6 ms·

>The California-based private-hire company had urged its users to oppose suggestions that had included a ban on apps being able to show where their nearby avail

>The California-based private-hire company had urged its users to oppose suggestions that had included a ban on apps being able to show where their nearby available vehicles were. >a minimum five-minute delay between pick-up confirmations being sent out and drivers being able to collect their passengers Whoa, that's not even trying to be subtle. That's just straight up trying to legislate a required level of crapiness.

seivan 11y ago
In Sweden they've gone full circle with lobbyists and their friends in left-wing "news". It's hard to explain to a 50 year old marxist/activist lawyer the value of booking a cab with my watch just to grab my wallet (and card) from the restaurant I forgot them in. I've mentioned this before. No other company with bigger muscle/wallet here has whipped up an API - that's a litmus test. Tells me the "Dread Pirate" (or his CTO) was on to something... everything should be a service.
- kartan 11y ago
  I think that this article explains why that is not so good: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/apploitation-city-instaserfs https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/applo... "There is a place in this world for the sharing economy, and it could be a beautiful thing, but where I live these companies run the show. There are no rules. The apps are breaking the spirit of the law by abusing the independent contractor loophole and actively encourage (e.g., through dubious car placards) actually breaking the law. But it will only ever be the workers, not the companies, who are punished." The problem with this companies is that they have traditional workers but they are hired as one man companies. So the workers lose all their rights, all their benefits and all their negotiation power. I work on the tech industry, as probably most of the readers, and I understand how apps works. I don't think that the apps are a problem, but removing the rights of thousands of workers is not a good thing. The article that I linked explains it better than I can here.
  - caskance 11y ago
    If those rights were really so important, why shouldn't independent contractors have them too? If the rights are not important when dealing with an interchangeable service provider like a driving contractor, then Uber is right not to grant them.
    - kartan 11y ago
      Each kind of contract makes sense in different situations. There are already laws that cover this situations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees_as_independent_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees... And there are precedents in the UK for this on Uber: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/11/uber-driver-employee-ruling http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/11/uber-drive... All this app companies that people work for like employees but are classified as contractors are breaking the law. And I think that, as the abuse is growing, this laws should be revised and improved to cover all the cases.
      - caskance 11y ago
        Yes, it should. That's what my entire comment says. Each kind of contract is used in different kinds of situations. That doesn't mean it makes sense to be that way. Much of that is antiquated tradition. The kind of thinking that gave rise to Uber in the first place.
st3v3ndungan 11y ago
>Other rejected measures included: > a minimum five-minute delay between pick-up confirmations being sent out and drivers being able to collect their passengers > a requirement that private-hire companies let customers pre-book cars up to seven days in advance Um. Perhaps it would be better if the black cabs focused their efforts on enhancing their own user experience rather than trying to artificially cap it? :) Also, this article links to nothing regarding the decision, it's just a single (unnamed) author's quick take, which is disappointing - if he/she is going to write so little, could they please provide a link to a first-hand source (the decision itself?) or a more thorough analysis? I see from this that there are still several (perhaps minor) measures up in the air, and one measure that will be adopted is a "formal English language requirement[1]." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/uber-tfl-consultation-win/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/uber-tfl-consultation-win... (P.S. first post - did I link properly?)
- JonFish85 11y ago
  "Um. Perhaps it would be better if the black cabs focused their efforts on enhancing their own user experience rather than trying to artificially cap it? :)" That's certainly valid, but on the flip side, shouldn't Uber at least compete on even ground? They basically storm into town, ignoring things like taxi medallions and such. That's why laws like these start to get enforced, so that Uber can't try to sneak past laws by saying "we're not a cab company we're a <something only slightly different>".
  - robbrulinski 11y ago
    Why is it Uber's job to allow other companies to keep up with them?
    - daveguy 11y ago
      It's just uber's job to comply with all regulation. Insurance, training, safety, etc. Generally those laws are in place for a reason. Claiming they are a "ride sharing" app to avoid commercial transport regulations is disingenuous at best. Edit: Obviously artificial quality reduction legislation is a bad idea, but uber as a company has been pretty adamant about ignoring all regulation. Even if it is a bad regulation you don't ignore it, you lobby to get it changed.

