25 ms·

Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

340 points by chrisper 9y ago

Marazan 9y ago
Duh.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bluewave 9y ago
About time the greedy corporation start paying their drivers a living wage. Good to see Europe fighting back as US is regressing further into plutocracy.
- blocked_again 9y ago
  Uber drivers in Banglore makes around 50K rupees profit each month. This is higher than many government jobs and similar to the salary of many software developers in India.
  - darklajid 9y ago
    I've only ever ridden Uber over a period of two weeks - the last two. In India, in Pune. The drivers more or less all complained about Uber cutting the incentives and margins, stating that they are making a low amount of money. Ola seems to be a contender that many local drivers flock to? Yes, these drivers might've lied to me. I'm just putting this anecdote against your statement of 50k INR of profit/income: That's certainly not the impression I got when I had discussions about just that on my rides.
    - rtx 9y ago
      They don't want more competition.
      - darklajid 9y ago
        So I'm a white German IT guy in a suit in a car in India. There's no reason to believe that I'm going to be competing with them anytime soon, nor is it likely that I have any locals that I'd praise Uber to if you pick me up from a hotel. Can't believe that they'd lie for that reason?
    - sfifs 9y ago
      Depends on whether the drivers owned their cars or were renting. Many drivers rent from the actual car owners, they won't make much. The few who own their cars do well out of Uber.
  - chx 9y ago
    How much does gas, maintenance and the car itself cost? Let's not even mention the higher risk of injury from being in a car all the time.
    - blocked_again 9y ago
      50K is the profit. An Uber driver in Banglore typically makes 120K+ rupees in a month. I got to know this while I was talking to an Uber driver during the ride.
      - chx 9y ago
        Once again, you do not take the long term costs of car ownership into account. 50K might be the short term profit but certainly not the long term one. And that's OK, Uber is built on people forgetting how much faster their car loses its value if driven so much and how much more large scale, expensive repairs will crop up. But not right now. It's a good trick but it's a trick and it's not in the driver's favor.
- schrodinger 9y ago
  In my opinion, it’s hard to blame just a Uber. It would be different if they were making tons of money off the backs of their drivers, but they’re not. The real problem is that customers aren’t willing to pay what it “should” cost.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    They are. Every other company is charging around what it "should" cost. It's just Uber who undercut them all, which was possible because a) they decided laws don't apply to them, so they can save on following regulations, b) they started to subsidize ride costs with VC money even more directly.
    - schrodinger 9y ago
      Some people paid what it "should" before Uber, but I'm also sure there are now a lot of people using Uber that wouldn't be taking a taxi at the "should" price.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Sure. And I would pay SpaceX to launch a banana into low Earth orbit, if it cost $10. Doesn't mean it should cost $10 - you need to also look at what's sustainable. Uber isn't; VC money is not infinite.
- 12w1w12 9y ago
  Europe, however is a bureaucracy in the truest sense. Civil "servants" walk around like royalty, look down on the plebeians, have their own state television and generally exploit the population.
bdz 9y ago
Court press release https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-12/cp170136en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201... The full ruling is atm only available in spanish and french http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  At this moment, I count the full ruling in 18 languages, including English, though that version is marked "Provisional text". Possibly working direct link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=198047&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
maephisto 9y ago
Looks like the "Regulate Uber everywhere" trend is confirmed. Edit: I did not mean this as a bad thing, but as something that's normal and welcomed.
- Marazan 9y ago
  I don't see how classifying Uber as a minicab firm amounts to banning it?
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    "Banning" -> "Regulating"
- throwawayReply 9y ago
  Banning companies which subvert or break laws or regulations to gain competitive edge over those who follow laws and regulations is not and should not be controversial.
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  More like: "Uber should follow the same laws as other companies that want to operate in Europe". I hope they do, since I consider the system far superior to traditional cabs, and would probably still use it if they had higher fares.
CaptainZapp 9y ago
"However, millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours. As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe. This is the approach we'll take to ensure everyone can get a reliable ride at the tap of a button." This company is so full of shit!
djsumdog 9y ago
This is good to hear. A few weeks ago we saw the recording breaking loss, showing Uber is really undercutting everyone and operating way under costs (while slashing drivers pays and yada yada). Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a failure will be colossal. Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're profitable, and charge a more traditional rate. In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs -- possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands of drivers (where it should be). It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up, actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a taxi stand and get a cab in a city.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  I don't think it's too big to fail Please stop with this "too big to fail" nonsense. This is a pretty specific term for companies which pose a systemic risk if they fail. Notably that's mostly banks or other financial institutions who could drag an entire economy down if they go down. There's no systemic risk in Uber failing.
  - schrodinger 9y ago
    I think that in this case, “too big to fail” would mean that investors would bail them out rather than let them go under.
    - erispoe 9y ago
      If they believe that the company will make money in the long-run. Otherwise it's just putting bad money after good. You can only bail out a company if you believe it will become profitable. You can't subsidize rides eternally, it does not make sense for investors.
martin_andrino 9y ago
These are good news. Taxi sector is beyond screwed, we need better and cheaper services. I’m happy to see a successful and respectful company like Uber being the one leading the movement.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  They provide that service by undercutting Taxis at a loss. I hope you're being sarcastic. Uber is anything by respectful .. and successful I guess in size, but not looking at their bottom line.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Undercutting taxis and at a loss are two separate issues. Taxis are overpriced in the US with or without Uber.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Taxis earned their plight. I am still waiting for €50 refund for a pre-paid train station taxi booked through SCNF that never arrived. This whole nasty and violent attitude from French can drivers is also unacceptable. During their protests they actually attacked people with rocks and set cars on fire — while still trying to scheme and cheat passengers whenever possible. I hope taxis all fail.
