B777LRF
Topic Author
Posts: 1887
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:07 pm

The ECJ has put a stop to the inane idea, Uber is a 'digital provider' and not a taxi company.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42423627

About bloody time. In principle I've nothing against Uber, provided they play to the same rules as everyone else. We may agree that the rules could do with a spot of overhaul, but until such time they are, those wishing to operate in the market need to follow the current rules.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
geologyrocks
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:05 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:16 pm

I agree. I feel the same about AirNB. If you’re going to operate as a bed and breakfast then you follow the same rules and compete fairly against B&B’s that acknowledge what they actually are.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:31 pm

I think a middle ground could be found but these companies aren't exactly trying to compromise. Also, the point will soon be moot with self-driving cars.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
B777LRF
Topic Author
Posts: 1887
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:04 pm

Aesma wrote:
Also, the point will soon be moot with self-driving cars.


On the contrary. People will still need to be transported, whether there's a driver behind the wheel or not. We may safely assume commercial self-driving vehicles will be subject to tighter regulations than those for private use, just as commercial vehicles are today whether it's by road, sea or air. If someone tries to circumvent those regulations to gain an advantage, i.e. by using 'non-commercial' rated and insured self-driving cars, that's the same as Uber's doing today.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 7169
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:07 pm

The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:58 pm

Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg



It's more contracting of folks that are wanting to be a taxi service, rather than them being a Taxi Service in and of themselves. In theory Uber could offer lawnmower services through the App, and that is where I find the distinction of making them a "Taxi Service" by the EU a bit troubling. However Uber has narrowed themselves to that level for now.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:24 pm

casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg



It's more contracting of folks that are wanting to be a taxi service, rather than them being a Taxi Service in and of themselves. In theory Uber could offer lawnmower services through the App, and that is where I find the distinction of making them a "Taxi Service" by the EU a bit troubling. However Uber has narrowed themselves to that level for now.


Lawnmower business would be the same. If it is just private citizens with their own lawnmowers, the regularly/tax/insurance/social security contribution problem would be pretty much the same.

At least in Germany there is also fictitious self-employment to consider, the "Boss" can be made to pay social security for up to 30 years into the past, plus up to 5 years prison if it amounts to black labour.

Best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:45 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg



It's more contracting of folks that are wanting to be a taxi service, rather than them being a Taxi Service in and of themselves. In theory Uber could offer lawnmower services through the App, and that is where I find the distinction of making them a "Taxi Service" by the EU a bit troubling. However Uber has narrowed themselves to that level for now.


Lawnmower business would be the same. If it is just private citizens with their own lawnmowers, the regularly/tax/insurance/social security contribution problem would be pretty much the same.

At least in Germany there is also fictitious self-employment to consider, the "Boss" can be made to pay social security for up to 30 years into the past, plus up to 5 years prison if it amounts to black labour.

Best regards
Thomas


Uber is contracting and vetting drivers, but they are not the Taxi Service. More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two. In Uber's case because of their company mission currently, they are in a grey area where i can accept the EU ruling, but that same app could be used to deliver other services in the future, and then the Taxi distinction falls flat.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 11406
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:51 pm

Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg


Their workforce is also not screened.
The Juice is loose and he is in Vegas!
 
N867DA
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:00 pm

Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg


While what you say is true, their paycheck comes from Uber, the standards for employment are set by Uber, and the fare collected is set by Uber. Uber also collects the tip and distributes with the paycheck. It is true that drivers pick when and where they work, but I imagine there are many 100% remote jobs that are flexible with when the work is done as long as it gets done. Uber pretends it's some digital sticky board that lets drivers and riders meet, but the sticky board gives drivers the ability to set the fare, reject unlimited proposals, and use any car they want...and the rider has no chance to screen the driver. And the rider pays the driver directly. To me, that's essentially an employee.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
N867DA
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:01 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
The one thing though is that Uber and AirbNb really truly have no control over their supposed "workforce" or supply. It is purely voluntary. People can decide to offer their services/places or not, it is entirely up to the person and not the company. I find that to be very different than what a normal employer can do.

Tugg


Their workforce is also not screened.


Their workforce is provisionally screened:

https://help.uber.com/h/2843c9f3-1b01-4 ... 2cdcd878ca

Retaining the right to screen your workers at any time, or making it a condition for working for them, much like an employer would.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:07 pm

casinterest wrote:
More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two.


Do you call the yellow pages to get a carpenter or do you call the carpenter? Do you pay to yellow pages or do you pay the carpenter? If the craftsmanship wasn't good, do you contact yellow pages customer service or the carpenter?

Does yellow pages decide who can be a carpenter?

Uber is in no way like the yellow pages. There are plenty of apps out there that do work like the yellow pages, and somehow those are not having much legal trouble.

Best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 11406
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:14 pm

N867DA wrote:
Their workforce is provisionally screened:

https://help.uber.com/h/2843c9f3-1b01-4 ... 2cdcd878ca

Retaining the right to screen your workers at any time, or making it a condition for working for them, much like an employer would.


Checkr will not be able to get any info from the DMV. Even if they have a copy of their license. Also if you read it says "May" do a background check. They don't drug screen in fact never meet their drivers. As for criminal background check they can't get that info either unless its made public.
The Juice is loose and he is in Vegas!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:23 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two.


Do you call the yellow pages to get a carpenter or do you call the carpenter? Do you pay to yellow pages or do you pay the carpenter? If the craftsmanship wasn't good, do you contact yellow pages customer service or the carpenter?

Does yellow pages decide who can be a carpenter?

Uber is in no way like the yellow pages. There are plenty of apps out there that do work like the yellow pages, and somehow those are not having much legal trouble.

Best regards
Thomas

I usually call a friend for references, one that uses carpenters. Someone with more knowledge of the service I am requesting. Uber has more knowledge of the drivers due to the their guidelines, but they don't force the drivers hours, and they don't own the car or insurance for the service being offered.

If i was really offering a Taxi Service exclusively, I would be responsible for maintenance and upkeep and insurance of the actual vehicle. That is not what Uber offers, and it doesn't restrict it's operators for using the vehicle for non uber purposes. This is why Uber is cheaper than a regular taxi service, and why it should not be regulated as such.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:41 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
N867DA wrote:
Their workforce is provisionally screened:

https://help.uber.com/h/2843c9f3-1b01-4 ... 2cdcd878ca

Retaining the right to screen your workers at any time, or making it a condition for working for them, much like an employer would.


Checkr will not be able to get any info from the DMV. Even if they have a copy of their license. Also if you read it says "May" do a background check. They don't drug screen in fact never meet their drivers. As for criminal background check they can't get that info either unless its made public.


