with a crazy amount of shit from passengers because if they get too many bad ratings you get kicked off the app so short of physically assalting them they're gonna kiss your ass to get that ever important 5 stars. Most of the Uber drivers don't seem to mind being pimped out for peanuts so they just get paid whatever their corporate masters deem is sufficient even if its less than the cost of wear and tear on their car like a few month ago when they dropped the prices to $0.72/mile or some such.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[93 Escort Wagon]

You could also not be a cheap fuck and toss these suckers who are tearing up their personal vehicles for basically nothing a dollar once in a while

Last time I checked, Uber drivers received 80% of the fare. That's hardly "nothing".

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[BlueStrat]

No. There is no "exact dividing line" between an employee and a contractor. Rather, there is a 20 factor test [angelo.edu].

Unless it's possible to be 37.2% contractor and 62.8% employee then there totally is an exact dividing line; you're either on one side or the other.

Now it might not be easy to determine where the line is, but that's not the same thing as it not existing.

Exactly.

The problem here is that it is in the interests of the corrupt government and the established players to keep the determination criteria murky so as to be able to do just as they are doing now. Use it as a weapon to prevent competition by innovative upstarts.

Can't let competitive capitalism rock the corrupt crony-capitalist boat. Too much corrupt money, power, and control at stake. It means nothing to them that it also locks the people into shitty products and services with little in the way of pressures to improve.

Uber/Lyft/etc made the mistake of not making sure they paid off the right "good old boy network" people and arranged the appropriate bribes/kickbacks to the right politicians and bureaucrats first before launching their business.

In a crony-capitalist system, you don't challenge the established cronies without having the government come down hard on you. It's all about setting up the means to prevent competition from new players. It's the established players "pulling the ladder up behind them" so to speak, to prevent anyone from "rocking the (corrupt) boat".

Strat

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Jack_the_Tripper]

After you factor in wear & tear, gas, insurance, maintence, depreciation, tickets (because most of them are idiots and shouldn't be hauling people around in the first place and/or think they are taxis and get fined for doing something perfectly legal in a cab but not in an improperly licenced livery vehicle), &etc they don't make quite as much as you'd think.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[angel'o'sphere]

The listed price should be the full price.
You seem not to know what a tip is (outside of the USA).
It is a voluntary extra you give to the person fulfilling the service. It has nothing to do with the price.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[ShanghaiBill]

they don't make quite as much as you'd think.

My sister drives for Uber several afternoons per week to make some extra cash. She earns about $18/hr. That is not a bad wage for a flexible low-skill part time job. She thinks it is a good deal, and it sure beats working at McDonalds. Most Uber drivers are part timers, and Uber is not their main source of income.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[yithar7153]

I totally agree with you. I think it's really stupid that waiters and pizza delivery drivers are expected to make money of tips as part of their wage, because often they get shafted by customers. Servers can pay less than minimum wage because of tips.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Nobody's saying they're not making money today. The issue is how much they make after all the costs are accounted for, how many of these folks are thinking ahead for things like trading in/selling a car with an extra 150/200k miles on it or trying to get a warranty repair on a car if/when they find out that is being used as a commercial vehicle. I know a bunch of full time Uber/Lyft ex-taxi drivers so I'm pretty familiar with the economics behind this 'sharing economy' thing and I can tell you it isn't that much different from the 'evil' cab companies except they can't spread their losses across a fleet of a few hundred cars -- your car goes down and you're taking the bus until you can scrape enough cash together to get it fixed. What i find comical about all this is they are starting to figure out that cab companies do things for a reason and it might be a good idea to emulate that. I know one guy who leases a fancy prius from someone who has a fleet of 50 which is exactly the cab co model around here -- aside from not having a weights & measures sticker (and pricy commercial insurance) this is the same as they've been doing around here since like forever...except apps...

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[ShanghaiBill]

this is the same as they've been doing around here since like forever...except apps...

There is another slight difference: The drivers don't have to buy/rent a $500K taxi medallion as part of a government enforced cartel limiting access to the market.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Yeah, they don't do that here. There is no artificial restriction on the number of cabs roaming the streets and the ability to be legal is pretty low aside from high prices for commercial insurance (which, quite honestly, is the major limiting factor). Much easier to buy a governor and get the state to quit enforcing the law of the land though...well, unless you're a legal livery vehicle/taxi then they still enforce them.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

80% after the 1.70 safe rider fee. So on a short $5.50 min fare trip in this area, the driver receives $3.04 which is only 55% of the original fare.

Re: The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

Tipping is to reward hard workers who go the extra mile, not just show up and do bare minimum.

That being said, in our tipping economy, why are there waitresses who have been waitresses for twenty plus years who still suck and have a job? I don't get the impression a higher base pay would make them better workers.

The women who serve me at the various pubs I frequent make a decent living because they provide excellent service, and I tip them accordingly.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[dbIII]

Piecework is innovative? Tax avoidance is innovative?

Uber/Lyft/etc made the mistake of not making sure they paid off the right "good old boy network" people

With political donations etc that is exactly who they are paying off and is why they were not driven out of town the second they showed up to challenge the taxi company/government arrangement designed to prevent competition so long as the governments get something.


The thing that confuses so many and another reason they have been able to work their way in is that it's organised crime that looks more like civil disobedience than what governments are used to with co-ordinated rulebreaking.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[BlueStrat]

The thing that confuses so many and another reason they have been able to work their way in is that it's organised crime that looks more like civil disobedience than what governments are used to with co-ordinated rulebreaking.

