Uber Is About to Face a Landmark Battle in Europe (fortune.com)

In a case which could affect other app-based startups, Uber will seek to convince Europe's top court next week that it is a digital service, not a transport company. The outcome could determine whether app-based startups should be exempt from strict laws meant for regular companies. From a report on Fortune:The European Commission is trying to boost e-commerce, a sector where the EU lags behind Asia and the United States, to drive economic growth and create jobs. The U.S. taxi app, which launched in Europe five years ago, has faced fierce opposition from regular taxi companies and some local authorities, who fear it creates unfair competition because it is not bound by strict local licensing and safety rules. Supporters however say rigid regulatory obligations protect incumbents and hinder the entry of digital startups which offer looser work arrangements to workers in the 28-country European Union looking for more flexibility, albeit without basic rights.

Comments

Re:Government is overweening when

[Anonymous Coward]

Government LUDDITES STOMP on app appers who make apps! The overweening government can't app apps. Only the app appers can app apps!

Apps!

We'll all be "contractors" soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Supporters however say rigid regulatory obligations protect incumbents and hinder the entry of digital startups which offer looser work arrangements to workers in the 28-country European Union looking for more flexibility, albeit without basic rights.

See, these folks are spinning it as an opportunity for folks - "be your own boss!", "Be an entrepreneur!", etc ....

But they still rule your work. You still take on the business risk but aren't compensated for it. That's the trend - to push market and other business risks onto the worker - as well as the tax liability and hassle - and not compensating the worker for it.

A 25% commission and booking fee on top of that is way too steep for what they (Uber) do. They have no risk and very little expense while the drivers deal with the headaches of owning the capital equipment and taxes and whatnot. It's great that by becoming an Uber driver, you can skate around taxi regulations, but never the less, it's a bad deal. Uber just supplies an app and a payment system (BFD), but the drivers are the ones who are supplying the real service and capital equipment. I

Re:We'll all be "contractors" soon.

[mrclevesque]

"A 25% commission and booking fee on top of that is way too steep for what they (Uber) do."

right, and some even call it the 'sharing economy'.

Re:We'll all be "contractors" soon.

[GuB-42]

But it is a "sharing economy".
Drivers share their income with Uber.

Re:We'll all be "contractors" soon.

[Half-pint HAL]

The traditional fee for a sitting-on-his-arse middleman is 2.5%. Uber demanding 10 times that is almost racketeering and begets a question: Why doesn't someone start a ride-sharing business that provides security checks, carriage insurance and online 'training' for their contracted workers? The business could actually provide a service and still make a tidy profit.

If people are so sick of Facebook's constant invasion of privacy, why don't they set up another social network.

Oh, they did?

Oh, they went out of business?

Uber's greatest strength is the same as Facebook's: coverage. Lyft is mySpace to Uber's Facebook -- i.e. trundling on getting slowly eclipsed until the day when nobody is actually sure whether it still exists or not [checks myspace.com -- oh yes, it still exists]. The dozens of other social networking sites whose names you forget are equivalent to the dozens of ride-hailing apps that you never heard of because they never got the market traction.

Re:Labor Luddism

[digitig]

Reverting to 19th-century safety standards, though, might not be a good idea.

Re: Government is overweening when

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care about innovation. It does not bother me. Dogs, they bother me. They bark and bite. So I don't know about the government, but when I see dogs, I STOMP on them. I stomp on chihuahuas and I stomp on dobermanns. I stomp them flat. Stomp stomp stomp.

Um... so what?

[rsilvergun]

these laws and regulations exist for a reason, and it's not to put a stop to everybody's fun. It's because people were being abused.

If you let people ignore laws because you're changing nomenclature then there is no law. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Re:Um... so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that. As much fun as certain... generations have from doing everything via smartphone, taxi companies are Good For Society (tm). What if you can't use a smartphone? You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business. What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?
Completely aside from discrimination and so on.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

Yes, in some cases it was because people were being abused. In many other cases it's because lobbyists of the oligopolies want to prevent competition or local governments can't figure out how to maximize their taxes on it.

If you disagree, please explain how Uber has seriously harmed anyone other than the outdated Taxi companies. It's frankly absurd that a person would need government permission just to accept money to drive another person where they want to go.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?

So why not just throw away they rest of the outdated taxi regulations and let people call a number to request an Uber? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige that 2% (in reality, it's way less than that - probably a fraction of a percent) in order to get government regulators off their backs.

Re:Um... so what?