That's fine, but reserving the right implies they're implies the company is vetting for the best workers, and is not some neutral third party without a stake in its workforce. They could just as easily charge drivers to be a part of Uber and let drivers set their own rates--which would clearly make them a driver/passenger exchange and make the drivers more autonomous. But their business model is basically, "we're a taxi service with an app so don't treat us like a taxi".

Drug tests and criminal background checks aren't required to be employed, so this whole line of reasoning is also kinda not that important in the grand scheme of things.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:45 pm

casinterest wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:


It's more contracting of folks that are wanting to be a taxi service, rather than them being a Taxi Service in and of themselves. In theory Uber could offer lawnmower services through the App, and that is where I find the distinction of making them a "Taxi Service" by the EU a bit troubling. However Uber has narrowed themselves to that level for now.


Lawnmower business would be the same. If it is just private citizens with their own lawnmowers, the regularly/tax/insurance/social security contribution problem would be pretty much the same.

At least in Germany there is also fictitious self-employment to consider, the "Boss" can be made to pay social security for up to 30 years into the past, plus up to 5 years prison if it amounts to black labour.

Best regards
Thomas


Uber is contracting and vetting drivers, but they are not the Taxi Service. More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two. In Uber's case because of their company mission currently, they are in a grey area where i can accept the EU ruling, but that same app could be used to deliver other services in the future, and then the Taxi distinction falls flat.


Here in the UK, Uber falls under rules for "private hire" taxi services - a group of vehicles (whether owned by the company or driver) operating in conjunction with a central dispatcher, with the ability to turn down individual jobs and no legal ability to be hailed off the street.

The other type of taxi we have is the Hackney Carriage, which can be hailed off the street - this is your typical London black cab.

When Uber offers other services via their system, come back with that argument then - the same goes for every private hire taxi company, in that they could also offer any other hire service via their central dispatcher, but there's no one arguing that they aren't providing a taxi service and thus shouldn't be regulated as one.

Companies can be regulated as several different things at the same time - if Uber was to offer lawnmower hire services alongside their taxi services, they could now be regulated as two things.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:08 pm

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Lawnmower business would be the same. If it is just private citizens with their own lawnmowers, the regularly/tax/insurance/social security contribution problem would be pretty much the same.

At least in Germany there is also fictitious self-employment to consider, the "Boss" can be made to pay social security for up to 30 years into the past, plus up to 5 years prison if it amounts to black labour.

Best regards
Thomas


Uber is contracting and vetting drivers, but they are not the Taxi Service. More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two. In Uber's case because of their company mission currently, they are in a grey area where i can accept the EU ruling, but that same app could be used to deliver other services in the future, and then the Taxi distinction falls flat.



Here in the UK, Uber falls under rules for "private hire" taxi services - a group of vehicles (whether owned by the company or driver) operating in conjunction with a central dispatcher, with the ability to turn down individual jobs and no legal ability to be hailed off the street.

The other type of taxi we have is the Hackney Carriage, which can be hailed off the street - this is your typical London black cab.

When Uber offers other services via their system, come back with that argument then - the same goes for every private hire taxi company, in that they could also offer any other hire service via their central dispatcher, but there's no one arguing that they aren't providing a taxi service and thus shouldn't be regulated as one.

Companies can be regulated as several different things at the same time - if Uber was to offer lawnmower hire services alongside their taxi services, they could now be regulated as two things.


Your own argument makes the distinction clear. Uber is not a Taxi Service. They are only one because of local laws regulating Unions. This definition by the EU puts an undue burdent on Uber that they don't want or untend to fall into as a multinational company. The Local's don't like the fact that Uber is more efficient than their outdated methods of collecitng fares. At the end of the day the EU will still be punishing the taxi unions, just at a slower rate. As even if Uber treats their drivers as professionals, the Uber overhead is much lower.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:20 pm

casinterest wrote:
Your own argument makes the distinction clear. Uber is not a Taxi Service. They are only one because of local laws regulating Unions. This definition by the EU puts an undue burdent on Uber that they don't want or untend to fall into as a multinational company. The Local's don't like the fact that Uber is more efficient than their outdated methods of collecitng fares. At the end of the day the EU will still be punishing the taxi unions, just at a slower rate. As even if Uber treats their drivers as professionals, the Uber overhead is much lower.


I'm struggling to see how you come to the conclusion that my own argument supports the assertion that Uber is not a taxi service.

In the UK, they are utterly no different to a private hire taxi service.

No difference at all.

Central dispatch - tick.

Drivers can be self employed, use their own car - tick.

Neither have the legal ability to be hailed off the street - tick.

Etc etc etc,

Uber *is* a taxi service. They should be applying for the same licenses and operating under the same rules as any other private hire taxi service in the UK - their drivers should be applying for the same operating licenses as private hire drivers, and ensuring they have the right level of insurance to cover commercial taxi services in their vehicles, and Uber should be ensuring that every driver that operates for them has a well maintained vehicle, the correct insurance and the correct operating license. They currently do not.

The "locals" are operating under the legal frameworks already in place - you simply cannot just come along, declare those frameworks do not apply to you and still operate the same services.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:54 pm

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Your own argument makes the distinction clear. Uber is not a Taxi Service. They are only one because of local laws regulating Unions. This definition by the EU puts an undue burdent on Uber that they don't want or untend to fall into as a multinational company. The Local's don't like the fact that Uber is more efficient than their outdated methods of collecitng fares. At the end of the day the EU will still be punishing the taxi unions, just at a slower rate. As even if Uber treats their drivers as professionals, the Uber overhead is much lower.


I'm struggling to see how you come to the conclusion that my own argument supports the assertion that Uber is not a taxi service.

In the UK, they are utterly no different to a private hire taxi service.

No difference at all.

Central dispatch - tick.

Drivers can be self employed, use their own car - tick.

Neither have the legal ability to be hailed off the street - tick.

Etc etc etc,

Uber *is* a taxi service. They should be applying for the same licenses and operating under the same rules as any other private hire taxi service in the UK - their drivers should be applying for the same operating licenses as private hire drivers, and ensuring they have the right level of insurance to cover commercial taxi services in their vehicles, and Uber should be ensuring that every driver that operates for them has a well maintained vehicle, the correct insurance and the correct operating license. They currently do not.

The "locals" are operating under the legal frameworks already in place - you simply cannot just come along, declare those frameworks do not apply to you and still operate the same services.