I call bullshit.

The reason why Uber/Lyft and other services using a similar structure are popping up is simply that the status quo system is not meeting the demand to such a deplorable extent that demand has become so strong for change that upstarts attempt to buck the corrupt system.

It's the same thing with the so-called 'War On (some) Drugs' or the failed Prohibition days of the 1920s. People as a population will not obey laws/regulations/policies when the majority oppose them and also (usually due in large part directly to those very laws/regulations/policies) perceive them to be vastly unjust/unfair/unwarranted/undesired/etc etc. All such laws do is turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and also stifle innovation and societal progress across multiple areas of civilization.

It's really quite simple. The current system is obsolete and new systems are attempting to fill the gap while the existing corrupt & obsolete system tries desperately to slow if not prevent it's own extinction. Change is coming despite anything the established players do. They can either embrace it and help make it the best it can be or waste resources on a futile effort to fight the inevitable while depriving everyone the benefits of a better, more efficient system that better meets their needs.

Putting a stop to "lawbreaking" in such situations, short of enacting martial law and/or a totalitarian police/prison state, is not an option.

Strat

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[houghi]

That tipping is how it should be everywhere, including in restaurants.
I live in Brussels and go to a small piwwa place. I NEVER tip and it is not expected to do so. Instead they offer me a free drink at the end, so I will be a return customer that will spend more money with them. Money they use to pay wages and taxes and what not.

From what I have seen when I was in the sates during 2 weeks, service is not better or worse and prices where a lot higher than in Belgium.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[bluefoxlucid]

In the U.S., minimum wage is $7.25/hr and tipped employees are federally mandated a minimum of $2.14/hr. That means you can charge $11 for your Fish and Chips meal, or you can undercut the competition and charge $10.24 and have your customers give the waitress an extra $2.

Pizza places have become delivery shops by our culture, and so are now charging a $2 delivery fee. This delivery fee pays the wage (say, $8.25/hr) of the driver so it's not rolled into the cost of the pizza (wages are the basic cost of all products). If you're giving a $3 tip, delivery drivers are frequently taking $20/hr. Raising pizza prices to reflect the $20/hr delivery driver would put you out of competition with the neighboring cheaper pizza place, as people evaluate the cost of pizza first, then the cost of delivery (foot-in-the-door persuasion: you've invested effort in examining pizza prices and deciding what you want from the menu, and now you have to factor in a tip and delivery charge and it's more expensive?! Hell it's $2, just go with it).

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[dbIII]

It's the same thing with the so-called 'War On (some) Drugs' or the failed Prohibition days of the 1920s. People as a population will not obey laws/regulations/policies when the majority oppose them and also (usually due in large part directly to those very laws/regulations/policies) perceive them to be vastly unjust/unfair/unwarranted/undesired/etc etc. All such laws do is turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and also stifle innovation and societal progress across multiple areas of civilization.

Hence my words "that looks more like civil disobedience" above.

Please read posts in full before crying "bullshit".
Uber's business model involves challenging taxi laws by breaking them. They may be unjust laws in some cases but it's what they are doing just the same.

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[BlueStrat]

Hence my words "that looks more like civil disobedience" above.

Yet you conveniently ignore the BS part about you claiming that Uber/Lyft are successful because they are part of "organized crime" (the Mob) in the US and that is why they have not been immediately "taken down" by the corrupt (Mob-influenced) authorities.

Don't attempt to try to deflect here with a deliberately obtuse and dishonest misinterpretation of my reply followed by a snarky comment on my level of reading comprehension.

Yup. More bullshit.

You must hold a PhD (Piled higher and Deeper).

Strat

Re:The very Model of a Modern Major Contractor

[dbIII]

I very carefully worded it so that anyone actually reading and understanding what I had written would not jump to the wrong conclusion and fly off the handle. Try reading more than the key words! They are nothing like the Mafia but they are an org that is setting out to commit what are currently crimes in a very methodical way. Because of that the normal very heavy handed approach to organised crime does not seem appropriate so they are getting away with it. That is by design.
It's working. Some of those laws they have broken are getting repealed in some places.
Making sense yet?

deliberately obtuse and dishonest misinterpretation of my reply

You misunderstood what I wrote and I clarified - nothing more than that.

Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[mi]

both France and Germany continue to reject the company's validity in their regions

This is such a great news for all the little Statists out there: a multi-billion corporation (spit!) loses to the government officials seeking to retain control of transportation — as well as the massive fees collected from and the influence over those already "in" the system.

Meanwhile, a Boston Uber driver filed a federal lawsuit

Is not it great, when a poor little Joe Shmoe can file a federal lawsuit against such a multi-billion dollar corporation on his own? Is this news not the right answer to the folks lamenting needing millions of dollars to legally fight such an opponent?

illegally classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing full employee benefits

That a distinction even exists — allowing the enforcers from the Executive branch to make life hell for business-owners without even bothering with the Judiciary — is itself a major achievement for the Statism.

Of course, they only begin to complain about "overly strong government", when the wrong guy is about to take the reins. When it is their man, they wish he was a dictator — to do "more good quicker".

just "how sleazy" Uber really is.