[ShanghaiBill]

You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.

The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.

What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?

What if an elderly or disabled person needs a ride on a busy rainy night, but there are no rides available because of government imposed fix prices that don't incentivize additional drivers to go out and provide rides?

What if that elderly person needs to eat? Should we require grocery stores to be licensed, and provide food at fixed prices to ensure people aren't exposed to market based groceries?

Re:Um... so what?

[BasilBrush]

There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.

Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level. A free market would normally end up with too many taxis, and poverty wages as they all compete for few jobs at low rates. You can see that happening in parts of the world where they are not regulated.

With regulation, you make sure there aren't too many taxis by limiting the badges. And you make sure there are not too few, by setting what the rates are.

Having said that I think the app based model offers a lot of advantages. But they should be accepted within the regulated system, not operate outside of it.

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

Listen I know with Trump and everything equality seems to be going out of style, but it is a pretty shitty society that turns their backs on that 2%. In fact that is pretty much the gold standard of how well a society treats its members. And anyway if you count all the people who may be raped or attached in some other way it is far higher than 2%.

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

attacked*

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

My wife has had lymph nodes out and if she goes to a salon and they use cuticle pushers incorrectly and break her skin she could be in deep trouble. So yes, there needs to be a minimum ounce of safety even for salons.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

Who's turning their back? I'm encouraging that the government allow Uber to let people call in and schedule rides. I think that would be a great service, and in the VAST majority of areas where that "2%" lives, would result in faster service.

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

The 2% doesn't just consist of people living in certain areas, it also consists of people who are physically disabled who cannot use a regular vehicle. Currently most taxi services must provide these services, but Uber does not.

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis.

No, I don't think there is. The number is very fluid. It changes from minute to minute and from location to location, and from person to person. I personally have no idea how you'd go about figuring it out. I don't even know how you'd decide one value is better than another because that's a judgement call, not an objective fact.

Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.

It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.

Somehow we need to come up with the number of available taxis right now. I'm a rabid free marketer, just so you know my biases. I have no idea how many people need rides right now, how congested the streets are, how many drivers have cars and nothing to do, how much money they'd need to give up their next best alternative. It's a really, really complicated problem and I think it's uncomputable. There's no way a taxi commission or taxi company can come up with a single "right" number of taxis.

Even assuming you were omniscient and could measure everything, you'd still have to make a subjective judgement. I may be a cheapskate who doesn't mind congestion. You might be Daddy Warbucks who really likes being whisked through deserted streets. The guy reading this post might be Scrooge McDuck who likes crowded streets because it screams "profit opportunity". Who gets to make the call and why should be believe him or her?

Regarding poverty wages, I think it's a little arrogant to say what wages someone should be allowed to accept. I don't think many ride sharing drivers do that as their only source of income. Many people (I'd believe most but I can't prove it) drive around a bit to get a little extra spending cash. Do you really think you know their circumstances so well that you can confidently say it's not worth their time? How can you possibly know that?

Regarding congestion, how about we wait for that to be a problem before we act? My inclination is every ride sharing car probably reduces congestion and at least they don't drive around aimlessly looking for rides like traditional taxis do. Fun fact, a UCLA professor did a study of traffic in Westwood (I think) where they found most of the city street level congestion was people circling the block looking for parking. Just sayin'.

Re: Um... so what?

[psmoot]

Would you say the job requirements and barriers for being an engineer is the same as a taxi driver? (All engineering jokes aside.)

Of course not.

Would you believe that one is self limiting by nature and one is not and need external limiting?

Nope, I don't believe that. I think they're only different in degree, not in kind. If you gave out Engineer Medallions and limited the supply, I think engineer salaries would skyrocket and it would be really, really hard to hire engineers. The only real difference between the two is it takes longer to get trained to be an engineer versus becoming a reasonable driver so the RC constant is larger. Although, now that I think of it, the barrier to entry for software development is a $500 laptop, internet access, and I dunno, a year or two of consistent effort. It probably takes a year or two of driving to be good enough to be a ride sharing driver.

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

My wife has had lymph nodes out and if she goes to a salon and they use cuticle pushers incorrectly and break her skin she could be in deep trouble. So yes, there needs to be a minimum ounce of safety even for salons.

OK, you just hit on a really deep and subtle point.

Absolutely, yes, there needs to be some quality standard for manicurists, drivers, engineers, and nuclear power plant operators.