IN ENGLAND you have a queen. We don't have one in the US. Your quaint local laws can't overcome the economy of service that Uber provides as a digital application within that service realm. That is the ultimate issue present here, as the LOCAL taxis services were built on antiquated platforms of service that do not come close to the stability and efficiency of Uber.

Here in the US, there is no discussion of hiring a "Taxi" anymore when we go out on the town or to the airport. Uber/Lyft are far more efficient and effective.

Europe may lay the "Smack down" with their local laws, but it is actually only a punishment on their drivers and patrons. Uber's ability to contract at will is the only thing changed. They aren't a taxi service in any appreciable means. They are a digitally efficient company, that happens to offer a service akin to a taxi, but it is not the same thing at all.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
B777LRF
Topic Author
Posts: 1887
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:03 pm

That's some serious mental gymnastics you're going through, trying to 'prove' Uber is not a taxi company. Well, their highly paid lawyers tried to argue the same in the ECJ, and lost the case. Just as they are losing similar cases all around the world, including several US cities.

You, along with Uber, may not be willing to listen to, or accept, alternative points of view. Thing is, the case has been tried and lost.

By the way, in my neck of the woods you can hail a taxi using an app. You can tell the app your destination, and it will calculate the fare. You can use your credit card to pay the fare via the app, before you even set off. There's even an option to rate the customer experience. Does that sound antiquated to you, or does this mean regular taxis are no longer that, just because they use the same technology as Uber?
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:30 pm

casinterest wrote:

IN ENGLAND you have a queen. We don't have one in the US.


Utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You do, however, have a petulant child currently as your head of state. I think you win on "how screwed up is our country"...

Your quaint local laws can't overcome the economy of service that Uber provides as a digital application within that service realm.


Our "quaint" local laws are still valid and legal and very much in force within our jurisdiction.

Our "quaint" local laws allows anyone who has a drivers license to apply to become a taxi driver with their own vehicle - no mullion dollar medallion system here, just a couple of hundred pounds for a local license, proper insurance, medical and background tests and you get a taxi drivers license. If you want to pick up off the street, its a few hundred more for a Hackney Carriage license. In London, you also have to take the Knowledge, which means you can navigate around London at any time of the day without relying on GPS - but the Knowledge also means you can recommend places to visit, know where you can and cannot drop off, know where you can and cannot park up while waiting for a fare etc etc. It stops situations where you have fleets of Uber cars double parked down streets, blocking entire lanes to traffic (which I see every single time I visit the US).

That is the ultimate issue present here, as the LOCAL taxis services were built on antiquated platforms of service that do not come close to the stability and efficiency of Uber.


And yet you still have yet to demonstrate how Uber doesn't fall under local laws. "Stability and efficiency" (I have no idea what that means) doesn't act as a carte blanche to flout laws.

Local taxi services also don't have the dreaded "surge pricing" here in the UK - recently a doctor was quoted £149 for an Uber trip which cost them £15 in a "normal" taxi, so they took the normal taxi. The surge? It snowed - didn't stop other taxi firms from operating a normal service, but Uber decided to gouge their riders.

Here in the US, there is no discussion of hiring a "Taxi" anymore when we go out on the town or to the airport. Uber/Lyft are far more efficient and effective.


Good for you. Uber and Lyft provide a better service.

But thats not the entirety of the issue here - its how they skirt existing legal frameworks in order to provide that better service.

Europe may lay the "Smack down" with their local laws, but it is actually only a punishment on their drivers and patrons.


And in Europe, we like to look after the employee as much as the consumer. And Uber has been found to be taking advantage of its workforce in many different localities - that, along with the fact that many of those employees don't declare their earnings, pay tax etc and you have a fundamental issue that needs resolving.

Uber's ability to contract at will is the only thing changed.


Not really, they have recently lost their license to operate in several UK cities because of their "disruptive" inability to follow local laws.

They aren't a taxi service in any appreciable means.


You still haven't demonstrated how.

They are a digitally efficient company, that happens to offer a service akin to a taxi, but it is not the same thing at all.


How?

How does "using an app to arrange a taxi service" differ to "using a phone to arrange a taxi service"?

Just because it "involves a computer" doesn't make it fundamentally different to existing businesses in the service it provides.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:15 am

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

IN ENGLAND you have a queen. We don't have one in the US.


Utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You do, however, have a petulant child currently as your head of state. I think you win on "how screwed up is our country"...


That is the difference in local laws.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Your quaint local laws can't overcome the economy of service that Uber provides as a digital application within that service realm.


Our "quaint" local laws are still valid and legal and very much in force within our jurisdiction.

Our "quaint" local laws allows anyone who has a drivers license to apply to become a taxi driver with their own vehicle - no mullion dollar medallion system here, just a couple of hundred pounds for a local license, proper insurance, medical and background tests and you get a taxi drivers license. If you want to pick up off the street, its a few hundred more for a Hackney Carriage license. In London, you also have to take the Knowledge, which means you can navigate around London at any time of the day without relying on GPS - but the Knowledge also means you can recommend places to visit, know where you can and cannot drop off, know where you can and cannot park up while waiting for a fare etc etc. It stops situations where you have fleets of Uber cars double parked down streets, blocking entire lanes to traffic (which I see every single time I visit the US).


Navigating without GPS is an antiquated rule with no real benefit, but it is required of a Taxi Service in London. Uber is based on GPS, so right here, Uber is not a Taxi Service. End of story. London't own rules preclude it.
The Hackney License is required of the Local taci drivers, as is the Knowledge, but can be replaced by reminders on a Digital Information System that could be provided by Uber( an information system).
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
That is the ultimate issue present here, as the LOCAL taxis services were built on antiquated platforms of service that do not come close to the stability and efficiency of Uber.


And yet you still have yet to demonstrate how Uber doesn't fall under local laws. "Stability and efficiency" (I have no idea what that means) doesn't act as a carte blanche to flout laws.

Local taxi services also don't have the dreaded "surge pricing" here in the UK - recently a doctor was quoted £149 for an Uber trip which cost them £15 in a "normal" taxi, so they took the normal taxi. The surge? It snowed - didn't stop other taxi firms from operating a normal service, but Uber decided to gouge their riders.


Uber has a supply and demand pricing that works well, during busy times. The doctor could have waited for a regular taxi, but he choose Uber due to what considerations? It must not have been price. He would have known ahead of time what the cost was because Uber as an information system would have told him,
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Here in the US, there is no discussion of hiring a "Taxi" anymore when we go out on the town or to the airport. Uber/Lyft are far more efficient and effective.


Good for you. Uber and Lyft provide a better service.

