6 ms·

So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?

rakoo 12y ago
Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.
- f76 12y ago
  Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
    - csomar 12y ago
      Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
      - vidarh 12y ago
        In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks. Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
      - chii 12y ago
        i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
      - _broody 12y ago
        Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers. They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now. EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation. Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
        DanBC 12y ago
        Taxis have a regulated taxi-meter. These are auditable and they enforce the set rates. This meter is a requirement to pick up people from the street with no booking. Cabs do not have a meter. The customer can set a price before the journey. These must be pre-booked by phone. In theory there is a lot of regulation around criminal checks etc. Uber exists in a grey middle ground. They are booked via the app; and the app acts like a meter. The regulator for London has recently said that the app is not a meter and thus Uber is fine. So long as Uber is complying with local laws I'm fine with them operating. I guess they should be prepared for some of the backlash they'll face when an Uber driver murders a passenger. (Because, with a large enough number of drivers and passwngers and years it'll happen some time).
      - leaveyou 12y ago
    - malka 12y ago
      you do not need a licence to be a taxi. You need one to be a cab. Uber are NOT cabs. they are private driver. You cannot hail one from the street.
      - petercooper 12y ago
        It's the other way around in London parlance. Taxis are more tightly regulated but have freedom to pick up from ranks, can be flagged in the street, etc. Minicabs (sometimes generically called "cabs") are also regulated but to a much lesser extent and are predominantly private drivers.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
    - mseebach 12y ago
      If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition. Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.
      - bernardom 12y ago
        That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated. It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
  - untog 12y ago
    Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
    - 0ptical 12y ago
      if uber doesn't work out for a driver will they have forfeited their black cab rights? JW
  - paddyoloughlin 12y ago
    I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London. It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money. Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition. I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
- avz 12y ago
  This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.
  - pistle 12y ago
    Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
    - rlpb 12y ago
      > I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
      - pistle 12y ago
        That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
    - 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- josu 12y ago
  >against the unfair regulation Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.

rakoo 12y ago

Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.

f76 12y ago
Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
- 0x0 12y ago
  Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
  - csomar 12y ago
    Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
    - vidarh 12y ago
      In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks. Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
    - chii 12y ago
      i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
    - _broody 12y ago
      Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers. They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now. EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation. Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Taxis have a regulated taxi-meter. These are auditable and they enforce the set rates. This meter is a requirement to pick up people from the street with no booking. Cabs do not have a meter. The customer can set a price before the journey. These must be pre-booked by phone. In theory there is a lot of regulation around criminal checks etc. Uber exists in a grey middle ground. They are booked via the app; and the app acts like a meter. The regulator for London has recently said that the app is not a meter and thus Uber is fine. So long as Uber is complying with local laws I'm fine with them operating. I guess they should be prepared for some of the backlash they'll face when an Uber driver murders a passenger. (Because, with a large enough number of drivers and passwngers and years it'll happen some time).
    - leaveyou 12y ago
  - malka 12y ago
    you do not need a licence to be a taxi. You need one to be a cab. Uber are NOT cabs. they are private driver. You cannot hail one from the street.
    - petercooper 12y ago
      It's the other way around in London parlance. Taxis are more tightly regulated but have freedom to pick up from ranks, can be flagged in the street, etc. Minicabs (sometimes generically called "cabs") are also regulated but to a much lesser extent and are predominantly private drivers.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
  - mseebach 12y ago
    If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition. Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.
    - bernardom 12y ago
      That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated. It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
- untog 12y ago
  Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
  - 0ptical 12y ago
    if uber doesn't work out for a driver will they have forfeited their black cab rights? JW
- paddyoloughlin 12y ago
  I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London. It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money. Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition. I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
avz 12y ago
This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.
- pistle 12y ago
  Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
  - rlpb 12y ago
    > I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
    - pistle 12y ago
      That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
  - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
josu 12y ago
>against the unfair regulation Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.