Now, here's the hard question: how best to arrange that? The safety standards aren't free. If they were, I'd ask that each manicurist have an MD so they can properly treat your wife should she get an open wound. So, clearly to me, we can't have all the safety precautions we can imagine. So the question is, what's the right level? And the answer to that is a very personal decision. I hope you and your wife are quite wealthy and can afford to go to a salon with very high standards (seriously, I do hope that). My teenage daughter doesn't need that level of security and she isn't willing to pay for it.

The hot answer these days for things like manicurists is reputation. Don't go to a salon with a 1.5 star rating on Yelp. That's how ride sharing and home sharing services also regulate their quality. And companies are really, really serious about maintaining their reputation.

So the question we need to always ask is which we trust more: a licensing board (who doesn't actually have any skin in the game if something goes south) or the company providing the good or service (who has a lot to lose)? The answer will be different in different circumstances but don't assume government regulation is the only or best option.

Re:Um... so what?

[BasilBrush]

No surprise that a free marketer would comment to say what I suggested they would say. Confident that their religion is right.

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

Usually it's going to be a licensing board. It's to easy for a business to fake credentials without one.

Re:Um... so what?

[kuzb]

So set up an uber dispatch. You're acting like this is an unsolvable problem.

Re:Um... so what?

[kuzb]

Totally solvable problem. Just because it doesn't exist does not mean it can't be solved. It just makes you look like an idiot to voice this as an unsolvable problem.

Re:Um... so what?

[kuzb]

It's not up to the salon to cater to her medical condition. If a salon is that dangerous to her health, perhaps she should stop going.

Re:Um... so what?

[demonlapin]

Yeah, I just spent a week in New York. I saw people trying to hail taxis left and right. I never waited more than ten minutes for an Uber, and usually less than five. I got picked up. They still had their arms out.

Re:Um... so what?

[roman_mir]

and it's not to put a stop to everybody's fun. It's because people were being abused.

- no, that's irrelevant, it's not because 'people were abused', many people are abused in many ways and this includes abuse by government. This is because governments are made of politicians that buy power from the mob with giving out promises and 'free' stuff. Governments should not be regulating any businesses at all for any purpose. There shouldn't be any income or property related taxes either. Government should only spend what they can get in taxes and shouldn't run deficits. Governments should scale down with every economic downturn and not choose winners and losers, not print money, not manipulate markets and interest rates, not destroy individual freedoms. Yet they do all of that and people are constantly surprised at the economic disasters that follow.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

Of COURSE it's about people in "certain areas". Te Urban areas are the only places this is even an issue. In the suburbs and even more the rural areas Uber is a godsend for those not having their own means of transportation.

Where do you live? Have you ever tried to get a cab in the semi-rural Midwest? I have. It's nigh-impossible, while getting an Uber still takes make 10-15 minutes since the driver doesn't have to be a part of a big taxi company.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

And yet his argument is well thought out and totally reasonable. while your argument provides almost no actual evidence supporting your opinion. Who's the one pushing the "religion" in this case?

I'd argue that someone magically believing that setting BOTH arbitrary limits on supply AND pricing is the one bowing to a fake religion...

Re:Um... so what?

[Half-pint HAL]

You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.

The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.

That doesn't guarantee it will happen though. Running phone lines is expensive, and that eats into profit. Uber's business model is one of cherry-picking profitable business, not of getting full coverage; whereas one of the main points about regulated taxi and private hire car services is that you can mandate that a license holder has to cater for different classes of passenger. That means that a medium-to-large taxi firm must have a certain percentage of accessible vehicles, and now practically all black cabs bought new will have ramps and straps for wheelchair access and securing the wheelchair once in the vehicle, because it makes economic sense. Game theory used to mean that the possibility of a few extra fares made accessible features of no economic value. Now, the absence of them has regulatory implications as well as the possibility of marginal lost trade, so "better to be safe than sorry" meant that the features gained economy of scale, and now a disabled person in a city like London or Edinburgh can hail a cab like the rest of us, and 99% of taxis will be able to stop and pick them up.

All these people who think that regulation is a bad thing should have a look at why regulation was invented in the first place. It was made to protect the public, and if in some cases that has been corrupted by vested corporate interests, the solution is to deal with those interests, not to remove consumer protections completely.

Re:Um... so what?

[Half-pint HAL]

There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of grocery stores, computer programmers, car makers, etc.

If we let anyone open a grocery store, program computers, etc., then there will be too many of each and everyone will be in poverty.

What? Taxis are different? How?