But thats not the entirety of the issue here - its how they skirt existing legal frameworks in order to provide that better service.


Legal frameworks in this case are better described as artificial barriers to entry into a market, Some of which may be valid, but some of which are the responsibility of the driver and not the Uber service.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Europe may lay the "Smack down" with their local laws, but it is actually only a punishment on their drivers and patrons.


And in Europe, we like to look after the employee as much as the consumer. And Uber has been found to be taking advantage of its workforce in many different localities - that, along with the fact that many of those employees don't declare their earnings, pay tax etc and you have a fundamental issue that needs resolving.


Uber cannot take advantage of those that are working at will. Even "Private Carriage" workers have to declare their earnings on their honor system. These drivers breaking the laws is now the responsibility of Uber which only provides the means of making connections. The locals could ask that Uber reports hours paid or witholds taxes, but that is a differnce between a taxi service and an information provider.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Uber's ability to contract at will is the only thing changed.


Not really, they have recently lost their license to operate in several UK cities because of their "disruptive" inability to follow local laws.


Uber didn't break the laws. The drivers do. and then the overcharging inefficent local drivers complain.
That is what brought this current case.

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
They aren't a taxi service in any appreciable means.


You still haven't demonstrated how.


A Taxi Service is a company specifically set up to provide transport and provide drivers in an efficient market local with dispatching by phone or drive by wave downs.

Uber allows drivers to connect with customers over an application to agree on a set fee and path prior to pickup with notifications to both parties of where and when to meet, using GPS and text messaging , and possibly a phone call. but Uber is not supplying company cars, training, or licensing. It is a contract arrangement.

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
They are a digitally efficient company, that happens to offer a service akin to a taxi, but it is not the same thing at all.


How?

How does "using an app to arrange a taxi service" differ to "using a phone to arrange a taxi service"?

Just because it "involves a computer" doesn't make it fundamentally different to existing businesses in the service it provides.


It is fundamentally different. Prior to Uber, I Could not efficiently get a taxi to my house and know when it would arrive or how much my transport would cost.
I live too far out from where it is efficient to run a service. I couldn't dictate the size of the car I needed, or even know what to expect of the driver. Uber allows efficient matchmaking and scale of business for would be transportation provider/taxi services with those that need said transport services. It is not the actual taxi service itself. and it does not need to be so.

Uber also avoids me having to wait outside for the "Taxi Service" itself to arrive and flag it down, like I used to have to do in NYC. Ever tried to flag a cab in NYC , only to wait 45 minutes for one? Or ever had one kick you out because they don't want to go to JFK?: Uber allows me to know which Taxi Service provider will actually do what I need, and i can sit inside and have a pint or tea while waiting.


Uber also allows drivers to make choices on when and how much they work with "Surge Pricing" to get drivers active at time and places that they may not otherwise see it as being efficient to work.

Uber expands the ability of people to get where they are going without requiring them to drive their own car all the time. I have many friends that have dropped to one car in the family thanks to Uber's and Lyft's services.

So Uber is not a Taxi service. They are an application which makes Individual Transport Services efficient.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:18 am

B777LRF wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Also, the point will soon be moot with self-driving cars.


On the contrary. People will still need to be transported, whether there's a driver behind the wheel or not. We may safely assume commercial self-driving vehicles will be subject to tighter regulations than those for private use, just as commercial vehicles are today whether it's by road, sea or air. If someone tries to circumvent those regulations to gain an advantage, i.e. by using 'non-commercial' rated and insured self-driving cars, that's the same as Uber's doing today.


Well the main problem people have with uber is the employment situation. Both how they treat their "non employees" and how they affect taxi drivers.

When cars drive by themselves, that won't be a problem anymore.

There are predictions people will then get rid of their cars, others disagree, and so far I'm in that latest camp. When I don't take my car to go somewhere it's either because parking at my destination will be problematic and/or expensive, or because I'm going to drink. With my own self-driving car, it can drop me off, go home or to a cheap automated parking outside the city, then pick me up later. No need for taxis or uber. Which I very rarely take anyway as they're just too expensive for where I'm going, I take public transportation.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:07 am

casinterest wrote:
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

IN ENGLAND you have a queen. We don't have one in the US.


Utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You do, however, have a petulant child currently as your head of state. I think you win on "how screwed up is our country"...


That is the difference in local laws.


And its still utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

casinterest wrote:
Navigating without GPS is an antiquated rule with no real benefit, but it is required of a Taxi Service in London. Uber is based on GPS, so right here, Uber is not a Taxi Service. End of story. London't own rules preclude it.
The Hackney License is required of the Local taci drivers, as is the Knowledge, but can be replaced by reminders on a Digital Information System that could be provided by Uber( an information system).


Except that the Knowledge is only required to provide a *Hackney Carriage* taxi service.

You can also provide a private hire taxi service.

Which is what Uber is.

Still a taxi service. "It uses GPS" is not the deciding factor here. If your argument hinges on "it uses GPS" then you have a baseless argument, as the rules for private hire taxi services are well established and do not cover how the driver chooses to receive navigational information.

Londons own rules already provide for a taxi service which doesn't require the knowledge - and they have already revoked Ubers license under those rules.

"End of story" is just another way of saying "I can't provide a decent argument".

casinterest wrote:
Uber has a supply and demand pricing that works well, during busy times. The doctor could have waited for a regular taxi, but he choose Uber due to what considerations?


Actually, no, she went with the local taxi firm. Which was operating a normal service.

And surge pricing worked really well to gouge customers during the various natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc around the world which put Uber into the headlines for precisely that - gouging customers.

casinterest wrote:
It must not have been price.


Price was indeed the reason she chose not to take an Uber.

casinterest wrote:
He would have known ahead of time what the cost was because Uber as an information system would have told him,


And private hire taxi services operate under a fixed fare system where fares are set by the local licensing body.

It would also seem you lack basic reading comprehension skills, as you seem to have misunderstood the basic construct of the anecdotal story

casinterest wrote:
Legal frameworks in this case are better described as artificial barriers to entry into a market, Some of which may be valid, but some of which are the responsibility of the driver and not the Uber service.


The problem is that lots of courts have ruled against Ubers independent decision to ignore the responsibilities it owns.

And as I have noted in previous comments, the "barrier to entry" in the UK for a private hire taxi service is very very low - its not zero, but thats because we are talking about basic consumer protections here.

Uber want the cost of entry to be zero. It doesn't care about commercial insurance, properly maintained vehicles, background checks etc etc.

casinterest wrote:
Uber cannot take advantage of those that are working at will.