There is that... Shortly after Uber hired David Plouffe (the guy instrumental to putting Obama into office), I started getting spam from the company. E-mails asking me, whether I know, how "Uber helps minority drivers" or "how Uber helps the environment". That really was as sleazy a Democratic campaigns get, but the above-mentioned Statists usually lap this sort of thing up — even if the spam campaign misfired in my case and I know begin searching for a ride with Lyft.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[Tenebrousedge]

The point at which market forces begin to correct for congestion is well after the point of gridlock. It doesn't cost much for the taxi to sit in traffic, especially if they have a fare. There are relatively hard limits to how much we can afford to incentivize cars being on the road. Medallions have been one solution to this. Since I'm sure you have a good handle on the drawbacks of those, perhaps you can give me your thoughts on an alternative solution.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[mi]

The point at which market forces begin to correct for congestion is well after the point of gridlock.

Wha?..

It doesn't cost much for the taxi to sit in traffic, especially if they have a fare.

Huh? It costs two (or more) human's their time — the most precious resource we have in life... But you must've meant something else here — just what, I do not know...

Medallions have been one solution to this. Since I'm sure you have a good handle on the drawbacks of those, perhaps you can give me your thoughts on an alternative solution.

Uber. And Lyft. And the like... They solve the problem of personal transportation for hire. They solve it cheaper than the old solution. The solve it better. The only people clinging to the old way are the rent-seeking governments — upset over the loss of revenues they were getting from the sales of medallions, and the poor taxi-drivers suckered into purchasing those.

Medallions are static and dumb — possessing one says: "Some time ago I and my vehicle were inspected by the city and found decent enough for you to hire me." Computers and ubiquitous personal smart phones obsoleted them like automobile obsoleted horse-driven carriages 100 years ago.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[Tenebrousedge]

Huh? It costs two (or more) human's their time â" the most precious resource we have in life... But you must've meant something else here â" just what, I do not know...

"Wha?" is a pretty poor rebuttal. I've actually seen this happening, so I don't know what you think is so crazy about the idea. Panama has very lax requirements for a taxi license and no medallion system; Uber is replaced by word of mouth for the most part. Time is not the "most precious resource we have", it costs a couple dollars per hour for the driver. Market efficiency being what it is, prices are driven down near the cost to provide the service. You can't cut down the cost of gas, but driver wages will tend towards a bare subsistence and maintenance towards a minimum of roadworthiness. And again, market forces begin to correct for congestion when [a] the cost of gas exceeds the driver's profit, or [b] it's so bad people stop taking taxis. Neither of these are particularly efficient mechanisms, particularly the latter as many people may not have access to alternative means of transportation.

Go to Panama City some time and take a taxi. They're dirt cheap, at least for locals. You'll be ludicrously overcharged as a tourist, but that's capitalism too, right? Taxis choke the streets during most afternoons, to the point where they won't even pick you up if you want to go across the city. The vehicles are not necessarily rickety rustbuckets, but generally they are far from new, and I don't think half of them have insurance or working air conditioning.

It's easy to rail against taxi monopolies. You've done so repeatedly. I'm sure it's a good argument. I submit Panama City as an object lesson in giving people incentives to have cars in the streets. I see no value in spreading that problem. How do you imagine that Uber or Lyft will provide a disincentive towards gridlock? How does Panama not become the end game for these services?

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[mi]

"Wha?" is a pretty poor rebuttal.

Rebuttals are for (understood) arguments. "Wha?" indicates lack of understanding. Sadly, you would not elaborate on what you meant...

You'll be ludicrously overcharged as a tourist, but that's capitalism too, right?

It is Capitalism, and it is fine (you do not object to taxes collected based on one's ability to pay — do you?). Uber is also Capitalism — and it does enable the free information flow, that is so important for free market to function.

Taxis choke the streets during most afternoons

That's not a problem of taxis — it is a problem of streets being inadequate for the number of people in need of travel. Forcibly reducing the number of taxis will, very simply, leave some people unable to get where they need to get.

I submit Panama City as an object lesson in giving people incentives to have cars in the streets.

Who is this "giver of incentives" in your world model?

But, whoever that is, you acknowledge it yourself: Panama city is already gridlocked — Uber/Lyft did not make it so. Their ride-sharing options may even alleviate the problem, but the point you are raising is off topic.

It's easy to rail against taxi monopolies. You've done so repeatedly. I'm sure it's a good argument.

Thank you. It is also the topic here.

How do you imagine that Uber or Lyft will provide a disincentive towards gridlock?

You know, this is funny (in addition to being off-topic)... I'm sure, you'd be arguing the exact opposite point, if the subject was Netflix et. al "gridlocking" the Internet infrastructure. If a network can not keep up with the users' demand, it is the problem of either the network or the people demanding — trying to blame it on those answering the demand is wrong and bogus. And this is equally true for both computer and transportation networks.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[bingoUV]

There are relatively hard limits to how much we can afford to incentivize cars being on the road.

Yes, cars. Not just taxis - so the price that is to be increased is that of car operation , not taxi operation. Why? Because taxis might even reduce some of the costs of congestion.

1. They don't need to park near the place where the traveller stays for 4 hours - they could park at a cheaper place, or pick up another passenger in that time without parking at all.

2. A high number of easily available taxis could smoothen the transition between 100% personal transport to some public transport on long haul travel. In sparsely populated civilizations, 100% public transport may never happen.

So medallion system is an extremely bad solution to the problems of too many vehicles on the road.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[Tenebrousedge]

Being inconvenient to your argument is certainly good grounds for declaring something to be off-topic. I apologize for not adapting my argument to a meaner intellect. I see as well as ignoring the question I asked you have ascribed to me an additional set of arguments — I appreciate your efforts and I will try to uphold these arguments to your standard.