Grocery stores typically require trading licenses issued by municipal authorities, and they are most assuredly issued based on local need and demand.

The difference with computer programmers is that you don't accumulate much experience as a taxi driver after a year or two on the road, so you don't become more valuable.

Car makers, on the other hand, are heavily regulated, and you have to meet stringent safety regulations to sell what you make. There may not be direct regulation for numbers of car makers or quotas for factory output, but the capital outlay is extremely high, which is where market forces work. If you have a car, the capital outlay for Uber is nil, so there's no obvious loss to entering an already-saturated market; lots of people enter said saturated market and deflationary pressures arise.

In fact, that's the whole point about minimum wage laws: the capital outlay for getting a job is at most a new shirt and trousers, so lots of people going for work is a natural deflationary pressure. Market fanatics would say that's a "good thing" because of "efficiencies", but we tried that before. Workers fainting from exhaustion due to long hours isn't efficient, and workers dying of starvation on the job because they weren't paid enough to live isn't efficient; but undirected, uncontrolled market forces sustained that madness for a looooong time (and it still happens in developing countries) -- labour laws were the only effective solution.

Re:Um... so what?

[Half-pint HAL]

Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.

It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.

It's less of a faith position to say that a well-informed third party can deduce value than to claim that a mass of uninformed individuals can.

I once visited the famous tourist beauty spot of Biarritz in France. Beauty spot? It is ugly as all sin. The problem is that the mass of tourists have destroyed everything. You have clifftop walks which originally had planned paths, set out in concrete. Tourists didn't want to follow those paths, and walked across the grass. The authorities in Biarritz apparently took the view that you couldn't argue with the crowd, and they reinforced the new paths the tourist created. Guess what? The tourists cut corners between the new paths, and made further paths. The seafront at Biarritz is now more path than grass or rock. You have areas of natural clifftop about the size of a kitchen table surrounded on all sides by wide concrete paths. It's horrible. You may have heard of "the tragedy of the commons" -- I don't like the term: where common grazings are still in operation, they are run in planned cooperation between locals who know each other, but the idea is sound: individuals all pursuing self-interest and self-gratification do not act in ways that aim to the common good.

Re:Um... so what?

[Half-pint HAL]

The hot answer these days for things like manicurists is reputation. Don't go to a salon with a 1.5 star rating on Yelp. That's how ride sharing and home sharing services also regulate their quality. And companies are really, really serious about maintaining their reputation.

What happens when your top manicurist decides she's had enough of being the employee and opens her own salon, taking the best people on your staff with her? You get in new manicurists that can do the work, that's what! Ideally you'd be protecting your reputation by only hiring the best, but a reputation is no use whatsoever if you can't sell your services.

It's the same in restaurants. All the reviews tell you how great the chef was, how clever the head chef's menu is, and those reviews don't disappear the instant the head chef gets a better job 2 miles down the road and the new head chef is just whoever had been working in the kitchen longest. The restaurant doesn't just shut down indefinitely while waiting for a new chef equal to the guy before.

Of course, the restaurant still has to maintain legally mandated levels of food safety, and the chefs need all their food handling certificates. Why should the beauty saloon need to have basic training in healthy and safe practices too? Safety is not the same as quality.

Re: Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

The problem was already solved. Traditional taxis. It's up to someone who thinks the new way is better to solve it.

Re: Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

There needs to be a minimum amount of safety in any business catering to the public.

Re:Um... so what?

[CohibaVancouver]

So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?

Largely we're not talking about Uber's customers, we're talking about Uber's employees.

...and yes, Uber's drivers are obviously Uber's employees.

When I buy a box on Amazon via their app, the employees that package and ship that box to me work under local labour laws. Uber needs to do the same.

Re:Um... so what?

[Carewolf]

There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.

No,. empty taxis makes no profit. This one of the business that can self balance, too many drivers drives drivers out of business, naturally..

Re:Um... so what?

[BasilBrush]

...nor 2 free market religionists.

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.

It's less of a faith position to say that a well-informed third party can deduce value than to claim that a mass of uninformed individuals can.

Well, that's a difference in judgement. I don't think either of us can prove that point. All I can say is I believe there are way, way more cases where depending on individuals to jointly, through a free market, can come to a decision on an optimal balance than there cases where a central authority will come to a better answer.