The courts and various licensing bodies disagree with you - the very fact that they deem their workers to be "at will" (a very very very specific designation here in Europe, it does not mean what it means in the US) is an abuse in itself.

Holidays, overtime, basic minimum wage, employee protections etc etc etc.

Thats what Uber wants to avoid. And thats what its being told it cannot avoid in many jurisdictions.

Even "Private Carriage" workers have to declare their earnings on their honor system.


Actually, in the UK they use an audit-able meters which the local body can use to determine lots of things, including earnings - and proper declaration of earnings is something that is included in your license application.

And when working for a taxi firm, they have to pay earnings to the taxi firm, which declares them and the driver making them.

casinterest wrote:
These drivers breaking the laws is now the responsibility of Uber which only provides the means of making connections.


Uber provides the billing services as well as central dispatch. Which means that Uber is also in danger of aiding and abetting individual drivers who do not declare their earnings if they simply pay the drivers in gross figures here in the UK.

casinterest wrote:
The locals could ask that Uber reports hours paid or witholds taxes, but that is a differnce between a taxi service and an information provider.


Again, a made up difference by you.

While a private hire taxi driver can be self employed, they do not need to be self employed - they can be centrally employed by the private hire taxi firm directly.

And "withholding taxes" is exactly what happens to an employee - which Uber drivers were recently ruled to be in the UK. Employed by Uber.


casinterest wrote:
Uber didn't break the laws. The drivers do. and then the overcharging inefficent local drivers complain.
That is what brought this current case.


There is plenty of evidence that Uber has, and continues to, break local laws.

casinterest wrote:
A Taxi Service is a company specifically set up to provide transport and provide drivers in an efficient market local with dispatching by phone or drive by wave downs.

Uber allows drivers to connect with customers over an application to agree on a set fee and path prior to pickup with notifications to both parties of where and when to meet, using GPS and text messaging , and possibly a phone call. but Uber is not supplying company cars, training, or licensing. It is a contract arrangement.


All you are doing there is changing some words and pretending one doesn't apply to the other because you specifically don't mention it for one but do for the other.

- "Uber allows drivers to connect with customers over an application to agree on a set fee and path prior to pickup with notifications to both parties of where and when to meet," yup, thats a central dispatch service, and both private hire taxi services and Uber have them.

- "using GPS and text messaging , and possibly a phone call." absolutely no difference between Uber and a private hire taxi service here either, you seem to be fixated on the Hackney Carriage side of taxi licensing in the UK and totally ignoring the private hire taxi service side of it.

- "but Uber is not supplying company cars, training, or licensing." private hire taxi services don't have to do that either, a driver can bring their own car, pay for their own training, do their own licensing and simply have the taxi firm supply work.

- "It is a contract arrangement. " again, private hire taxi firms can do this as well. The reason Uber lost this wholesale and was told by the UK courts to treat its drivers as employees was because Uber was trying to treat *every* driver as a contractor, regardless of the individual situation. You simply can't do that here in the UK.

casinterest wrote:
It is fundamentally different.


Just saying that doesn't make it so.

casinterest wrote:
Prior to Uber, I Could not efficiently get a taxi to my house and know when it would arrive or how much my transport would cost.


Prior to Uber I, nor anyone I know, had any issues doing that.

And the number of times I have actually used Uber and had the driver cancel on me dramatically outweighs the number of times a private hire taxi service has let me down.

casinterest wrote:
I couldn't dictate the size of the car I needed, or even know what to expect of the driver.


Considering Uber has been in the news for faking background checks, I'm not sure you can know what to expect of the Uber driver either. And asking the private hire taxi service for a given size vehicle is a trivial thing.

casinterest wrote:
Uber allows efficient matchmaking and scale of business for would be transportation provider/taxi services with those that need said transport services. It is not the actual taxi service itself. and it does not need to be so.


Again, just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so.

Uber quacks, waddles and craps like a private hire taxi service - is it any wonder its been ruled to be one by many courts?

casinterest wrote:
Uber also avoids me having to wait outside for the "Taxi Service" itself to arrive and flag it down, like I used to have to do in NYC. Ever tried to flag a cab in NYC , only to wait 45 minutes for one? Or ever had one kick you out because they don't want to go to JFK?: Uber allows me to know which Taxi Service provider will actually do what I need, and i can sit inside and have a pint or tea while waiting.


Again, you are misconstruing the difference between a Hackney Carriage style taxi (which are what NYC yellow cabs are) and a private hire taxi service, which does exactly what you like in Uber - call them, or use their app, and you can sit in the local cafe until it turns up, in many jurisdictions they will offer to do the journey either as a fixed price (which is what Uber does) or as a metered service, so you know what the costs are etc etc.

And yes, I have had Uber drivers drop me because they don't want to do the job.

casinterest wrote:
Uber also allows drivers to make choices on when and how much they work with "Surge Pricing" to get drivers active at time and places that they may not otherwise see it as being efficient to work.


Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but all you are talking about here is price gouging the customer.

casinterest wrote:
Uber expands the ability of people to get where they are going without requiring them to drive their own car all the time.


Not an argument for allowing Uber to operate outside the existing frameworks for taxi services.

casinterest wrote:
So Uber is not a Taxi service. They are an application which makes Individual Transport Services efficient.


Again, just simply saying so doesn't make it reality.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:21 am

[quote="moo"]

/[quote]

Let me put it simply. By the ECJ defintion, WebMD should be a hospital, and Kayak.com should be a hotel chain/aitline/car rental service.
Uber is not a Taxi service. It is an application.

The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules. I use Uber, because i am not going to use an app to find each local service/driver every time I land, and Uber does not require it's drivers to throw out advertising, and fight for fares on already congested streets.


Just as the internet is disrupting TV. phone and music services, Uber and other apps have disrupted personal transport. Many of the rules that apply to "Taxis" such as stupid medallion rules, or signage requirements don't apply to Uber. They may need to be regulated, but not as a Taxi Service in the traditional sense, as they are not one.

To turn around your argument about the private carriage. What gives them easier access to clients? The Yellow pages or Uber?
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:50 am

casinterest wrote:
Let me put it simply. By the ECJ defintion, WebMD should be a hospital, and Kayak.com should be a hotel chain/aitline/car rental service.


Thats not just a leap, thats an Apollo 11 leap.

casinterest wrote:
Uber is not a Taxi service. It is an application.


Its an application that facilitates a private hire taxi service between customer and driver. The exact same thing that every single other private hire taxi service is, minus the "application" aspect in several cases.