I understand now that unrestricted taxi ownership does not produce gridlock, and that any real-world examples to the contrary are liberal lies, or the product of liberal policies. I understand that transportation is not fungible and taxis are the only proper means of transportation in capitalist society, so therefore they cause no problems. The Invisible Hand protects us and would never allow private interests to consume the entirety of a public resource. At the moment I have no idea in what sense computer networks could represent a valid analogy to transportation networks, but I think you mean that it will spur Uber to either build more roads or start killing people. Oh. More people, then.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[Tenebrousedge]

Yes, cars. Not just taxis - so the price that is to be increased is that of car operation

Interesting idea. Most cities with severe traffic problems solve them by declaring that, absent emergencies, you're not allowed to drive on certain days. I'm sure your idea would be a welcome source of income if it is feasible.

Your first point addresses parking, not congestion. Your second point refers to sparsely populated areas, which do not typically have congestion issues, absent slow motorhomes or large animals in the road. I'm not entirely sure I'm following what you're suggesting with regards to "smooth[ing] the transition", but alleviating some of the issues associated with congestion is clearly not preferable to preventing congestion.

From my standpoint, it seems impossible to accurately price the space available on city streets, therefore market-based systems will perform poorly. I'd like to be wrong about that. Panama City would probably also appreciate a solution; I believe they have chosen to build light rail instead of implementing a medallion system.

Re:Thank you, government, for saving us from Uber

[bingoUV]

Interesting idea. Most cities with severe traffic problems solve them by declaring that, absent emergencies, you're not allowed to drive on certain days. I'm sure your idea would be a welcome source of income if it is feasible.

You are right, and I don't like this "solution". A city can tide over emergencies using such methods, but making this the default "solution" for traffic problems almost amounts to the city breaking its promise to the citizens when they bought / registered the car.

If a city sees this as its future - it should start increasing the number of allowed taxis, not decreasing. Of course that only works along with adding tonnes of public transport, at least along the main arteries. At the same time, the cost of registering a new car in the city should increase - because the earlier tax (one time, or recurring as the city chooses) clearly wasn't enough. But this will be too little, too late in many cases.

Your first point addresses parking, not congestion. Your second point refers to sparsely populated areas, which do not typically have congestion issues

They are related. If people live at a density of 2-5 per square kilometre, in a large city, it can still choke the central business district of the city and the main arterial roads twice a day 2 hours each. In these circumstances, public transport costing less than trillions of dollars cannot be convenient because to match the convenience of personal cars the public transport needs to stop every 250 metres - which makes it extremely slow.

In such cities, to fix parking + congestion problems in central business district, and congestion problems in arterial roads; it is important that people switch to public transport. They cannot until they can very easily get taxi to the boarding point of public transport from their origin, and also to their final destination once they are done with the public transport ride. This is the transition I was talking about - completely personal car transport to a hybrid of taxi + public mass transit + taxi.

From my standpoint, it seems impossible to accurately price the space available on city streets, therefore market-based systems will perform poorly. I'd like to be wrong about that. Panama City would probably also appreciate a solution; I believe they have chosen to build light rail instead of implementing a medallion system.

Yes, many a times cities realize the price of the space retrospectively. Decades after allowing a car, they realize it costs much more to manage than the tax the city charged for it. This is understandable. But a medallion system along with limited permission to drive one's own car is a prison sentence for the citizens. I'd say good for Panama city - but as we know city planning is a tough nut to crack.

Uber is not ride sharing

[danbob999]

Uber is a cab service. So either we cancel all cab services laws, or Uber complies to them. Having two different rules for similar services, just because one happens to be using a smartphone application and is billing from a foreign country is not a valid reason to have two systems.

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[wvmarle]

The situation here in Hong Kong is a bit different. There are taxis, clearly marked so, which all need a license (which US generally calls "medallion" - and indeed they're in short supply) to operate. Drivers need to have undergone certain training. Licenses are linked to vehicles, and drivers generally rent the vehicles on a per shift basis. That's pretty much the same all over the world.

Other than that, there is the "hire car" permit. Everyone can register their car as "hire car", and then start picking up paying passengers. These cars are generally unmarked and have to be booked in advance. There is no limit on permits, which are handed out if certain criteria related to the driver and the vehicle (such as driving license, residency status, insurance) are met. This are generally luxury vehicles, and a typical fare is about that of a taxi. For that you get a nicer vehicle, and many can take 7 passengers, while taxis can take only 4-5.

Uber falls under the second system, and they COULD operate legally in the city if they would require all their drivers would have these hire car permits. Many do, as this are simply drivers that had such a permit already and take Uber rides as extra jobs. However there are also drivers that do not have such permits and still drive for Uber - illegally.

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[Shados]

That's exactly how Uber works in the US too, at least Uber Black does. The cab vs limo service (hired cars) is pretty much exactly what you describe, with similar advantages and limitations.

Uber X just ends up in a weird messy gray (dark gray I guess) area.

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[Leafwiz]

Why not get rid of cab service laws ? Why can we never get rid of the laws? People clearly does not want the laws since they want to use uber which does not follow the laws

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most people using Uber don't know they don't follow the commercial insurance laws.

And isn't it interesting that when it did go to a public vote, and the people chose the safety and regulations laws that Uber threw a hissy fit and just left....hmmm

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[danbob999]

People will always choose option A if it's cheaper than option B, all other things being equal.
So if Uber is cheaper by not paying taxes, of course people will use it. It doesn't make it anymore acceptable. I pay my taxes, I expect Uber and drivers to do the same.

