SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
French taxi drivers are the latest to protest the entry of Uber into their protected market. Their protests feature vandalism and blocking roads. From the AP story:
French taxi drivers pulled out the throttle in an all-out confrontation with the ultra-cheap Uber car service Thursday, smashing livery cars, setting tires ablaze and blocking traffic during a nationwide strike that caught tourists and celebrities alike in the mayhem.
[...] Taxi drivers justified their rage, saying Uber's lowest-cost service UberPop was ruining their livihoods.[sic]
[...] Anger seethed across France, with riot police chasing strikers from Paris' ring road, where protesters torched tires and swarmed onto exit ramps during rush hour on the busy artery that leads to Charles de Gaulle airport. In Toulouse in the southwest, angry taxi drivers dumped flour onto UberPop cars, tires were burned in Nantes in the west, and in Lyon, in the southeast, roads were blocked.
Compare this to Uber protests in London.
Vive le monopole!
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:27PM
I get that artificially limited taxi medallions are a scam, but I also see things like Uber as just a different type of scam, and one with a much darker potential. Uber and the future of flood of companies like it, are able to offer low prices by gutting worker protections -- unemployment, worker's comp., health benefits, vacation time, 40 hr work week, etc. etc. They shift the burdens of car accidents, maintenance, safety, insurance, and so forth, to those _least_ able to absorb those losses -- the drivers. I basically see this as a few very rich people, bringing 3d world labor conditions home while taking a small cut out of every transaction. So yeah, medallions suck, but to cheer Uber while it quietly hacks away at the progress we made at improving working conditions during the 20th century, just seems like a short sighted way to shift which asshole gets the ridiculous profits from the medallion owners to the Uber owners.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @12:02AM
Don't many taxi cab drivers use their own personal vehicles.
And if employees really thought they could do better with a traditional taxi cab company or working for someone else they still have those options. Those that choose Uber do so because it is better than their next best alternative. To take that away would be to force them into worse conditions and to allow someone else to better take advantage of their desperation and pay them less. Just having Uber as an option encourages employers to pay employees more or else face them doing Uber. Of course this is not what big corporations want, they want low pay slaves with no other options which is exactly why they hate Uber so much.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:13AM
Don't many taxi cab drivers use their own personal vehicles.
That's incredibly rare. Anyone that can afford a medallion has more profitable things to do with their time than drive. Like sit on their capital and extract rent. Why do you think most drivers are migrants? Don't believe me, ask your driver next time you are in a cab.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday June 29 2015, @06:00AM
And as long as we keep creating types of "employment" that is at best, a crappy option, we're all on a downward spiral into 3d world wages. To praphrase,
First they came for the ditch diggers, but I wasn't a ditch digger so I didn't care,
Then they came for the taxi drivers, but I wasn't ....
Then they came for the programmers ...
Then they came for the doctors, but I wasn't a doctor so I didn't care (*),
Then they came for me, but everyone was homeless and starving and couldn't help me anyway.
There is no job that can't be either outsourced or uberized. And that's frightening. These processes help only the extremely wealthy at the expense of the regular rich, the middle class, and the poor.
(*) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/25/business/la-fi-healthcare-offshore-20120725 [latimes.com]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:39PM
The sentiment is more a scary bedtime than anything. The market adjusts. People find or make new jobs, or live off the state. In 200 years, when robots do almost all manually labor, why do we need people working? We definitely don't need 15 billion white collar workers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:03PM
In response to this question by Bill Moyers: What do you see happening to the idea of dignity to human species if this population growth continues at its present rate? Asimov answered: [wikiquote.org]
"It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my bathroom metaphor.
If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call freedom of the bathroom, go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And this to my way is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution.
But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up, you have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, aren't you through yet, and so on. And in the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, but it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies."
(Score: 4, Informative) by wantkitteh on Monday June 29 2015, @12:36AM
In the UK, the financial, legal and practical issues surrounding accidents, maintenance, safety and insurance have either been the direct responsibility of the drivers or paid for by the drivers along with vehicle rental since time immemorial. Also, rapists/thieves/assholes-in-general have been able to pose as cab drivers for decades. It's arguable that Uber actually increases the identifiability of your driver in the highly unlikely event of a crime taking place.
In practical terms, this whole Uber kerfuffle has never been anything more than taxi drivers attempting to resist the fact that technology is rapidly pushing them deeper into obsolescence every day. GPS and freely available street map data stored in mobile devices and accessible by billions of people have overtaken the archaic idea of having humans remembering all that data themselves. I understand the anger and frustration cab drivers feel, but like telephone switchboard operators and travel agents before them, the niche their livelihood depends on is inevitably going to disappear. Civil disobedience like that which took place in France will do nothing but harm the case for their protection.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:58AM
> Also, rapists/thieves/assholes-in-general have been able to pose as cab drivers for decades.