It is not a price comparison site, it doesn't offer other peoples products, it doesn't use third party feeds to populate its product listing. Uber sets the rates of the service, it also sets the level of service being delivered. Drivers have limited ability to refuse providing the service when a job is offered to them.

It is entirely different to how Kayak works.

It is not a simple store of knowledge, which offers no opinions in specific individual cases, provides no treatment services and offers a directory from which you can find an unaffiliated professional, into which relationship it does not insert itself as billing provider.

It is entirely different to how WebMD works.

casinterest wrote:
The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules.


And yet it is still *dictated* - Uber needs to either get the laws changed or comply. It does not get to ignore local laws.

casinterest wrote:
I use Uber, because i am not going to use an app to find each local service/driver every time I land,


Good for you, but it doesn't strengthen Ubers legal position or status.

casinterest wrote:
and Uber does not require it's drivers to throw out advertising, and fight for fares on already congested streets.


Nope, just on its own app.

Because, legally in many jurisdictions, it *cannot* let drivers take fares off the street because that is a Hackney Carriage service, whereas Uber wants to supply a private hire taxi service.

casinterest wrote:
Many of the rules that apply to "Taxis" such as stupid medallion rules, or signage requirements don't apply to Uber.


Again, saying so doesn't make it reality. And Uber is finding out that the reality is very very different to their approach.

casinterest wrote:
They may need to be regulated, but not as a Taxi Service in the traditional sense, as they are not one.


And yet again, saying so doesn't make it reality. You seem to be from the school of "repeat it often enough and it becomes true".

casinterest wrote:
To turn around your argument about the private carriage. What gives them easier access to clients? The Yellow pages or Uber?


Thats not a turn around at all, thats a new argument - and not a very good one.

Whether Uber is a private hire taxi service or whether it is not does not revolve around the ease of access for customers - it revolves around the regulatory and legal frameworks in the jurisdictions that Uber wishes to operate.

You are making some interesting arguments, but not ones which are relevant to the discussion - how well or how accessible the service that Uber provides is to the customer has utterly and absolutely no bearing to the legal positions here.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:08 am

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Let me put it simply. By the ECJ defintion, WebMD should be a hospital, and Kayak.com should be a hotel chain/aitline/car rental service.


Thats not just a leap, thats an Apollo 11 leap.

Not really. Just because I use a weather app, doesn't mean they are the weather provider. There are many folks that collect the weather information for that app.

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Uber is not a Taxi service. It is an application.


Its an application that facilitates a private hire taxi service between customer and driver. The exact same thing that every single other private hire taxi service is, minus the "application" aspect in several cases.

It is not a price comparison site, it doesn't offer other peoples products, it doesn't use third party feeds to populate its product listing. Uber sets the rates of the service, it also sets the level of service being delivered. Drivers have limited ability to refuse providing the service when a job is offered to them.

It is entirely different to how Kayak works.

It is not a simple store of knowledge, which offers no opinions in specific individual cases, provides no treatment services and offers a directory from which you can find an unaffiliated professional, into which relationship it does not insert itself as billing provider.

It is entirely different to how WebMD works.



And it is entirely different from how a taxi service works Taxi's have to worry about their car's , their insurance, their advertising, and their hours/holidays. Uber does not , except in the arcane world of the EU where everyone is an employee and not a contractor.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules.


And yet it is still *dictated* - Uber needs to either get the laws changed or comply. It does not get to ignore local laws.


The local rules can rule the server, but Uber is not local, it is a tool for the consumer and the taxi service. Not just for the Taxi service. and that is where the ECJ distinction lies flat. The ECJ is so worried about workers not in the app , it is not balancing the needs of the consumers ad workers that use the app.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
I use Uber, because i am not going to use an app to find each local service/driver every time I land,


Good for you, but it doesn't strengthen Ubers legal position or status.

Not in the EU, but there will be another app that will take over the position.
casinterest wrote:
and Uber does not require it's drivers to throw out advertising, and fight for fares on already congested streets.


Nope, just on its own app.

Because, legally in many jurisdictions, it *cannot* let drivers take fares off the street because that is a Hackney Carriage service, whereas Uber wants to supply a private hire taxi service.
[/quote]
and Uber/Lyft do better in empty streets where injured or elderly users just need a lift to the Dr, or the grocery.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Many of the rules that apply to "Taxis" such as stupid medallion rules, or signage requirements don't apply to Uber.


Again, saying so doesn't make it reality. And Uber is finding out that the reality is very very different to their approach.


Uber is different, and this is what the EU doesn't recognize. They are trying to put the square peg into the round hole.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
]They may need to be regulated, but not as a Taxi Service in the traditional sense, as they are not one.


And yet again, saying so doesn't make it reality. You seem to be from the school of "repeat it often enough and it becomes true".

I am from the school of, why the hell is there a legal case if they are a taxi service? if they were a taxi service in the traditional sense, the Barcelona drivers woudn't have cared.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

To turn around your argument about the private carriage. What gives them easier access to clients? The Yellow pages or Uber?


Thats not a turn around at all, thats a new argument - and not a very good one.

Whether Uber is a private hire taxi service or whether it is not does not revolve around the ease of access for customers - it revolves around the regulatory and legal frameworks in the jurisdictions that Uber wishes to operate.

You are making some interesting arguments, but not ones which are relevant to the discussion - how well or how accessible the service that Uber provides is to the customer has utterly and absolutely no bearing to the legal positions here.


In the US, the ECJ argument would never fly, and at the end of the day, it is the EU consumers that will suffer. Not those in the congested urban centers, but those in the rural far reaches.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:41 am

casinterest wrote:
Not really. Just because I use a weather app, doesn't mean they are the weather provider. There are many folks that collect the weather information for that app.


Ok, lets try something different then because I can see that if I don't, we will just keep going round and round in the same circle - you providing an "example" and me shooting it down.

Whatever you bring up, it simply does not matter - you and Uber saying "Uber is not a taxi company" does not, in the end, matter one iota because local regulators are saying "Uber is a taxi company" and its the local regulators which get to also say "Uber is being fined lots of money because they ignored our laws" and its also the local regulators which get to say "Uber is being prosecuted and Ubers directors may get to go to prison for continually violating local laws".

You can spout your rhetoric to your (and Ubers) grave - it does not matter, because it is not a valid reflection of reality.

casinterest wrote:

And it is entirely different from how a taxi service works Taxi's have to worry about their car's , their insurance, their advertising, and their hours/holidays. Uber does not , except in the arcane world of the EU where everyone is an employee and not a contractor.