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[whoever57]

There are taxis, clearly marked so, which all need a license (which US generally calls "medallion" - and indeed they're in short supply) to operate. Drivers need to have undergone certain training. Licenses are linked to vehicles, and drivers generally rent the vehicles on a per shift basis. That's pretty much the same all over the world.

In London, I think the way it works is that the drivers are licensed and the requirements to get a license act as a limit on supply.

It takes approximately 2 years to get "the knowledge" which is required to get a license. The cars themselves are not licensed, but standard vehicles are required (hence the black cabs that you see around London).

In this way, the supply is limited without someone owning a very expensive asset (the medallion) required to operate a cab.

Re:Uber is not ride sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

With one important distinction. Uber is not a racket. The taxi system is.

Uber is a typical Wall Street scam, a bubble

[fustakrakich]

They might not even last until the election before they run off with all that 'valuation' cash.

frothing at the mouth much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also the Uber that allegedly stalked passengers using its service, following their travel routes for the amusement of its party-goers...

This sentence doesn't even make sense!!!!!!

Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[aepervius]

Yes, competition is bad and you're much better off with a monopoly that abuses its customers with high prices and poor service.

this may be true in the state, but in Germany everybody can be a taxi driver. All you need is 1) a taxi driver license (it is different exams to the normal one) anybody can take the exams, 2) an insurance on the car which makes it a commercial car 3) if you do pay per kilometer a counter which is verified to be working and properly counting kilometer/seconds of wait by a german institution ("geeicht" - calibration) and 4) no prison sentence for certain crime IIRC.

That is it. there is no medaillon no other artificial limitation by existing companies and . In fact one of the driver which I used to take (before he switched of job) was a normal person which had a normal car, and just a official distance table (he had no counter).

Basically Uber does not want to respect those minimal alws NONE of which are to protect local non-existant monopoly, all of which are to protect the consumers. But Uber feel it is "über alles" (pun intended) and now Germany told him "get out". Look possibly your taxi are bad in the state, but in Germany I have only very good one, since everybody can go into the business, those who don't do a good job simply get less and less fares.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[HornWumpus]

In America a Taxi also needs a dispatch service. A number the customer calls to get 'a cab', not a different cell# for each cab.

Many cabbies will give you a better rate if you call their cell phone, obviously the dispatch company isn't taking a piece. But then you have to chase one that's available.

Not every city has a medallion system like NYC. Truth is, I'm surprised the big German cities don't have a problem with too many cabs. Does it work as you describe in Hamburg?

I once knew an old drunk who bought a used cab, on the theory that the cops wouldn't fuck with him on the way home from bars. Didn't work.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

this may be true in the state, but in Germany everybody can be a taxi driver. All you need is 1) a taxi driver license (it is different exams to the normal one) anybody can take the exams, 2) an insurance on the car which makes it a commercial car 3) if you do pay per kilometer a counter which is verified to be working and properly counting kilometer/seconds of wait by a german institution ("geeicht" - calibration) and 4) no prison sentence for certain crime IIRC.

It's basically the same in Sweden. Well the car has to be registered as a taxi. The taxi registration number plate is a different colour (black/yellow) so that the customer can be certain that it is indeed a taxi, i.e has insurance etc. Total cost to turn a car into a taxi is about $2500. You also need a taxi company, but that would be Uber in this case, and it's not onerous, the same as starting any other company/business basically. Then you're off.

But of course that was too onerous for Uber, so they tried to do it illegally here as well. They had to stop. Now they run their Uber X service in the major cities, and low and behold, they're neither cheaper, nor better than the regular low price taxi companies. I guess that the market has spoken, and prices couldn't really be pushed any lower.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[Leafwiz]

I still think Germany here is acting like a despot. A nanny despot. As a free individual I should be able to drive with who ever I so choose to, as long as the person I drive with follow the minimal road standards which applies to everyone (drivers licence , insurance , etc) It is my choice if I want to go into a car that does not have e.g a counter , commercial car insurance , etc.

A free country should not limit my choices in this fashion. Using law like this , is the same as using the threat of deadly force. Which is wrong. You can not make the thereat to kill someone if they refuse to use a counter.. People must be allowed to make individual choices, and be allowed to suffer the consequences if the choice was a poor one. The marked will solve this, most likely there will be a demand for cars with proper security (insurance and no prison sentence for certain crime) probably though a system of reputation and voting and third party validation. You do not need the state to mandate this thought law.

Also having these kinds of rules limit the amount of production (why should one has to spend energy and time having a counter?? when you can just agree to a price in advance? ) which again limits the peoples standard of living.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, I know you're full of shit. You obviously haven't even read about the laws in Germany.

They aren't forced to use a counter, but if they do have one it has to be checked to make sure it's working.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they have any minimal driving standards? As a free man you should be able to drive with _anybody_, why limit yourself?

Obviously you don't _have to_ have this mandated by law, but people (majority at least) _wants_ it to be mandated by law.

Re:Anybody can be a taxi driver in germany

[dave420]

If the car doesn't have commercial insurance and crashes, then everyone suffers as the car is not insured. Everyone has to pick up a piece of the damage caused by someone valuing the bottom line over obvious safety. Taxis in Germany are usually excellent. They are well-maintained, the drivers are well trained, and know where you want to go.

Stop thinking the rest of the world is as broken as where you are from. It's not.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is a marketplace provider. If a farmer's market rented a stall to a farmer who would only let 1/5 people buy from him, and they kicked him out because he was giving the market a bad reputation, does that make him an employee?