I once visited the famous tourist beauty spot of Biarritz in France. Beauty spot? It is ugly as all sin. The problem is that the mass of tourists have destroyed everything. You have clifftop walks which originally had planned paths, set out in concrete. Tourists didn't want to follow those paths, and walked across the grass. The authorities in Biarritz apparently took the view that you couldn't argue with the crowd, and they reinforced the new paths the tourist created.

That's a shame. I don't know anything about Bairritz but I've got to wonder who was making the decisions and what their incentives are. If the decisions where to put paths was made by some city agency, it doesn't sound like they did such a great job. Certainly you have an incentive problem in that tourists have no incentive to stay on the paths and protect the natural surfaces.

You may have heard of "the tragedy of the commons" -- I don't like the term: where common grazings are still in operation, they are run in planned cooperation between locals who know each other, but the idea is sound: individuals all pursuing self-interest and self-gratification do not act in ways that aim to the common good.

I've totally heard about tragedies of the commons. It's the classic first justification for government regulation. The case you cite, where the individuals using the commons self-regulate, is exactly the sort of solution I'd prefer. The individuals involved regulate themselves in their own enlightened self interest as a way to maximize their common good.

So what's weird here is I think we agree with each other more than we disagree. You point out one instance of what looks like government regulation failure and another instance of what looks like private regulation. Do we disagree with each other?

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

No, I don't think there is.

I thought about this a little this morning and I was being a little arrogant myself. Of course we can have a reasonable discussion about this.

Re:Um... so what?

[Half-pint HAL]

My point is that "tragedy of the commons" is a misnomer, because in a true commons, the commoners are working for mutual interest, and between them come to conscious decisions, and compromises. There are no explicit multi-party compromises in an open market with no management.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons has been used to justify private land ownership, by claiming that the proprietor has a long-term stake in maintaining the quality of the land, but the result is quite the opposite -- private ownership often encourages short-termism in the hunt for immediate profits, and is often to the detriment of local communities who would be stakeholders in a commons arrangement (such as tree clearances of upland land for sheep farming leading to flooding and landslides downhill.

The rich landowner's legacy can just be a bank account -- he doesn't need productive land for his children. Commoners who don't leave big bank accounts are far more concerned with maintaining a sustainable ecosystem.

Uber doesn't need to create a healthy transport ecosystem -- they just want to make a big bank balance.

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

Usually it's going to be a licensing board. It's to easy for a business to fake credentials without one.

The problem with licensing boards is they have a conflict of interest. My understanding is it is quite common for licensing boards to be composed of or heavily influenced by members of the profession (look up regulatory capture).

So, what are the interests of the board? To protect their businesses. They do this in two major ways. One is to protect the business reputation. That's what we, the consumers, want. I want the board to give me assurance the practitioners are good, honest, and qualified, and that bad actors are shut down. But you have to trust they'll actually do this, as opposed to trying to sweep issues under the rug in the hopes no one finds out about it.

They also have the selfish interest of preventing competition. We see this in licensing regulations which are way, way more stringent than are required for quality assurance and safety (for example, training requirements for interior decorators and hair braiders).

As a result, I don't entirely trust licensing boards. All the way from the most mundane (interior decorators) to the most safety critical (e.g. the American Medical Association). Their interests are not aligned with mine and so I believe they will always make decisions which aren't entirely in my best interest.

That's not to say a licensing board is entirely fraudulent. They can provide useful input. It's just not sufficient. As consumers, we need to be aware of this and treat their conclusions with a grain of salt. It's not entirely caveat emptor but we do need to be skeptical and responsible.

Re:Um... so what?

[fluffernutter]

I thought you meant a government sponsored licensing board. Must be regulated by government. No other way. And yes I know they can become corrupt to but so does anyone.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Is ad hominem all you have?

Re:Um... so what?

[psmoot]

I thought you meant a government sponsored licensing board. Must be regulated by government. No other way. And yes I know they can become corrupt to but so does anyone.

I don't think it matters if it's a government or industry sponsored licensing board. In both cases, companies have a strong interest in lobbying and influencing the board while customers have a much weaker interest in making sure proceeding are all above board. Look up the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was the first agency intended to regulate railroads, yet within a few years, the railroads had captured the board and used it to drive competitors out of the market. The same story plays out over and over again.

Re:Um... so what?

[BasilBrush]

I already made the argument in the opening post, including predicting disagreement by free marketers. There's nothing more to say other than what I already did.

Re:Um... so what?

[Dahamma]

Hilarious. Your original argument WAS THE DEFINITION OF FREE MARKET.

There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.

And then, this gem: A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.