Just because other places allow companies to screw their workforce doesn't mean the EU is wrong in this.

And once again, whether or not the work force is contracted, self employed, employed or illegally casual does not matter to the legal findings as to whether Uber is a taxi firm or not.

You are conflating multiple different issues that Uber has and trying to mix them into one counter argument - that doesn't work.

Uber doing X means its a taxi company providing private hire taxi services in the UK.

Uber doing Y means its screwing its employees out of holiday pay, sick pay, NI contributions and other benefits.

One does not change the other.

I have already told you that private hire taxi services in the UK can operate exactly how you are describing Uber to be operating - no cars of their own, contracted drivers bringing their own cars, insurance and licensing. It doesn't change the fact that they are a private hire taxi service - their drivers don't have to be employees for that status to be true.


casinterest wrote:
The local rules can rule the server, but Uber is not local, it is a tool for the consumer and the taxi service.


Yup, try that one in court and see where it gets you. Not far, will be the answer.

casinterest wrote:
and that is where the ECJ distinction lies flat.


You still haven't shown how.

casinterest wrote:
The ECJ is so worried about workers not in the app , it is not balancing the needs of the consumers ad workers that use the app.


Thats not the courts job.

You want the legal situation changed - so change it. Changing it is not the courts job - its the politicians job.


casinterest wrote:
Not in the EU, but there will be another app that will take over the position.


And the legal situation won't change.

casinterest wrote:
and Uber/Lyft do better in empty streets where injured or elderly users just need a lift to the Dr, or the grocery.


Yet another argument which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But sure, keep the fallacious arguments coming, there is no character count on your internet connection - but be aware that sheer weight of pointless arguments does not in itself provide a true and useful argument. For that, you need an actual true and useful argument.

Uber is never going to win in court on the basis of "but but but our service is a brilliant one, which is why we should be allowed to operate outside of the legal framework which already exists for these services".

[
casinterest wrote:
Uber is different,


Once again, saying it doesn't make it reality.

casinterest wrote:
and this is what the EU doesn't recognize.


The EU doesn't care how different Uber and its fans say it is - they apply the frameworks which match the service being provided, and under them, Uber is a private hire taxi service.

casinterest wrote:
They are trying to put the square peg into the round hole.


Uber fits pretty much perfectly into the hole - its you and Uber who is trying to turn the square peg 45 degrees so it doesnt go into the square hole.


casinterest wrote:
I am from the school of, why the hell is there a legal case if they are a taxi service? if they were a taxi service in the traditional sense, the Barcelona drivers woudn't have cared.


Because Uber doesn't operate within the legal limitations of local frameworks - they have (and do) operated with illegal drivers, without a taxi license, with disregard to locally set fare structures etc etc.

Taxi companies come and go every single year - but the only time people have an issue with a new company is when they refuse to operate under the same rules, which makes them illegal. Which is exactly the situation we have here - Uber trying to skirt the law by saying "that law doesnt apply to us because we see ourselves as this other thing, and thus we dont need to conform to those laws".

Well, Uber, sorry but "I see myself as this other thing over here" just got shot down in court - no matter how hard you shut your eyes and think you are something else, thats not how the courts see it.

casinterest wrote:

In the US, the ECJ argument would never fly,


So? The US is a different jurisdiction and has different legal frameworks.

Oh, and a Californian court did rule that Uber drivers were employees.

An administrative law judge for New York's state labor department recently ruled that three Uber drivers were employees.

And thats just on the "employee or not" side of things.

Seems like your legal framework might be crumbling - there are plenty of cases regarding Ubers status as a taxi company in US courts right now.

casinterest wrote:
Not those in the congested urban centers, but those in the rural far reaches.


I lived in Norwich, UK until recently.

Number of Uber drivers we had there? None.

Out on the North Norfolk coast? None.

Could still get a "regular" taxi though.

I now live in NZ.

Number of Uber drivers we have here in this town of 17,000? None. Next town over of 25,000? None.

Out in the actual rural far reaches? You have to be kidding.

Can still get a "regular" taxi though.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:34 am

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Not really. Just because I use a weather app, doesn't mean they are the weather provider. There are many folks that collect the weather information for that app.


Ok, lets try something different then because I can see that if I don't, we will just keep going round and round in the same circle - you providing an "example" and me shooting it down.

Whatever you bring up, it simply does not matter - you and Uber saying "Uber is not a taxi company" does not, in the end, matter one iota because local regulators are saying "Uber is a taxi company" and its the local regulators which get to also say "Uber is being fined lots of money because they ignored our laws" and its also the local regulators which get to say "Uber is being prosecuted and Ubers directors may get to go to prison for continually violating local laws".

You can spout your rhetoric to your (and Ubers) grave - it does not matter, because it is not a valid reflection of reality.

You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with your rhetoric. You and the EU are operating from an antiquated set of rules that do not apply to services that better enable transport. The defintion of Uber as an Employer rather than a digital app will only open up the realm for Uber to change it''s operational handling of drivers, or it will allow another digital servie (amazon) to take over and provide the service in ways that change far to fast for the EU to handle.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:


And it is entirely different from how a taxi service works Taxi's have to worry about their car's , their insurance, their advertising, and their hours/holidays. Uber does not , except in the arcane world of the EU where everyone is an employee and not a contractor.


Just because other places allow companies to screw their workforce doesn't mean the EU is wrong in this.

And once again, whether or not the work force is contracted, self employed, employed or illegally casual does not matter to the legal findings as to whether Uber is a taxi firm or not.

You are conflating multiple different issues that Uber has and trying to mix them into one counter argument - that doesn't work.

Uber doing X means its a taxi company providing private hire taxi services in the UK.

Uber doing Y means its screwing its employees out of holiday pay, sick pay, NI contributions and other benefits.

One does not change the other.

I have already told you that private hire taxi services in the UK can operate exactly how you are describing Uber to be operating - no cars of their own, contracted drivers bringing their own cars, insurance and licensing. It doesn't change the fact that they are a private hire taxi service - their drivers don't have to be employees for that status to be true.



The EU makes Taxi Service to broad. By their definition, a travel agent is an airline

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The local rules can rule the server, but Uber is not local, it is a tool for the consumer and the taxi service.


Yup, try that one in court and see where it gets you. Not far, will be the answer.


The courts are not doing well at defining the service, and at the end of the day, they are only hindering the change that will cause many folks to lose their well paying jobs
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

and that is where the ECJ distinction lies flat.


You still haven't shown how.