- gaius 9y ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcasm
  - xxs 9y ago
    Of course it is. Hackernews tends to be extremely bad at telling so. Usually ends up with tons of downvotes.
Stefstefstef 9y ago
Does that mean Uber now has to listen to all taxi rules and regulation in all of Europe?
- jopsen 9y ago
  Taxis are regulated locally, country by country, sometimes at municipality level. I think most countries have already been of the opinion that Uber was a taxi service. And hence, prosecuted any violations they've made. I know Uber have been shutdown in multiple places. Because regulators simplify declared that they considered it illegal. So no, I don't think this will change much. This was probably a futile move by Uber trying to argue regulation didn't apply.
  - ccozan 9y ago
    In Bucharest the city council just ruled that every taxi ride must go thru a central dispatch. This made all the apps/agregators illegal, Uber included. Some legal taxi companies say will complain, because they can't imagine that we go back to '80s phone dispatch system, and the customers shall be able to use their apps to book the nearest taxi based on location, what a dispatch will not be able to do.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      That's interesting, and sounds really disappointing. What are the reasons behind that decision?
      - petre 9y ago
        Corrupt leadership inspired by the 80s "golden era". If they centralize the system, then they could pretend bribes for issuing taxi licenses.
    - jopsen 9y ago
      That's sad, but also a political issue. You fix it by running for election. I'm happy to avoid workarounds.. like an EU court redefining what a transportation service is.
senko 9y ago
[The] ECJ said that a service whose purpose was "to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys" must be classified as "a service in the field of transport" in EU law. It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU." It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital service" can be applied to almost anything.
alkonaut 9y ago
And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this is news. And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious. In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.
- dantheman 9y ago
  That's not what taxi means unless you consider all ride services such as black cars taxis -- which I don't think anyone does. Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Uber's argument is that they're more like a limo service in the sense that you call and book a driver. But you do this with Taxis too. It's just in most cities, taxis can also take immediate bookings on the street or from a taxi stand. Technology really blurs the line, and for most purposes, they act and fulfill the market that is provided by Taxis.
    - DoveBrown 9y ago
      That's not what they argued. The ECJ ruling is that the Uber is a company providing "‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of EU law." Uber claimed they weren't. They were claiming to be just an infrastructure service without any influence over the transportation part of the business. They wanted to do this since transportation services are subject to the local regulations as a specific exception to the normal Single Market rules on the provision of services (where you only required to follow your home regulations). P.S. Your home regulations will include all the common European regulations but customer local regulations could be different.
forrestthewoods 9y ago
As long as Uber driver count isn’t artificially constrained with $500,000 “medallions”. How do sick days and benefits calculate when “employees” are free to work as few or as many hours as they want? What happens if an “employee” chooses to drive more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day? It still seems like there needs to be a new classification for “gig economy” workers. They’re neither normal employees nor are they independent contractors. It’s definitely something new.
- lhopki01 9y ago
  $500,000 medallions seems to be a US 'innovation'. Sick days and benefits will be calculated pro rata just like they are for people who work part time. It's not a hard system to create considering most companies have to do it already. There will be a contract that specifies that if you work a 40 hour week you get his much and if you work less you get that fraction of it. I would guess the contract would specify that overages don't accumulate more benefits but that's up to Uber to write into their contract. The gig economy are exactly that, normal workers. Just because your work doesn't have regular hours doesn't mean we need an entirely new classification system.
  - 3157132 9y ago
    The gig economy is for people who can decide how much to work, rather than accept how much to work. What you seem to be asking for is merely a functioning social safety net ("benefits"). If you want the government to mandate such things then just get the government to provide them and be done with it.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Do people that sell things on Amazon need to be provided benefits from Amazon? How about AirBnB hosts — should that company provide sick days? How is an independent person with a car selling a transportation product any different than someone selling widgets through Amazon? Perhaps the difference is that Uber sets prices? I would offer that a free market solution to Uber is to allow drivers to set their own rates — that would result in a far more efficient market. Taxis ought to be able to set their own rates as well. It’s better than this price floor/ceiling situation we have now.
jopsen 9y ago
I'm not surprised that the American model of classifying your workers as "self-employed sub-contractors" isn't going to work out in Europe. On topic: Yes, taxi laws needs to be revised. But that's a political issue.
- fergie 9y ago
  Yes, taxi laws need to be revised, but there are sound reasons for licensing taxis operating in a city: - Limiting the amount of traffic on the roads - Ensuring that vehicles are nice enough (that there isn't a "race to the bottom") - Ensuring that drivers are nice enough (qualified, not scary violent criminals) - Ensuring that drivers are compelled to pick you up and drop you off no matter who/what you are, and where you are going. - Ensuring that there is a central point of contact for hailing a taxi. - No ambiguity about who and what is a taxi with regard to parking etc. To be sure, a lot of licensed taxi services are pretty terrible. But thats not to say that the idea of licensed taxis is bad- its actually pretty reasonable. Its worth noting that San Fransisco and the Bay Area was the "perfect storm" for creating Uber about 5 years ago- you had a fairly car-dependant transport network, an absolutely abominably terrible licensed taxi service, a lot of local skill in making web services, access to venture capital, (relatively) lax regulation, a healthy disregard for the working classes, and a naively/cynically optimistic view on self driving cars. But try to transfer those conditions to, say, a European city, and Uberization suddenly becomes a lot more difficult.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    The only argument I've heard for licensing is coverage of rural service area. Most of the others can be fixed by regulation of ride-sharing services.
ccheng_app 9y ago
for god sake, ppl are stupid. Uber just left, let those ppl use the old fancy taxi service, they will like it!
hug 9y ago