Wrong headline: Not banned in France

[AdamInParadise]

Uber is not banned in France, and it most probably won't be. Uber was fined because of UberPop, a service that connected "drivers" with no training and no business license with customers. UberPop was illegal from the get go, I have no idea what went through the mind of the executives in charge when they launched this service. The regular Uber service (with professionnal drivers) works just fine.

Re:Wrong headline: Not banned in France

[Anonymous Coward]

what went through the mind of the executives in charge when they launched this service.

Probably that they'd make more money than the fines. Notice how no one at Uber every goes to jail despite all the illegal things they do.

If you as an individual started your own personal taxi service you'd be fined far above what you earned and could face jail time (depending on the country).

Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trotsky were alive today, he would be driving an Uber in South America.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[beelsebob]

If the farmers market was dictating at what price the farmer could sell his cabbages... Yes ;)

My two cents...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never used an Uber before, but from what I heard, here is my opinion.

Maybe they tread too close to the employer/employee line. They should probably...
Allow tips through the app if they truly don't.
Allow any vehicle to be used, not just black ones or however it is now. With the make and model listed in the app along with a picture. Perhaps license plate numbers to help identify.
Don't kick drivers off for bad ratings. Allow people to choose a driver based on said ratings, even if it's a one star.
Allow weighted ratings, so those riders who give out low ratings... would have a smaller weight.

There's also the whole taxi licensing thing too, which I think could be solved by creating a new law making it so that under $2k/year would be hobbist activity, not commercial. There's also that issue with auto-insurance.

Agree

[goombah99]

Yes it's this arbitrage around the law that is exactly the issue. it shows up in other ways. The pure Food and drink act, pharmaceutical quality, and other protections are circumvented when vendors outside the country can mail their products into the country.

Aliexpress and Ebay would lose a lot of sellers if there were a way to enforce the accurate marking of Customs duties on the outside of the millions of e-packet shipments from china direct to consumers.

It's a puzzle whether one should give up enforcing anything, say it's broken by the disruption of the internet, or crack down.

Uber is an interesting case mainly because it is possible to crackdown.

The contrary argument is a more subtle one. Many markets are strangled by regulations. Take in point google's entry into the underworld of payday lending. What' their first move? to push for legislation to regulate payday lending, and to ban payday lending ads on their own site. Megacorps actually love expensive regulations because it creates barriers to market entry that can only be solved by sheer size of operations to ammortize the administration costs. The taxi cab companies thus have an entrenched position created by the regulations they must obey.

Yet taken individually those regs protect consumers. Yet what they protect against may be an edge case. e.g. background checks may not really be effective or necessary for nearly every driver. On the otherhand they probably do weed out a very tiny number of people who shouldn't be entrusted with passenger safety.

Then there's the grey transition zone between carpooling, hitchhiking, and uber. That probably can be figured out with a brightline formula to make this less gray. But until that happens Uber has a wedge and an appeal to personal enterpirse and sticking it to the large entrenched companies, and the city-renenue machines of taxi taxes.

Re:Agree

[cheesybagel]

Somehow I doubt any of the the "large entrenched" taxi companies have as much of a market cap as Uber.

Uber fascination

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't get it. What is the fascination with Uber by Slashdot and other tech sites? It's just another form of taxi service, except the drivers are more like independent contractors rather than employees of a company, right? Why this company continues to draw such intense scrutiny from the press is baffling to me. I must be missing something obvious that accounts for the high level tech interest here though I haven't the faintest idea what it could be.

Re:Uber fascination

[HornWumpus]

And yet their market cap is?

It's like watching a slow motion train wreck. Dotcom 1 all over again. I even saw a TV ad for a website that sells dog food. Those of us that went through this before should remember that business model...how did it get funded...again?

Re:Uber fascination

[Hognoxious]

Some old fashioned cabbies are independent contractors too, in that they get use of the vehicle, medallion/permit and despatching service for either an hourly fee or a percentage of the take, and then what's left is theirs.

Uber is different because disruptive apps! On the interwebs!

Re:Uber fascination

[cheesybagel]

What? Pets.com? I'm still waiting for Webvan.com to show up.

Re:Uber fascination

[HornWumpus]

Don't remember the new one's name. Ad must suck.

The basic idea of buying TV time to promote a website that will ship cheap bulky products requires two or three business acumen disconnects. Unless the ads are really ads for the stock. (e.g. 'I got a Nortel network' never sold a _single_ switch, clearly it was an ad for the stock.)

Re:Uber fascination

[ooloorie]

What is the fascination with Uber by Slashdot and other tech sites?

The fascination is that a simple web-based communications platform has gotten sucked into a black hole of government regulation, in large part because powerful lobbies want it so and reframe what Uber is doing as some kind of system of corporate enslavement.

And you better pay attention, because what's happening with Uber might well happen with many other web based platforms and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.

Re:Uber fascination

[dave420]

That might be the case where you are, but many countries have functioning taxi industries which are not monopolised, provide good service, and are safe. Uber entering those markets would decrease service, not increase it.

It's clearly a bit more than "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" - indeed, if you think that is accurate you really haven't been paying attention - it's ignoring some very basic laws in the areas it's attempting to operate, and that's where the problem is. I guess someone pretending to be a doctor and selling Draino as a health tonic is just engaging in "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" and should be left alone...

Re:Uber fascination

[ooloorie]

That might be the case where you are, but many countries have functioning taxi industries which are not monopolised, provide good service, and are safe.