seivan 11y ago

In Sweden they've gone full circle with lobbyists and their friends in left-wing "news". It's hard to explain to a 50 year old marxist/activist lawyer the value of booking a cab with my watch just to grab my wallet (and card) from the restaurant I forgot them in. I've mentioned this before. No other company with bigger muscle/wallet here has whipped up an API - that's a litmus test. Tells me the "Dread Pirate" (or his CTO) was on to something... everything should be a service.

kartan 11y ago
I think that this article explains why that is not so good: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/apploitation-city-instaserfs https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/applo... "There is a place in this world for the sharing economy, and it could be a beautiful thing, but where I live these companies run the show. There are no rules. The apps are breaking the spirit of the law by abusing the independent contractor loophole and actively encourage (e.g., through dubious car placards) actually breaking the law. But it will only ever be the workers, not the companies, who are punished." The problem with this companies is that they have traditional workers but they are hired as one man companies. So the workers lose all their rights, all their benefits and all their negotiation power. I work on the tech industry, as probably most of the readers, and I understand how apps works. I don't think that the apps are a problem, but removing the rights of thousands of workers is not a good thing. The article that I linked explains it better than I can here.
- caskance 11y ago
  If those rights were really so important, why shouldn't independent contractors have them too? If the rights are not important when dealing with an interchangeable service provider like a driving contractor, then Uber is right not to grant them.
  - kartan 11y ago
    Each kind of contract makes sense in different situations. There are already laws that cover this situations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees_as_independent_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees... And there are precedents in the UK for this on Uber: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/11/uber-driver-employee-ruling http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/11/uber-drive... All this app companies that people work for like employees but are classified as contractors are breaking the law. And I think that, as the abuse is growing, this laws should be revised and improved to cover all the cases.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Yes, it should. That's what my entire comment says. Each kind of contract is used in different kinds of situations. That doesn't mean it makes sense to be that way. Much of that is antiquated tradition. The kind of thinking that gave rise to Uber in the first place.

st3v3ndungan 11y ago

>Other rejected measures included: > a minimum five-minute delay between pick-up confirmations being sent out and drivers being able to collect their passengers > a requirement that private-hire companies let customers pre-book cars up to seven days in advance Um. Perhaps it would be better if the black cabs focused their efforts on enhancing their own user experience rather than trying to artificially cap it? :) Also, this article links to nothing regarding the decision, it's just a single (unnamed) author's quick take, which is disappointing - if he/she is going to write so little, could they please provide a link to a first-hand source (the decision itself?) or a more thorough analysis? I see from this that there are still several (perhaps minor) measures up in the air, and one measure that will be adopted is a "formal English language requirement[1]." [1] http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/uber-tfl-consultation-win/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/uber-tfl-consultation-win... (P.S. first post - did I link properly?)

JonFish85 11y ago
"Um. Perhaps it would be better if the black cabs focused their efforts on enhancing their own user experience rather than trying to artificially cap it? :)" That's certainly valid, but on the flip side, shouldn't Uber at least compete on even ground? They basically storm into town, ignoring things like taxi medallions and such. That's why laws like these start to get enforced, so that Uber can't try to sneak past laws by saying "we're not a cab company we're a <something only slightly different>".
- robbrulinski 11y ago
  Why is it Uber's job to allow other companies to keep up with them?
  - daveguy 11y ago
    It's just uber's job to comply with all regulation. Insurance, training, safety, etc. Generally those laws are in place for a reason. Claiming they are a "ride sharing" app to avoid commercial transport regulations is disingenuous at best. Edit: Obviously artificial quality reduction legislation is a bad idea, but uber as a company has been pretty adamant about ignoring all regulation. Even if it is a bad regulation you don't ignore it, you lobby to get it changed.