I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then I walked ten minutes home. I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently. And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now. Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not. I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing. But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off. Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?
  - candiodari 9y ago
    And the tax evasion (executed by the driver, on behalf of Uber). Without that, would there even be uber ?
Artlav 9y ago
I still wonder why Uber is a thing. It makes no sense, it does not feel like something capable of reliable service and it got almost no use cases. Is it just a passing fad of some sort, like fidget spinners?
- rmc 9y ago
  VC money is try to see how far you can go by ignoring existing laws
- mavidser 9y ago
  > it got almost no use cases You don't think calling cabs to your location, paying with your stored card, knowing the fixed cost beforehand is a valid usecase?
  - ionised 9y ago
    Uber didn't invent these things. My local taxi places have been doing them for years.
  - Artlav 9y ago
    I just can't imagine that random people who play what is essentially a glorified computer game would be reliable enough to show up at 4AM and get me to the airport safely. Or provide a reliable service in any other emergency or inconvenient situation - you don't use a taxi to go to the grocery store or to commute to work, you use it in emergencies. I can see how an app to call a taxi and track rides is a good thing, but i can't see how having random people provide the actual rides is a good idea.
- icebraining 9y ago
  It's a cab company. What's there to understand?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I think GP is trying to understand why it has so much media exposure. It has so much media exposure because on the one hand, it spends a lot of money on aggressively marketing itself (thus people talk about them), and on the other hand, in many places their business is entirely based on breaking local laws (thus people talk about them). Plus, they're beloved Silicon Valley unicorn (more talking) known for pulling off shady shit left and right (even more talking). But beyond that, they're just a taxi company with a nice app and shitty attitude.
ccheng_app 9y ago
For god sake, can't understand the stupidity of people/government. Uber just left, they really like the old fancy/stand on the street/fking hand waving old taxi service. For some reason I feel those government is stupid to be the least.
marenkay 9y ago
Considering how Uber was apparently wanting to evade to be considered a transportation service this is IMHO a correct decision. Just because you're a startup/funded/unicorn does not mean that laws do not apply. This is pretty much the biggest thing that will change the "new economy". The market has reached a point where rightfully so people start to wonder why IT startups should be evading laws. They should not. Running a business comes with duties for everyone. That is in the end in the interest of all consumers.
- chewz 9y ago
  I agree 100%. All this "disruption" thing is mostly about being in a grey zone where you can cut corners, avoid paying taxes and not respect regulations. The legal system will slowly catch up and the initial advantage will disappear. In the end this is how economy works. AirBnB is next I guess.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    > AirBnB is next I guess. I think it already started. If you sublet your apartment you are either a landlord or a hotel service, and have to follow all the safety/fire/health/ regulations for one of those. It's pretty obvious you aren't supposed to be allowed to just "share" your apartment for a fee, where some startup unicorn takes a nice cut because they cornered the market with a web site. So yes. Uber and AirBnB are innovators in the sense that they aggresively invade legal gray areas. I think they will fundamentally change markets (e.g. will cause taxi monopolies to be removed, or reduce the red tape hotel businesses) - but they won't exist in a decade doing what they do now.
    - marenkay 9y ago
      There is one issue here: what Uber and AirBnB are doing is not a grey area. Both transportation and renting are regulated markets for a reason: because we already have experience that infrastructure related markets without regulation will be abused. While there are some issues in both taxi and hotel businesses, I strongly oppose to Uber and AirBnB being a solution. Both companies apply IT methods but none of them have contributed any fundamental improvements to transportation or renting so far. A real disruption should involve producing a beneficial iteration that moves forward a topic. - Uber did basically invest their disruption into the return of 19th century labour methods. - AirBnb is basically inflating rents. All those unicorn sparkles aside, it is probably time to look at unicorns with a clearer view. Sustainable value is not created by lawless disruption.
thisisit 9y ago
The important question is - what implication does it have beyond the classification? Does Europe have different standards for cab firms to meet? Like employment, fare rules?
- DoveBrown 9y ago
  If you are digital services company then the only regulation you need to follow as those of your home jurisdiction. All relevant EU law is included in those regulations. Transport services are specific exception to the single market where local jurisdiction can have different regulations and you need to follow the regulations in any jurisdiction your customers are present in.
- ainiriand 9y ago
  Specific passenger insurance the first thing. You don't have that in Uber. Another special regulation is that taxis pay to the city council to operate. Uber drivers don't do that.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  Fares are regulated and in many cases the start, per kilometre, and waiting charges are listed on a label inside the taxi.
dronemallone 9y ago
By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service. * Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service. * Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.) * If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's * If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.
- simion314 9y ago
  The problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings. People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      A random person cannot sell food to random person. uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do otherwise.
      - 9y ago
paulus_magnus2 9y ago
In countries like Morocco, Egypt, China etc EVERYONE is a taxi driver. Stick your finger up and they'll drive you a few km/miles for a few bucks. Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger, collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think they're not a taxi company is beyond me.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  This. If this wasn't the case I would not have been able to get off from one of the mountains after dark a few years ago.
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    You can probably hitchhike from a mountain in Europe, as most mountains are in remote or fairly remote areas.
ainiriand 9y ago
Yes, some taxis are a pain in the ass. But that doesn't mean that Uber should not be playing under the same rules as everybody does, isn't it?
mickeythug 9y ago
bbc.com does not have SSL? :O
deusofnull 9y ago
I dont overly care what regulatory framework we place Uber into, I care that they dont misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The whole gig "economy" is a scam, people smarter than I have broken down the numbers about the cost of maintaining your vehicle (in uber's sake) and the tax bill due in april exceeding the pay. Not to mention theres little to no job security or benefits. Pay Your Workers.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  You can get vastly different analysis results depending on the assumptions you make about the marginal cost to run a vehicle - If someone is leasing a high end SUV they wouldn't otherwise need the pay is far worse than if someone is driving around in a 5 year old car they already needed. It also makes a huge difference if they are doing this as a full time job or only during peak times. And all of these factors are in the driver's control, rather than Uber's.