WTF is the "right" level, then? You clearly have no fucking clue, and have not cited a SINGLE source or answered any questions outside your little brain to the contrary...

Re:Um... so what?

[BasilBrush]

The right level is one that serves the needs of the city; enough for the passengers, not so many that they cause congestion; not so many that the drivers are impoverished. These problems happen in cities where there is no taxi regulation.

The random level that a free market finds doesn't serve anyone except possibly by chance.

The real question is about rights

[Crashmarik]

Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee, or does the government have the right do define a class of people with that right.

There is also the question of does the consumer have the right to decide what is in their best interest or does the government ?

Re:The real question is about rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US (yes I know the story is about the EU) Individuals have very limited rights to do anything for a fee without registering a business. Actual companies with employees are even more limited.

Re Uber, if there are laws regulating who can offer taxi services wherever they are picking the person up they have to follow those laws like any other company.

If you don't like a law and choose to ignore it that is your choice but don't act surprised when police show up.

Re:The real question is about rights

[PvtVoid]

Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee, or does the government have the right do define a class of people with that right.

The former.

Re:The real question is about rights

[Half-pint HAL]

There are certain low frequency problems that are worth avoiding. For instance, there was a rash of sexual assaults about 20-30 years ago in rural Central Scotland by a guy who pretended to be a taxi driver. He used a radio scanner to listen out for dispatch messages for rides for 1 passenger with a female name, and if he could get there before the assigned driver, he'd pick the woman up. Sometimes if he decided he didn't fancy them he'd just tell them to get out in the middle of nowhere. They were the lucky ones.

Re:The real question is about rights

[Carewolf]

Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee

Do you have the right to perform tax-evading work and willfully break government safety regulations? Sure I repair your electric outlets for a "shared repair-work" fee, and I don't need to stick to housing or education regulation because I am selling my service through an App!

Re:The real question is about rights

[Crashmarik]

Fair enough

How does uber impact this ? Far as I can see they have to track their drivers.

Duh

[Locke2005]

Just because you organize your taxi service over the internet doesn't mean your exempt for all other laws, regulations, or requirements for a taxi service. This applies to every other dot com whose business model is basically "Do a business that has been around for decades, but using the internet!" AirBNB? You need to follow the same rules as any other room rental agency. Amazon? People buying things over the internet still need to pay sales tax. Backpage.com? Soliciting prostitution is still soliciting prostitution.

Re:Duh

[PvtVoid]

Just because you organize your taxi service over the internet doesn't mean your exempt for all other laws, regulations, or requirements for a taxi service. This applies to every other dot com whose business model is basically "Do a business that has been around for decades, but using the internet!" AirBNB? You need to follow the same rules as any other room rental agency. Amazon? People buying things over the internet still need to pay sales tax. Backpage.com? Soliciting prostitution is still soliciting prostitution.

Didn't you get the memo? We're in a post-reality world now.

Re:Duh

[Locke2005]

Sorry, I'm not on the Trump memo distribution list. I voted for Hillary. I'm waiting to sent to a re-education camp when the Trump train really gets rolling...

Re:If this is the case, beward companies.

[tlhIngan]

Ebay will be called an auction place and have to abide by rules in every town.
Paypal will be called a bank and have to obey laws.
Every tech company figures they're semi avoiding laws at least cuz it is new. The motto in tech ask for forgiveness, not ask for permission. If you limit yourself, you might not ever have a good idea to make billions. I've had many ideas that turned into multimillion or multibillion dollar companies, but I didn't do them myself because I didn't have a crew to do them with. It doesn't bother me, but just reassuring that my ideas are good.

eBay is an auction site and the sellers and buyers do have to abide by local laws. Like in Germany, eBay has had to remove Nazi stuff listed for sale, because it is illegal to sell those in Germany. eBay has also had to remove listings because they've violated laws.

Paypal IS actually a bank in the EU.

Anyhow, if the EU wants more e-commerce, why not start with something straightforward like selling of merchandise? Or even working on copyright and IP laws which would allow the sale of music, tv shows and movies throughout the EU without being country specific? That would seem to be the low-hanging fruit blocking EU-wide e-commerce.

Going after someone like Uber is going to be hard. Because there are some laws you want them to follow (e.g., non-discrimination). And depending on the country, if a taxi driver doesn't want to carry a fare that's hired them, they're forced to call another taxi AND THEN wait with the fare until the replacement taxi arrives. (This is so the refusing taxi can't go and get someone more lucrative in the meantime, as well as if it's bad weather, the fare doesn't have to wait in the weather).

