4 ms·

> This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, whic

by rsj_hn 4y ago

> This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, which is why NYC was unable to challenge Uber, as they had no case. Not liking something doesn't make it questionable. > In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. I know of cases where cities decided to pass laws against Uber after they were established in the local market, in which case Uber obeyed those laws and pulled out, but of course lobbied to have the laws changed. Absolutely nothing about that sequence of events is "blatantly illegal".

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  > Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. The law has to define what is a cab and a what is a car service in a way that doesn't rely on feelings and impressions, but in a rigorous way, and Uber met that law even if using Uber leaves you with the impression of a cab like experience. In fact, Uber met it in such an obvious and clear manner that no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company. They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees, but not for being an unlicensed taxi. Your insistence that Uber was blatantly breaking this law then creates a puzzle -- why didn't the cities see this "blatant illegality"? Perhaps they didn't know their own city codes as well as you do -- you should have written them a letter and explained how it was obvious that Uber was in violation of their codes. Also, the link you provide doesn't actually say that Uber was aware it was really a taxi company. It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. How many indictments came out of those leaks? None.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    > no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company Many major cities did, including NYC, LA and SF. Regulators in all cities considered Uber to be operating illegally. Those cities later came to agreements with Uber to allow it to operate, because there was enough support for Uber in the public. > It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. Uber executives repeatedly admit that they're operating illegally, and tell their people in new jurisdictions to just press ahead and expand operations, regardless of what local regulators say. Their business model was to get big first and then to pressure governments to legalize their operations. That worked in most places. > They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees That came later.

by rsj_hn 4y ago

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....

rsj_hn 4y ago
> Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. The law has to define what is a cab and a what is a car service in a way that doesn't rely on feelings and impressions, but in a rigorous way, and Uber met that law even if using Uber leaves you with the impression of a cab like experience. In fact, Uber met it in such an obvious and clear manner that no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company. They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees, but not for being an unlicensed taxi. Your insistence that Uber was blatantly breaking this law then creates a puzzle -- why didn't the cities see this "blatant illegality"? Perhaps they didn't know their own city codes as well as you do -- you should have written them a letter and explained how it was obvious that Uber was in violation of their codes. Also, the link you provide doesn't actually say that Uber was aware it was really a taxi company. It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. How many indictments came out of those leaks? None.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  > no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company Many major cities did, including NYC, LA and SF. Regulators in all cities considered Uber to be operating illegally. Those cities later came to agreements with Uber to allow it to operate, because there was enough support for Uber in the public. > It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. Uber executives repeatedly admit that they're operating illegally, and tell their people in new jurisdictions to just press ahead and expand operations, regardless of what local regulators say. Their business model was to get big first and then to pressure governments to legalize their operations. That worked in most places. > They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees That came later.