Not in my experience. And, in any case, you leave out one important factor: price. Taxi monopolies may well serve the interests of the well off who can afford to take the government licensed operators, but that doesn't mean that they are good for society.

I guess someone pretending to be a doctor and selling Draino as a health tonic is just engaging in "voluntary exchanges of goods and services" and should be left alone...

That person would be guilty of criminal fraud even in the complete absence of medical licensing.

What you should be more worried about is the hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone that are killed by licensed doctors every year. It's just as bad, if not worse, in the UK. And medical licensing is in large part responsible for the absence of effective control mechanisms for preventing this.

Re:We need COMMUNISM NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Trotsky work an honest job?

The culture of this company is toxic.

[quax]

They deserve to die. I am happy to use other ride-share services, and I used some long before there was Uber. But I won't give Uber any of my business.

Re:The culture of this company is toxic.

[quax]

Without governments there wouldn't be a market. The transportation market is regulated differently in different jurisdictions. Uber pretended they don't have to play by the rules of their competition and this costs them.

Save your crocodile tears for a more worthy cause.

Re:The culture of this company is toxic.

[dave420]

It's not a ride sharing service though, it's a taxi service. Ride sharing is when someone is going from A to B regardless of anyone else and finds someone else also wanting to share part of that route, and paying for fuel/coffee/etc on the way.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[ShanghaiBill]

rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked.

Some policy wonks believe that the solution is to create additional categories of workers. So instead of just "W-2 employee" and "1099 contractor" we would have a third category for people that are not quite independent contractors, but not really employees either. They would then have some of the benefits of employees, but some of the flexibility of contractors. People working for Uber, Lyft, Task Rabbit, Fivver, Mechanical Turk, etc. might fall into this category.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[Straif]

Who sets the price is one of the least important aspects of determining who is a contractor or employee. Contractors rarely get to arbitrarily set their own prices. Sure they can ask whatever they want but once they decide to take a contract they have to agree to the terms and conditions of the person who they are contracted with and that will usually involve the price of the good or service they provide.

Often at places like farmers markets or sporting events the price of the sold good is at least partially set by the venue since they often receive a percentage of profits as part of the lease agreement and they also don't want to have uneven pricing across individual stalls. That doesn't necessarily make the workers at the individual stalls employees of the venue.

In the case of Uber the drivers could say they will not work unless Uber ups their rate or gives them a larger share but once they accept Uber's offer then they are bound by Ubers rules, which includes pricing structure, for as long as they decide to accept ride requests from the app.

The actual rules for determining contractor vs. employee are very gray. There are about a dozen or more conditions that are looked at and almost every job will meet conditions that would define their position as both a contractor and employee. There is no clearly defined line as to how many conditions have to be met to be one or the other which is why the courts get involved.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[Sique]

Yes, if the Farmer Market also dictates the prices, defines the products to be sold and the Terms of Service.

In the United States

[rsilvergun]

your entire quality of life is based on your job. You're access to housing, health care, education, food. Everything. We've built up a complicated and messy social contract where if you kill yourself for a business they're suppose to take care of you. Uber completely breaks what little truth there was in that. Worse, the drivers after accounting for their low pay and mileage write offs often end up with effectively zero income for tax and welfare purposes. So like Walmart (but more so) the tax payer ends up covering the bill to keep them working. Food stamps (in the more liberal States), free or heavily subsidized health and child care. Uber becomes the biggest welfare recipient in the world. I suspect it's much, much more worse in Europe where the social safety net is much more robust.

Uber is either a race to the bottom, a huge subsidy for the 1% or both. Either way it should be stamped out. There's nothing good here.

Re:In the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost sound like the .01% don't need no corporate welfare to be better than us commoners?

Captcha: shortcut

The reason Uber sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

It has no future because of self driving cars AND a car is a dangerous vehicle. It won't take long for opportunistic slackers who become Uber drivers to screw up and for Uber to wind up with trickle down law suits.

Not regulating people who wield as much deadly force as a car is a bad business strategy. It's a viable small business because of the limited total liability. If Joe Nobody runs over a child ferrying people to work.. well that's his problem and the total losses can probably die with him.

Uber can't ask for the level of revenue they do and then pretend that they are not responsible for hooking people up with untested drivers. It's a viable business model, but it's still a stupid one, it's just better than the existing business model which was to rip off consumers as much as possible... existing taxis were a price fixing scam. Uber, by comparison, seems awesome, but in reality what we really want are taxi servers that are owned and managed locally and have that level incentive and liabilities to ensure they are hire good/safe drivers.

Trusting someone to drive you around inside a moving deadly weapon is really not something that should be left to a system with so little oversight. Instead local taxi services should just become more price competitive and someone should make a generic app for any taxi service to brand and use or just a simple webpage since that will run on any phone and cost the least as well as be the most future proofed and offer the long reigning standardized interface.

In the big picture self driving cars are going to be be huge and they will be everyone. Uber has a short window to skim money off this silly sub contractor limited liability scam they have going. Good for Germany and France to see through their opportunistic business model.

Re: rules about employees / 1099's need to reworke

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isnt. Uber is a taxi service trying to pretend that it isnt so that it doesnt have to abide by local laws.

If you want to make a comparative anolagy at least make sure youre not comparing apples to chrome vamdium ratchets.

The app doesn't have a tipping function

[Anonymous Coward]

How can Uber keep a tip if there's no functional way to tip within the app? I had thought that a recent settlement allowed for drivers to accept tips from outside the app along with charging the rider a specific dollar amount if the rider doesn't come to the car within two minutes. Methinks these drivers come to the uber platform with lawsuits in mind - facts be damned.