I'm not arguing that at all

[rsilvergun]

nice straw man, btw. What part of Uber is a ride share service? Uber is actively seeking drivers with the same techniques companies use to find employees. They're also treating those drivers exactly like employees. Crucially by controlling how much they charge and punishing them for refusing low paying rides. There are other ways though.

If they're going to treat people like employees when it's to their advantage they're also going to treat them like employees when it's to the drivers advantage. People literally died for those protections. In China and South America they're still dying. WTF is wrong with you that you'd turn a blind eye to that?

Re:I'm not arguing that at all

[Dahamma]

What part of Uber is a ride share service?

What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?

Actually, I TOTALLY AGREE that Uber is a transportation company and not a digital services company. My argument is that the current regulations on "transportation companies" are absurd.

I a not "pro Uber" per se - but I do agree some additional regulation is in order. But I also have several friends who are Uber drivers who are very happy with it and yet would never have been able to be taxi drivers due to the taxi company commmitments/onerous regulations/etc.

And we are not talking China or South America in THIS ARTICLE (though actually - in SA Uber drivers "dying" are from cartel-connected taxi companies encouraging shooting at them). We are talking Europe. I have taken a bunch of Ubers in Europe and it was a great experience all around. I asked the drivers if they liked it and most (who were driving Mercedes and BMWs by the way) said it was the best job they have had).

Re:I'm not arguing that at all

[Dahamma]

Do these friends of yours havea a driver's license that allows them to operate a vehicle for hire?

Who cares, that's my point, duh.

Do they have mandatory inspections for safety and serviceability of their vehicles?

Yep they do, and I have felt safer in most Uber rides over many of the shitty, dirty cabs I have been a passenger in.

Do they carry insurance sufficient to cover their passengers in the case of an accident?

Absolutely. This was a done deal years ago welcome to the modern age...

Re:I'm not arguing that at all

[Dahamma]

Ride sharing should never be considered a job. You agree to carry a passenger who's going your way in exchange for some money to cover the gas. Diverting your route to pick up passengers then drive to their destination in exchange for a fee based on distance, that's the basic definition of taxi.

I can't believe I have to re-quote my post AGAIN... why can't you read it before replying?

What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?

Of course it's a replacement for taxis. One that nearly all customers of taxis and Ubers are ecstatic over. Maybe the taxi companies could clean up their cars and find more drivers who don't drive like maniacs... you know, try to *compete*...

software patents all over again

[Tom]

It has nothing to do with boosting e-commerce and startup culture.

This "we are an app company" is just like the software patent fiasco. Take a well-known process, add "with a computer" to it and file for a patent.

This is the same. Take an existing industry, add "with an app" to it - and pretend that everything that is true about that industry doesn't apply to you, because you are something completely new and different.

Re:software patents all over again

[fluffernutter]

I'm thinking I should start a food sharing service in my back yard that matches people to food that they may me for and I prepare. Think of all the health and safety regulations I could avoid!

Re:software patents all over again

[Tom]

Make sure to call it "Foodr" or you can't play with the cool boys.

(sorry, the domain is already gone. Maybe "Eatr"? It's for sale)

Re:Digital + Physical services is the key, not onl

[fluffernutter]

You could say requiring restaurants to have stainless steel surfaces that can be cleaned properly and don't transfer dangerous bacteria prevents restaurants from progressing because it becomes immensely more expensive to open a restaurant.. yet you're not complaining about that.

What about prostitution?

[mea2214]

If I start up a service to connect Johns with women who are willing to serve them for money can I claim this as a "digital service" and not an escort company?

Re:Labor Luddism

[kuzb]

Public transport licensing doesn't actually make anything safer in this case.

They lie

[aepervius]

" Supporters however say rigid regulatory obligations protect incumbents and hinder the entry of digital startups which offer looser work arrangements to workers". I can't speak for all countries, but the requirement to be a taxi driver in germany is : 1) have a commercial insurance on the car 2) pass a governemental driving license exam 3) have "measured" counter for range counting to make sure the client is not ripped off 4) agree to have a minimum number of taxi at train station for people to easily get one and rule making so you can't refuse a course based on distance. Nothing in that protect incubent and hinder digital startup. They jsut do not want to respect the law because it cost money, whereas taking any joe blow from the street and pushing all risk on the client and driver cost nothing. They just want to cream up the thing without the cost.