- Hasz 9y ago
  What's worse, Uber's interests and and "independent contractors" interests are not fully aligned. When Uber wins, there's plenty of drivers on the street and no surge pricing. When drivers win, it's surge pricing all day long. This adversarial relationship is inevitably going to produce bad results for the drivers, who are undoubtedly the weaker party.
- indubitable 9y ago
  Can you clarify what exactly you think is a "scam"? People are free to drop in or out of the 'gig economy' at their discretion. For things like Uber there are services available to rent cars with time frames as low as by the hour, to help drivers determine if the wages and work are what they're really looking for. At worst, they could simply chat with another driver for the service.
- andonisus 9y ago
  You should care. Uber has lobbied in my state to not be classified as a taxi (or common carrier), and their drivers are classified as independent contractors. They were able to successfully lobby for this classification by guaranteeing a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for injury caused by their drivers. If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.
flexie 9y ago
And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc. I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?
  - simias 9y ago
    At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
      - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jister 9y ago
Sure it was sugar-coated but I thought this was obvious from the beginning?
PeterStuer 9y ago
Surprised as the current EU administration is usually quite keen to support the race to the bottom.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zde 9y ago
Next: EU has found out that an apple is a fruit?
tekkk 9y ago
Here's a second-hand account of why Uber is terrible and should be regulated heard from a finnish taxi driver a week ago: 1) Probably all of the Uber drivers are uninsured in the case of accident. Good luck getting your hospital bill covered if that happens and insurance company finds out you were taking an Uber. 2) There is no background check whatsoever for Uber drivers he told. They recently added a clause that requires Uber drivers to have taxi permit (or something similar) which is required by law but they do not actually check it but now the legal responsibility is out of their hands. He said something in the lines of that "bad apples" can start driving and remain much longer in Uber's system than while driving regular taxi. 3) There has been cases in which Uber drivers haven't paid any taxes and actually have been taking unemployment checks while driving. Sure not directly Uber's fault but again if their drivers were regulated I'm sure it would make checking their taxes much easier and Uber would pay pension etc. from the pay. I think those were his main points if I recall correctly. In Finland regular taxi is well-respected and regulated so Uber has had little luck in succeeding to gain market share. Mostly foreign people use and drive Uber here.
- rockinghigh 9y ago
  #1 is false. Uber has an insurance: https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber #2 is also false. There are background checks: https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366 https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366
  - tekkk 9y ago
    @rockinghigh #1 In paper yes it seems so. But quick googling shows me this page http://jukka-pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-uber-ja-vakuutukset http://jukka-pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-u... In which the guy goes through finnish Uber TOS which states that Uber is not liable of any damage to you or losses caused by the driver. Also because Uber drivers have the basic insurance for personal use but not for professional the insurance companies might decline compensation because it's against the terms of agreement. #2 Also I think the point the taxi driver and (consequently I) was trying to make that Uber does not check can you actually be a professional driver. They might check your crime record but do you think that's all what it takes to be a taxi driver? Granted it might differ in your country but in Finland taxi drivers are well-respected because they behave like a customer servant should. And from what he said it seemed that Uber's process seemed a bit flaky "fill a form and you're an Uber driver" or something like that. Have you no trust in me? :) If you show me a non-Uber source that debunks my claims please go ahead.
yalogin 9y ago
Wow. Uber single handedly made folks on ycombinator pro cab industry. The hatred I saw for the cab industry when Uber was announced or becoming successful was so strong that I am amazed at how grandly Uber fucked it up. Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never reinvented themselves.
- heedlessly2 9y ago
  that doesn't make sense. HN is pro Lyft but also pro cab? I just think HN doesn't like Uber
  - grzm 9y ago
    Please don't do this. HN is a diverse community, and you choose to be a part of it. Casting all of HN in one bucket does a disservice to everyone.
    - Whitestrake 9y ago
      It seems that the fallacy of characterizing a large community (e.g. reddit, HN) as a single entity capable of things like hypocrisy is becoming more and more commonplace.
    - heedlessly2 9y ago
      you're missing the point. I'm not saying every single HN hates Uber. But there's very common pattern of disliking Uber on HN. note i didn't say the hate against Uber was underserved.
fuscy 9y ago
This ruling is pretty disastrous for Uber in some countries where there is ingrained corruption through regulation. Take România for example: licenses are needed to operate, there is a limited number of them, winning licenses is a black box, there is a maximum limit to the price per kilometer, a phone operator service is required, physical systems that monitor the ride, no credit card taxi support legislation, no legal tipping, cars must be licensed for taxi, drivers need special taxes and tests (some are part time weekend drivers). In short there is a lot of improvements that Uber brings but the legislation doesn’t cover (like GPS use) and there is no way to change those without hurting the real taxi drivers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
b3b0p 9y ago
I have never used an Uber, Lyft or any ride share. If any rule or requirement is needed for any and all ride sharing companies, including taxi services and even bus drivers is they take a road test to at least confirm they understand basic rules of the community or area they service. I bike or walk everywhere. I don't have a car. The problem I see and have is almost every few minutes while biking in the bike lane in Austin, a Lyft, taxi, or other ride share stops right in front of me in the bike lane to either drop off or pick up people. I've even had honk at me from behind while I'm in the bike lane because they want to use it or make a right turn. I've talked with a couple people about this and even seen police pull these people over. So, I am pretty sure it's not legal. I wish 2 things: 1) These drivers are required to confirm they know the basic/general rules of the road and 2) Police start enforcing these rules. I won't even bother mentioning that every single driver I see pass me is texting or talking on their phones (not hands free style).