Re:rules about employees / 1099's need to reworked

[JonnyCalcutta]

Uber sell taxi services - they are a taxi company. Full stop. They find the customer and they set the price. If it was a marketplace then there would be a negotiation involved.

But then you known that.

Uber and "competition"

[golodh]

@ Anonymous Coward

Uber has nothing to do with "competition", let alone a "free market". It deals in "unfair competition", in which it maintains a monopoly on apps and servers, appropriates inflated fees for their electronic service, and uses (underpaid pseudo-entrepreneur) part-timers as throw-away employees to actually drive (and drive out ordinary taxi companies and ordinary taxicab drivers).

The only thing Uber did was to find a regulated market, determine it could make money by an end-run around the regulations, and offer unregulated services by offloading most risks to their pseudo-entrepreneur drivers. In addition they use (apparently successfully) of dog-whistle PR techniques to sell their business model.

Oh, and they also have a standing policy to price-gouge the public as soon as there is any situation that leads to higher than normal demand. Free play of demand and supply they call it. Only ... all of it is hidden within their servers.

And they have a policy to threaten price-comparison sites with legal action (their "terms of service" forbid you to publish any price quotations they make you). They're only pro "free-market" if they stand to make money from it. Not if it brings genuine competition.

Why not let the marked solve this problem?

[Leafwiz]

Why can we not let the marked solve this problem ? Cabs in my country could really benefit from some competition. Today there is poor vetting of the drivers , due to non existent reputation system or independent third party validation. The drivers rape left and right despite government laws and regulation. Many drivers are rude. All this due to non existent reputation system. The cost is really high, due to low productivity since they can sit many hours in waiting for customers (especially at the air ports). Uber would probably solve this by having a more dynamic allocation of drivers. How to order a taxi is old fashioned. No apps , have to call in to a operator. Several times the taxi has not properly registered my request.

The classic cab driver paradigm is dead. We needed cab drivers due to their knowledge of locations. We do not need this any more due to really good GPS.

The only reason it is still in operation is due to anti competitive laws that favour the classic model. Because cab driver organisations is well connected with the government.

If you want special service X, (e.g. counter in the car) why can you not choose the company that gives you that service? Why do you have to force that requirement on everyone else?

So don't work for them?

[Atryn]

I'm continually confused why these people work for Uber and then complain about what its like to work for Uber.... So, don't work there? If Uber is misleading people in the terms of the relationship or contract, that is something to sue over. But if Uber clearly lays out the offer for for someone to drive, and they accept, then that's a valid contract. What Uber drivers are struggling with, really, is that the barrier to entry for a new Uber driver is low. Thus Uber has a large supply of potential drivers. Thus Uber doesn't have to be very generous in its terms to the drivers. Low-skill labor gets low reward, this is not new.

this madness has got to stop

[ooloorie]

Uber is a company that matches drivers with riders. The idea that consenting adults can't give each other rides for money without government permission, or one or the other person becoming an "employee", is absolutely ludicrous.

Re:this madness has got to stop

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that doesn't work out too well in reality. Then snowball driver A picks up a ride, but they haven't taken their car in for maintenance, and haven't paid their insurance. Oops, car accident. Well, looks like driver A can't pay for your hospital costs... enjoy your life now.

EU Commission warning

[manu0601]

It is nice to see France and Germany courts standing by their opinions, after EU commission warned them against banning Uber.

It was obvious intimidation tactics by EU commission, and now the EU court of justice will have to settle the thing.

Why Johnny can't have nice things

[transami]

We just can't do anything anymore. Since when can a contract worker dictate that he must be an employee? Since when can a government tell a company it can't do business b/c it will hurt someone else's business? The capitalist system is about to collapse under it's own crony-ism.

Here in Florida we were about to get the first true high-speed rail, until Rick Scott, our King, unilaterally said "nope". And that was the end of that. Now his crony's are starting their own slow-speed rail (and lie calling it high-speed) that only runs from Miami to Fort Lauderdale to Orlando -- no stops in between. And it will cost major $$$$. Who does that serve? Pigs only.

Bean Hill

[transami]

Uber, "Okay okay. We'll make them all employees." ... a few years ... "Sorry, you're fired. We just automated your job."

The world has much bigger problems and the government is croning around with taxi companies.

Re:Bean Hill

[twokay]

I think allowing corporations to pick and choose which of a countries laws they feel like obeying is the "much bigger problem". This is just testing the waters to see how much will there is in governments to stand up to an aggressive coordinated assault on existing law that -- if changed or abandoned -- opens the door massive growth and profit for lucky the elites that have money to burn on such an enterprise.

Why else do you think Goldman, The Saudi's and countless other VCs and Banks/Hedge Funds happily pump unlimited cash into a taxi app? The goal is to trample the law and then make their own. To make things more fun, most of our "leaders" are already full steam ahead on allowing this to happen with global agreements such as TPP.

This shit is wrong

[samantha]

Totally anti-progress, and anti-sharing economy protecting old fashioned business plans and State revenue streams. Take the assholes that did this apart.

Re:This shit is wrong

[twokay]

As someone mentioned above, the French company BlahBlahCar is the only service that couple possible fit the "sharing economy" moniker. The driver is not allowed to make a profit and simply share the cost of the journey with the riders (that's the sharing part). BlahBlahCar add a small percentage to the transaction for running the service. Uber, Lyft etc. are just old fashioned taxi companies with an app and bundles of cash.