You're friends are happy now

[rsilvergun]

because Uber is paying way more than it needs to for it's drivers in order to establish itself. They're doing that with investor capital that will eventually dry up. If the necessary legal precedence is established by then expect your friends pay to be about 1/2 - 1/3 minimum wage. Also expect minimum wage laws to be irrelevant. I know it's a popular talking point that prices will go down when that happens, but ask yourself this: once Uber has established a price point why would they lower it? Competition? They'll do what all modern companies do when faced with competition: Mergers and Acquisitions.

I'm bringing China & South America into this because we're all human beings. No matter what we like to think we all do basically the same awful shit to each other when given the chance. I'm really hoping guys like you don't give them the chance. You're throwing away in a few years what took decades of struggle to build...

Re:You're friends are happy now

[Dahamma]

You don't actually understand how Uber works, do you? Have you ever even used it?

Uber is paying way more than it needs to for it's drivers in order to establish itself. They're doing that with investor capital that will eventually dry up. If the necessary legal precedence is established by then expect your friends pay to be about 1/2 - 1/3 minimum wage

The rates for Uber vary based on demand in a specific area. So when there aren't enough drivers on the road, the rate goes up and more drivers get out there. When the rate goes down to where it's not worth it, some drivers stop.

Almost no Uber driver does it as their primary/full time job (I saw a stat that it was something like 90% of drivers have another job, and 70% have a full time job other than Uber). People use it to supplement their income. If Uber lowers the rates too much, they won't bother driving any more.

In fact, Uber did cut their rates in some areas earlier this year. It rightfully pissed off a lot of drivers, and a bunch of them stopped driving. At that point there were not *enough* drivers, so the surge pricing kicked in, raised the rates from the lower base, and drivers came back. Uber is also talking about ending surge pricing... and Uber drivers are threatening to quit over it. Not to mention Lyft is expanding like mad, and currently offering big bonuses trying to steal drivers from Uber.

Do I think it's possible/likely Uber will try to screw over drivers? Yeah, I don't they have their drivers interests at heart, they want to make money. But so far the pure supply and demand has created a service that both drivers and passengers are, for the most part, pretty happy with. The *real* fuck you to the drivers is going to come when self driving cars completely replace them...

Re:Labor Luddism

[Half-pint HAL]

Microjobs are part of the economy of the future, and letting 19th century-style job laws stand in their way will only stifle the economy.

Correct. But the solution is to replace the 19th-century-style job laws with 21st-century-style ones, not medieval-style economic serfdom.

Disclaimer: I'm 34, have never had a job and am a virgin.

These statements appear mutually contradictory. If you're a 34-year-old virgin, you must have at least had a hand job, even if you gave it to yourself.

Re:If this is the case, beward companies.

[mjwx]

Ebay - Point out which laws and regulations they've violated? Ebay isn't a holding company like Sotheby's, it's more like a swap meet. Ebay do not in any way handle, represent or sell the merchandise, only facilitate the transaction.

Paypal - Already done. Many governments have already said they're a bank and have to abide by banking rules.

Uber isn't running a new form of disruptive technology. They're running an old fashioned black market cab company. This may be legal in some areas (I.E. in the UK) but that doesn't mean they get to ignore local laws. If I started a brothel and called it "body sharing" and only took bookings via an app, I don't get to skirt laws on the sex trade or operate where the sex trade is illegal. Same as if I started selling beer on a street corner and called it "beverage sharing", I cant use an app to get around the fact I'm operating an unlicensed bar.

Besides this, with the rate Uber is losing money they wont be around much longer anyway.

Re:If this is the case, beward companies.

[Carewolf]

Anyhow, if the EU wants more e-commerce, why not start with something straightforward like selling of merchandise? Or even working on copyright and IP laws which would allow the sale of music, tv shows and movies throughout the EU without being country specific? That would seem to be the low-hanging fruit blocking EU-wide e-commerce.

Nothing is blocking of that, except companies don't want to do it. If the EU wants to fix this (and they do), then need to make restrictive laws making a lot of standard practices and long term country-specific distribution contracts illegal.

Anyway. Note the EU isn't targetting Uber, Uber is already illegal under existing rules, and just being sued for breaking the law. No laws were changed, unlike in the US where they intervened and legalized Uber's organized crime.

Re:If this is the case, beward companies.

[Etcetera]

Same as if I started selling beer on a street corner and called it "beverage sharing", I cant use an app to get around the fact I'm operating an unlicensed bar.

cf. Napster