340 points by chrisper 9y ago

Marazan 9y ago

Duh.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bluewave 9y ago

About time the greedy corporation start paying their drivers a living wage. Good to see Europe fighting back as US is regressing further into plutocracy.

blocked_again 9y ago
Uber drivers in Banglore makes around 50K rupees profit each month. This is higher than many government jobs and similar to the salary of many software developers in India.
- darklajid 9y ago
  I've only ever ridden Uber over a period of two weeks - the last two. In India, in Pune. The drivers more or less all complained about Uber cutting the incentives and margins, stating that they are making a low amount of money. Ola seems to be a contender that many local drivers flock to? Yes, these drivers might've lied to me. I'm just putting this anecdote against your statement of 50k INR of profit/income: That's certainly not the impression I got when I had discussions about just that on my rides.
  - rtx 9y ago
    They don't want more competition.
    - darklajid 9y ago
      So I'm a white German IT guy in a suit in a car in India. There's no reason to believe that I'm going to be competing with them anytime soon, nor is it likely that I have any locals that I'd praise Uber to if you pick me up from a hotel. Can't believe that they'd lie for that reason?
  - sfifs 9y ago
    Depends on whether the drivers owned their cars or were renting. Many drivers rent from the actual car owners, they won't make much. The few who own their cars do well out of Uber.
- chx 9y ago
  How much does gas, maintenance and the car itself cost? Let's not even mention the higher risk of injury from being in a car all the time.
  - blocked_again 9y ago
    50K is the profit. An Uber driver in Banglore typically makes 120K+ rupees in a month. I got to know this while I was talking to an Uber driver during the ride.
    - chx 9y ago
      Once again, you do not take the long term costs of car ownership into account. 50K might be the short term profit but certainly not the long term one. And that's OK, Uber is built on people forgetting how much faster their car loses its value if driven so much and how much more large scale, expensive repairs will crop up. But not right now. It's a good trick but it's a trick and it's not in the driver's favor.
schrodinger 9y ago
In my opinion, it’s hard to blame just a Uber. It would be different if they were making tons of money off the backs of their drivers, but they’re not. The real problem is that customers aren’t willing to pay what it “should” cost.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  They are. Every other company is charging around what it "should" cost. It's just Uber who undercut them all, which was possible because a) they decided laws don't apply to them, so they can save on following regulations, b) they started to subsidize ride costs with VC money even more directly.
  - schrodinger 9y ago
    Some people paid what it "should" before Uber, but I'm also sure there are now a lot of people using Uber that wouldn't be taking a taxi at the "should" price.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Sure. And I would pay SpaceX to launch a banana into low Earth orbit, if it cost $10. Doesn't mean it should cost $10 - you need to also look at what's sustainable. Uber isn't; VC money is not infinite.
12w1w12 9y ago
Europe, however is a bureaucracy in the truest sense. Civil "servants" walk around like royalty, look down on the plebeians, have their own state television and generally exploit the population.

bdz 9y ago

Court press release https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-12/cp170136en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201... The full ruling is atm only available in spanish and french http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15

tom_mellior 9y ago
At this moment, I count the full ruling in 18 languages, including English, though that version is marked "Provisional text". Possibly working direct link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=198047&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

maephisto 9y ago

Looks like the "Regulate Uber everywhere" trend is confirmed. Edit: I did not mean this as a bad thing, but as something that's normal and welcomed.

Marazan 9y ago
I don't see how classifying Uber as a minicab firm amounts to banning it?
- nielsbot 9y ago
  "Banning" -> "Regulating"
throwawayReply 9y ago
Banning companies which subvert or break laws or regulations to gain competitive edge over those who follow laws and regulations is not and should not be controversial.
Kurtz79 9y ago
More like: "Uber should follow the same laws as other companies that want to operate in Europe". I hope they do, since I consider the system far superior to traditional cabs, and would probably still use it if they had higher fares.

CaptainZapp 9y ago

"However, millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours. As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe. This is the approach we'll take to ensure everyone can get a reliable ride at the tap of a button." This company is so full of shit!

djsumdog 9y ago

This is good to hear. A few weeks ago we saw the recording breaking loss, showing Uber is really undercutting everyone and operating way under costs (while slashing drivers pays and yada yada). Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a failure will be colossal. Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're profitable, and charge a more traditional rate. In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs -- possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands of drivers (where it should be). It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up, actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a taxi stand and get a cab in a city.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
I don't think it's too big to fail Please stop with this "too big to fail" nonsense. This is a pretty specific term for companies which pose a systemic risk if they fail. Notably that's mostly banks or other financial institutions who could drag an entire economy down if they go down. There's no systemic risk in Uber failing.
- schrodinger 9y ago
  I think that in this case, “too big to fail” would mean that investors would bail them out rather than let them go under.
  - erispoe 9y ago
    If they believe that the company will make money in the long-run. Otherwise it's just putting bad money after good. You can only bail out a company if you believe it will become profitable. You can't subsidize rides eternally, it does not make sense for investors.

martin_andrino 9y ago

These are good news. Taxi sector is beyond screwed, we need better and cheaper services. I’m happy to see a successful and respectful company like Uber being the one leading the movement.

djsumdog 9y ago
They provide that service by undercutting Taxis at a loss. I hope you're being sarcastic. Uber is anything by respectful .. and successful I guess in size, but not looking at their bottom line.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Undercutting taxis and at a loss are two separate issues. Taxis are overpriced in the US with or without Uber.
- briandear 9y ago
  Taxis earned their plight. I am still waiting for €50 refund for a pre-paid train station taxi booked through SCNF that never arrived. This whole nasty and violent attitude from French can drivers is also unacceptable. During their protests they actually attacked people with rocks and set cars on fire — while still trying to scheme and cheat passengers whenever possible. I hope taxis all fail.
gaius 9y ago
I can't tell if this is sarcasm
- xxs 9y ago
  Of course it is. Hackernews tends to be extremely bad at telling so. Usually ends up with tons of downvotes.

