Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
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.