Considering that the OP didn't mention those things, I find it disingenuous of you to 'defend' uber against them. It undermines the idea that the rest of your points are made in good faith rather than rationalization of bias.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday June 29 2015, @02:58AM
Who stops them to drop their employment as a taxi driver and become a Uber driver?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday June 29 2015, @08:56AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:57AM
In the UK, most drivers own their vehicles and banks are happy to advance business loans to new drivers once they're licensed.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:41PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday June 29 2015, @05:44AM
I have no idea what the UK law on the subject is, but under any reasonable theory of agency, if a driver (as agent of employer) causes damage, the driver and the company would be liable. With Uber, who knows what the driver has for insurance and some insurance isn't going to pay out if the car is being used for business purposes but insured as a personal vehicle. And there are bystanders. Say an Uber driver with minimal to no insurance and no assets makes a pedestrian a quadriplegic. That person, because they have nobody to realistically sue, then becomes a burden on the state, i.e., all taxpayers. Those who own Uber simply shift the risks and burdens of their business onto the public. It's a form of robbery.
Secondly, I guess you missed my too subtle point about "businesses like Uber" -- I'm not talking about other taxi companies -- any work could be subjected to this sort of system. Own spatula? Get a few hours at random burger joints. Have a decrepit semi? Haul some loads for barely more than the cost of fuel. Eventually it will be the public that picks up all the expenses of operating a business, while the owners take only profit without risk or responsibility. Talk about a way to eviscerate the middle class while abusing the poor. That's what Uber is about.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Monday June 29 2015, @07:47AM
In the UK Uber drivers are registered minicab drivers, which means
1) The driver pays a fee (£95 - £207 a year, increasing with car age in Manchester) to the council
2) The car gets a more thorough MOT as part of this (and othe older the car the more tests, hence the increase in price)
3) The driver pays a fee - £144 for the first year, which covers a basic competency test and checks for things like insurance. Renewal costs less.
4) They're no different from your local minicab firm. Apart from the service is far better and the drivers earn more money (at least the ones I talk to). The drivers operate their own car, just like they do at local minicab firms.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday June 29 2015, @08:37AM
Also, 5) The mandatory motor vehicle insurance policy required by law for every vehicle on the road has to specifically cover commercial use, not just private.
I should also point out that point 3 also includes criminal record checks, but if your locality doesn't require points 2, 3 and 5 by law to operate as a cab driver of any kind, they are negligent in ensuring a basic level of passenger safety.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday June 29 2015, @08:43AM
Basic economics suggest that your business will go bankrupt if the public aren't paying all your expenses, no matter what kind of company you are. If they aren't, your undervaluing your services and your customers aren't paying enough. The agency model of business, where someone else sets it up and walks away, taking a cut no matter what happens after that, is nothing new at all - I've been working for agencies for 15 years, all Uber changes is the contract setup speed and granularity. Your idea about this becoming the norm is unrealistic, failing to take into account the fact that business owners expect a certain level of ability from their employees and (unless they're idiots) won't let the good ones get away - you know, by employing them full time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday June 29 2015, @08:58AM
Have a decrepit semi? Haul some loads for barely more than the cost of fuel
In the UK, 'man with a van' is a fairly common thing to see advertised...
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:43AM
Indeed - I've used Man With A Van services on many occasions, I keep one guy's card on my kitchen door because he's specially insured and experienced in transporting works of art.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Monday June 29 2015, @12:59AM
Uber and the future of flood of companies like it, are able to offer low prices by gutting worker protections -- unemployment, worker's comp., health benefits, vacation time, 40 hr work week, etc. etc. They shift the burdens of car accidents, maintenance, safety, insurance, and so forth, to those _least_ able to absorb those losses -- the drivers.
Which if you think about it, is a fine place for those responsibilities to be.
but to cheer Uber while it quietly hacks away at the progress we made at improving working conditions during the 20th century
Rent seeking != improving working conditions. We need to keep in mind that every protected industry imposes costs on society, including, the degrading of those working conditions you're so fond of. If my employer has to spend more on taxis, then it spends less on my working conditions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 29 2015, @05:00AM
Letting aside the 3d World (what? we devolved in a world of 2D sprites?), this will not make any difference: what you should ask is to bring human-based production home - it's the only way the people can get wages. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible, even the Chinese are poised to lose their jobs to robots [bloombergview.com]
What, you really believed that child-story on how a service based economy is self-sufficient and the pinnacle of civilisation? The guys that own the production means and/or resources are the winners to take all - why do you think they are so keen to push TTP/TTIP out of the door in secrecy?
Welcome to trans-state feudalism 2.0, bow to your transnational corporate masters*, the govts will do nothing now and soon they won't be able to do something even if they want to.
--
* as Uber drivers already did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 29 2015, @05:51AM
Getting pedantic on the pedant:
3d == 3rd == third
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third#Synonyms [wiktionary.org]
3d != 3D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D [wikipedia.org]
However, I totally agree that we are transitioning to a post-national sort of governance with TPP/TTIP being the clear tipping point, and companies like Uber shredding worker protections to be symptoms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @12:52PM
Actually in school I learned it as 3rd, but that version does not appear in the linked Wiktionary page.