Stefstefstef 9y ago

Does that mean Uber now has to listen to all taxi rules and regulation in all of Europe?

jopsen 9y ago
Taxis are regulated locally, country by country, sometimes at municipality level. I think most countries have already been of the opinion that Uber was a taxi service. And hence, prosecuted any violations they've made. I know Uber have been shutdown in multiple places. Because regulators simplify declared that they considered it illegal. So no, I don't think this will change much. This was probably a futile move by Uber trying to argue regulation didn't apply.
- ccozan 9y ago
  In Bucharest the city council just ruled that every taxi ride must go thru a central dispatch. This made all the apps/agregators illegal, Uber included. Some legal taxi companies say will complain, because they can't imagine that we go back to '80s phone dispatch system, and the customers shall be able to use their apps to book the nearest taxi based on location, what a dispatch will not be able to do.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    That's interesting, and sounds really disappointing. What are the reasons behind that decision?
    - petre 9y ago
      Corrupt leadership inspired by the 80s "golden era". If they centralize the system, then they could pretend bribes for issuing taxi licenses.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    That's sad, but also a political issue. You fix it by running for election. I'm happy to avoid workarounds.. like an EU court redefining what a transportation service is.

senko 9y ago

[The] ECJ said that a service whose purpose was "to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys" must be classified as "a service in the field of transport" in EU law. It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU." It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital service" can be applied to almost anything.

alkonaut 9y ago

And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this is news. And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious. In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.

dantheman 9y ago
That's not what taxi means unless you consider all ride services such as black cars taxis -- which I don't think anyone does. Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Uber's argument is that they're more like a limo service in the sense that you call and book a driver. But you do this with Taxis too. It's just in most cities, taxis can also take immediate bookings on the street or from a taxi stand. Technology really blurs the line, and for most purposes, they act and fulfill the market that is provided by Taxis.
  - DoveBrown 9y ago
    That's not what they argued. The ECJ ruling is that the Uber is a company providing "‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of EU law." Uber claimed they weren't. They were claiming to be just an infrastructure service without any influence over the transportation part of the business. They wanted to do this since transportation services are subject to the local regulations as a specific exception to the normal Single Market rules on the provision of services (where you only required to follow your home regulations). P.S. Your home regulations will include all the common European regulations but customer local regulations could be different.

forrestthewoods 9y ago

As long as Uber driver count isn’t artificially constrained with $500,000 “medallions”. How do sick days and benefits calculate when “employees” are free to work as few or as many hours as they want? What happens if an “employee” chooses to drive more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day? It still seems like there needs to be a new classification for “gig economy” workers. They’re neither normal employees nor are they independent contractors. It’s definitely something new.

lhopki01 9y ago
$500,000 medallions seems to be a US 'innovation'. Sick days and benefits will be calculated pro rata just like they are for people who work part time. It's not a hard system to create considering most companies have to do it already. There will be a contract that specifies that if you work a 40 hour week you get his much and if you work less you get that fraction of it. I would guess the contract would specify that overages don't accumulate more benefits but that's up to Uber to write into their contract. The gig economy are exactly that, normal workers. Just because your work doesn't have regular hours doesn't mean we need an entirely new classification system.
- 3157132 9y ago
  The gig economy is for people who can decide how much to work, rather than accept how much to work. What you seem to be asking for is merely a functioning social safety net ("benefits"). If you want the government to mandate such things then just get the government to provide them and be done with it.
- briandear 9y ago
  Do people that sell things on Amazon need to be provided benefits from Amazon? How about AirBnB hosts — should that company provide sick days? How is an independent person with a car selling a transportation product any different than someone selling widgets through Amazon? Perhaps the difference is that Uber sets prices? I would offer that a free market solution to Uber is to allow drivers to set their own rates — that would result in a far more efficient market. Taxis ought to be able to set their own rates as well. It’s better than this price floor/ceiling situation we have now.

jopsen 9y ago

I'm not surprised that the American model of classifying your workers as "self-employed sub-contractors" isn't going to work out in Europe. On topic: Yes, taxi laws needs to be revised. But that's a political issue.

fergie 9y ago
Yes, taxi laws need to be revised, but there are sound reasons for licensing taxis operating in a city: - Limiting the amount of traffic on the roads - Ensuring that vehicles are nice enough (that there isn't a "race to the bottom") - Ensuring that drivers are nice enough (qualified, not scary violent criminals) - Ensuring that drivers are compelled to pick you up and drop you off no matter who/what you are, and where you are going. - Ensuring that there is a central point of contact for hailing a taxi. - No ambiguity about who and what is a taxi with regard to parking etc. To be sure, a lot of licensed taxi services are pretty terrible. But thats not to say that the idea of licensed taxis is bad- its actually pretty reasonable. Its worth noting that San Fransisco and the Bay Area was the "perfect storm" for creating Uber about 5 years ago- you had a fairly car-dependant transport network, an absolutely abominably terrible licensed taxi service, a lot of local skill in making web services, access to venture capital, (relatively) lax regulation, a healthy disregard for the working classes, and a naively/cynically optimistic view on self driving cars. But try to transfer those conditions to, say, a European city, and Uberization suddenly becomes a lot more difficult.
- jopsen 9y ago
  The only argument I've heard for licensing is coverage of rural service area. Most of the others can be fixed by regulation of ride-sharing services.

ccheng_app 9y ago

for god sake, ppl are stupid. Uber just left, let those ppl use the old fancy taxi service, they will like it!

hug 9y ago

I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then I walked ten minutes home. I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently. And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now. Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not. I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing. But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.

jasonkostempski 9y ago
It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off. Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?
- candiodari 9y ago
  And the tax evasion (executed by the driver, on behalf of Uber). Without that, would there even be uber ?

Artlav 9y ago

I still wonder why Uber is a thing. It makes no sense, it does not feel like something capable of reliable service and it got almost no use cases. Is it just a passing fad of some sort, like fidget spinners?

rmc 9y ago
VC money is try to see how far you can go by ignoring existing laws
mavidser 9y ago
> it got almost no use cases You don't think calling cabs to your location, paying with your stored card, knowing the fixed cost beforehand is a valid usecase?
- ionised 9y ago
  Uber didn't invent these things. My local taxi places have been doing them for years.
- Artlav 9y ago
  I just can't imagine that random people who play what is essentially a glorified computer game would be reliable enough to show up at 4AM and get me to the airport safely. Or provide a reliable service in any other emergency or inconvenient situation - you don't use a taxi to go to the grocery store or to commute to work, you use it in emergencies. I can see how an app to call a taxi and track rides is a good thing, but i can't see how having random people provide the actual rides is a good idea.
icebraining 9y ago
It's a cab company. What's there to understand?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think GP is trying to understand why it has so much media exposure. It has so much media exposure because on the one hand, it spends a lot of money on aggressively marketing itself (thus people talk about them), and on the other hand, in many places their business is entirely based on breaking local laws (thus people talk about them). Plus, they're beloved Silicon Valley unicorn (more talking) known for pulling off shady shit left and right (even more talking). But beyond that, they're just a taxi company with a nice app and shitty attitude.

ccheng_app 9y ago

For god sake, can't understand the stupidity of people/government. Uber just left, they really like the old fancy/stand on the street/fking hand waving old taxi service. For some reason I feel those government is stupid to be the least.

marenkay 9y ago

Considering how Uber was apparently wanting to evade to be considered a transportation service this is IMHO a correct decision. Just because you're a startup/funded/unicorn does not mean that laws do not apply. This is pretty much the biggest thing that will change the "new economy". The market has reached a point where rightfully so people start to wonder why IT startups should be evading laws. They should not. Running a business comes with duties for everyone. That is in the end in the interest of all consumers.

chewz 9y ago
I agree 100%. All this "disruption" thing is mostly about being in a grey zone where you can cut corners, avoid paying taxes and not respect regulations. The legal system will slowly catch up and the initial advantage will disappear. In the end this is how economy works. AirBnB is next I guess.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > AirBnB is next I guess. I think it already started. If you sublet your apartment you are either a landlord or a hotel service, and have to follow all the safety/fire/health/ regulations for one of those. It's pretty obvious you aren't supposed to be allowed to just "share" your apartment for a fee, where some startup unicorn takes a nice cut because they cornered the market with a web site. So yes. Uber and AirBnB are innovators in the sense that they aggresively invade legal gray areas. I think they will fundamentally change markets (e.g. will cause taxi monopolies to be removed, or reduce the red tape hotel businesses) - but they won't exist in a decade doing what they do now.
  - marenkay 9y ago
    There is one issue here: what Uber and AirBnB are doing is not a grey area. Both transportation and renting are regulated markets for a reason: because we already have experience that infrastructure related markets without regulation will be abused. While there are some issues in both taxi and hotel businesses, I strongly oppose to Uber and AirBnB being a solution. Both companies apply IT methods but none of them have contributed any fundamental improvements to transportation or renting so far. A real disruption should involve producing a beneficial iteration that moves forward a topic. - Uber did basically invest their disruption into the return of 19th century labour methods. - AirBnb is basically inflating rents. All those unicorn sparkles aside, it is probably time to look at unicorns with a clearer view. Sustainable value is not created by lawless disruption.

thisisit 9y ago

The important question is - what implication does it have beyond the classification? Does Europe have different standards for cab firms to meet? Like employment, fare rules?

DoveBrown 9y ago
If you are digital services company then the only regulation you need to follow as those of your home jurisdiction. All relevant EU law is included in those regulations. Transport services are specific exception to the single market where local jurisdiction can have different regulations and you need to follow the regulations in any jurisdiction your customers are present in.
ainiriand 9y ago
Specific passenger insurance the first thing. You don't have that in Uber. Another special regulation is that taxis pay to the city council to operate. Uber drivers don't do that.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
Fares are regulated and in many cases the start, per kilometre, and waiting charges are listed on a label inside the taxi.

dronemallone 9y ago

By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service. * Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service. * Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.) * If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's * If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.

simion314 9y ago
The problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings. People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    A random person cannot sell food to random person. uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do otherwise.
    - 9y ago

paulus_magnus2 9y ago

In countries like Morocco, Egypt, China etc EVERYONE is a taxi driver. Stick your finger up and they'll drive you a few km/miles for a few bucks. Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger, collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think they're not a taxi company is beyond me.

pmlnr 9y ago
This. If this wasn't the case I would not have been able to get off from one of the mountains after dark a few years ago.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  You can probably hitchhike from a mountain in Europe, as most mountains are in remote or fairly remote areas.

ainiriand 9y ago

Yes, some taxis are a pain in the ass. But that doesn't mean that Uber should not be playing under the same rules as everybody does, isn't it?

mickeythug 9y ago

bbc.com does not have SSL? :O

deusofnull 9y ago

I dont overly care what regulatory framework we place Uber into, I care that they dont misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The whole gig "economy" is a scam, people smarter than I have broken down the numbers about the cost of maintaining your vehicle (in uber's sake) and the tax bill due in april exceeding the pay. Not to mention theres little to no job security or benefits. Pay Your Workers.

Eridrus 9y ago
You can get vastly different analysis results depending on the assumptions you make about the marginal cost to run a vehicle - If someone is leasing a high end SUV they wouldn't otherwise need the pay is far worse than if someone is driving around in a 5 year old car they already needed. It also makes a huge difference if they are doing this as a full time job or only during peak times. And all of these factors are in the driver's control, rather than Uber's.
Hasz 9y ago
What's worse, Uber's interests and and "independent contractors" interests are not fully aligned. When Uber wins, there's plenty of drivers on the street and no surge pricing. When drivers win, it's surge pricing all day long. This adversarial relationship is inevitably going to produce bad results for the drivers, who are undoubtedly the weaker party.
indubitable 9y ago
Can you clarify what exactly you think is a "scam"? People are free to drop in or out of the 'gig economy' at their discretion. For things like Uber there are services available to rent cars with time frames as low as by the hour, to help drivers determine if the wages and work are what they're really looking for. At worst, they could simply chat with another driver for the service.
andonisus 9y ago
You should care. Uber has lobbied in my state to not be classified as a taxi (or common carrier), and their drivers are classified as independent contractors. They were able to successfully lobby for this classification by guaranteeing a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for injury caused by their drivers. If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.

flexie 9y ago

And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc. I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.

optimuspaul 9y ago
What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?
- simias 9y ago
  At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
    - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jister 9y ago

Sure it was sugar-coated but I thought this was obvious from the beginning?

PeterStuer 9y ago

Surprised as the current EU administration is usually quite keen to support the race to the bottom.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zde 9y ago

Next: EU has found out that an apple is a fruit?

tekkk 9y ago

Here's a second-hand account of why Uber is terrible and should be regulated heard from a finnish taxi driver a week ago: 1) Probably all of the Uber drivers are uninsured in the case of accident. Good luck getting your hospital bill covered if that happens and insurance company finds out you were taking an Uber. 2) There is no background check whatsoever for Uber drivers he told. They recently added a clause that requires Uber drivers to have taxi permit (or something similar) which is required by law but they do not actually check it but now the legal responsibility is out of their hands. He said something in the lines of that "bad apples" can start driving and remain much longer in Uber's system than while driving regular taxi. 3) There has been cases in which Uber drivers haven't paid any taxes and actually have been taking unemployment checks while driving. Sure not directly Uber's fault but again if their drivers were regulated I'm sure it would make checking their taxes much easier and Uber would pay pension etc. from the pay. I think those were his main points if I recall correctly. In Finland regular taxi is well-respected and regulated so Uber has had little luck in succeeding to gain market share. Mostly foreign people use and drive Uber here.

rockinghigh 9y ago
#1 is false. Uber has an insurance: https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber #2 is also false. There are background checks: https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366 https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366
- tekkk 9y ago
  @rockinghigh #1 In paper yes it seems so. But quick googling shows me this page http://jukka-pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-uber-ja-vakuutukset http://jukka-pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-u... In which the guy goes through finnish Uber TOS which states that Uber is not liable of any damage to you or losses caused by the driver. Also because Uber drivers have the basic insurance for personal use but not for professional the insurance companies might decline compensation because it's against the terms of agreement. #2 Also I think the point the taxi driver and (consequently I) was trying to make that Uber does not check can you actually be a professional driver. They might check your crime record but do you think that's all what it takes to be a taxi driver? Granted it might differ in your country but in Finland taxi drivers are well-respected because they behave like a customer servant should. And from what he said it seemed that Uber's process seemed a bit flaky "fill a form and you're an Uber driver" or something like that. Have you no trust in me? :) If you show me a non-Uber source that debunks my claims please go ahead.

yalogin 9y ago

Wow. Uber single handedly made folks on ycombinator pro cab industry. The hatred I saw for the cab industry when Uber was announced or becoming successful was so strong that I am amazed at how grandly Uber fucked it up. Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never reinvented themselves.

heedlessly2 9y ago
that doesn't make sense. HN is pro Lyft but also pro cab? I just think HN doesn't like Uber
- grzm 9y ago
  Please don't do this. HN is a diverse community, and you choose to be a part of it. Casting all of HN in one bucket does a disservice to everyone.
  - Whitestrake 9y ago
    It seems that the fallacy of characterizing a large community (e.g. reddit, HN) as a single entity capable of things like hypocrisy is becoming more and more commonplace.
  - heedlessly2 9y ago
    you're missing the point. I'm not saying every single HN hates Uber. But there's very common pattern of disliking Uber on HN. note i didn't say the hate against Uber was underserved.

fuscy 9y ago

This ruling is pretty disastrous for Uber in some countries where there is ingrained corruption through regulation. Take România for example: licenses are needed to operate, there is a limited number of them, winning licenses is a black box, there is a maximum limit to the price per kilometer, a phone operator service is required, physical systems that monitor the ride, no credit card taxi support legislation, no legal tipping, cars must be licensed for taxi, drivers need special taxes and tests (some are part time weekend drivers). In short there is a lot of improvements that Uber brings but the legislation doesn’t cover (like GPS use) and there is no way to change those without hurting the real taxi drivers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

b3b0p 9y ago

I have never used an Uber, Lyft or any ride share. If any rule or requirement is needed for any and all ride sharing companies, including taxi services and even bus drivers is they take a road test to at least confirm they understand basic rules of the community or area they service. I bike or walk everywhere. I don't have a car. The problem I see and have is almost every few minutes while biking in the bike lane in Austin, a Lyft, taxi, or other ride share stops right in front of me in the bike lane to either drop off or pick up people. I've even had honk at me from behind while I'm in the bike lane because they want to use it or make a right turn. I've talked with a couple people about this and even seen police pull these people over. So, I am pretty sure it's not legal. I wish 2 things: 1) These drivers are required to confirm they know the basic/general rules of the road and 2) Police start enforcing these rules. I won't even bother mentioning that every single driver I see pass me is texting or talking on their phones (not hands free style).