Because the EU is so broadly defining taxi service, that now anyone can jump in and be one, and the local providers are going to still lose out on their markets.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The ECJ is so worried about workers not in the app , it is not balancing the needs of the consumers ad workers that use the app.


Thats not the courts job.

You want the legal situation changed - so change it. Changing it is not the courts job - its the politicians job.


I don't have to change it, I don't live in Europe. I live where Uber has already taken over and is in competition with Lyft.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Not in the EU, but there will be another app that will take over the position.


And the legal situation won't change.


No but the employment landscape will continue to change, and the laws will become so antiquated, no one will care.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

and Uber/Lyft do better in empty streets where injured or elderly users just need a lift to the Dr, or the grocery.


Yet another argument which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But sure, keep the fallacious arguments coming, there is no character count on your internet connection - but be aware that sheer weight of pointless arguments does not in itself provide a true and useful argument. For that, you need an actual true and useful argument.

Uber is never going to win in court on the basis of "but but but our service is a brilliant one, which is why we should be allowed to operate outside of the legal framework which already exists for these services".

It's not fallacious. Taxi Services are purely supplly and demand. Uber has enabled those services to be enacted over further distances and at will.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Uber is different,


Once again, saying it doesn't make it reality.

casinterest wrote:
and this is what the EU doesn't recognize.


The EU doesn't care how different Uber and its fans say it is - they apply the frameworks which match the service being provided, and under them, Uber is a private hire taxi service.

No it is an app that enables private hire taxi services. The failure of the EU to appropriately recognize the difference is why their are lawsuits, and why Uber is still winning out over local taxi providers; The regulations of the EU will only slow that process.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
They are trying to put the square peg into the round hole.


Uber fits pretty much perfectly into the hole - its you and Uber who is trying to turn the square peg 45 degrees so it doesnt go into the square hole.



Uper fits to taxi about as well as internet to tv service. The physical medium might be the same, but the experience is quite different.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

I am from the school of, why the hell is there a legal case if they are a taxi service? if they were a taxi service in the traditional sense, the Barcelona drivers woudn't have cared.


Because Uber doesn't operate within the legal limitations of local frameworks - they have (and do) operated with illegal drivers, without a taxi license, with disregard to locally set fare structures etc etc.

Taxi companies come and go every single year - but the only time people have an issue with a new company is when they refuse to operate under the same rules, which makes them illegal. Which is exactly the situation we have here - Uber trying to skirt the law by saying "that law doesnt apply to us because we see ourselves as this other thing, and thus we dont need to conform to those laws".

Well, Uber, sorry but "I see myself as this other thing over here" just got shot down in court - no matter how hard you shut your eyes and think you are something else, thats not how the courts see it.


Keep running to the courts. The court cases by and large are happening because the artificially inflated infrastructure of taxi services can't handle the increase in the amount of private for hire contractors willing to do the same job that are enabled by the Uber/Lyft apps.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:


In the US, the ECJ argument would never fly,


So? The US is a different jurisdiction and has different legal frameworks.

Oh, and a Californian court did rule that Uber drivers were employees.

An administrative law judge for New York's state labor department recently ruled that three Uber drivers were employees.

And thats just on the "employee or not" side of things.

Seems like your legal framework might be crumbling - there are plenty of cases regarding Ubers status as a taxi company in US courts right now.


It won';t fly on appeal in a federal court as California and NY are not at will work states.
moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

casinterest wrote:
Not those in the congested urban centers, but those in the rural far reaches.


I lived in Norwich, UK until recently.

Number of Uber drivers we had there? None.

Out on the North Norfolk coast? None.

Could still get a "regular" taxi though.

I now live in NZ.

Number of Uber drivers we have here in this town of 17,000? None. Next town over of 25,000? None.

Out in the actual rural far reaches? You have to be kidding.

Can still get a "regular" taxi though.

If any of the locals had decided to be an Uber driver, you could have had service quicker.
Perhaps their were artificial methods preventing efficient service in place, or perhaps Uber was still expanding to that region.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:15 am

casinterest wrote:
You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with your rhetoric.


Thats interesting, considering I'm arguing in the same corner as that of multiple courts which are ruling in favour of my argument.

So thats some impressive barn you are saying I couldn't hit. Where is it, Mars?

casinterest wrote:
You and the EU are operating from an antiquated set of rules that do not apply to services that better enable transport.


So, change the rules. Don't flout them and expect to be given a pat on the back.

Until you change them, the rules are what the rules are - everyone else plays by them, you get to as well.

casinterest wrote:
The defintion of Uber as an Employer rather than a digital app will only open up the realm for Uber to change it''s operational handling of drivers, or it will allow another digital servie (amazon) to take over and provide the service in ways that change far to fast for the EU to handle.


And once again you conflate two fundamentally different issues.

In todays ruling, Uber was not defined as an "employer".

They were defined as a "transport services company".

This has nothing to do with the employment issue - thats already been ruled on in several countries. And in none of them did it involve whether or not Uber was a "digital app".


If you can't seem to be able to understand just what todays ruling was about, how are you justifying arguing it?


casinterest wrote:

The EU makes Taxi Service to broad. By their definition, a travel agent is an airline


Except that no one is making that claim - we don't see any court actions trying to force EU travel agents to be regulated as airlines. Only airlines.

So theres something fundamentally wrong with your assertion - the EU doesn't define taxi services too broadly, Uber is wrongly trying to claim it doesn't fall under the existing definition and the court says it does.


casinterest wrote:
The courts are not doing well at defining the service, and at the end of the day, they are only hindering the change that will cause many folks to lose their well paying jobs


I think the courts are doing an excellent job at defining the service, and if these and other rulings mean the end of such a fundamentally corrupt and ethically bankrupt company as Uber then Im fine with that as well.


casinterest wrote:
Because the EU is so broadly defining taxi service, that now anyone can jump in and be one, and the local providers are going to still lose out on their markets.


Except that this definition hasn't changed for decades - its been a stable definition, and if companies want to compete under the same regulatory and legal frameworks as other taxi services, then they are welcome to.

This ruling won't open the flood gates as you suggest, the flood gates never existed.

And you have still to explain how the EUs definition is too broad in scope.

casinterest wrote:
I don't have to change it, I don't live in Europe. I live where Uber has already taken over and is in competition with Lyft.


Ahh, so you are simply trolling then? Got an opinion on something you say doesn't actually affect you.

casinterest wrote:
No but the employment landscape will continue to change, and the laws will become so antiquated, no one will care.


Except that the "gig" economy is actually on the decline in the EU - multiple "gig" economy employers, such as Uber, are finding that they cannot treat their workforces with such disdain and are having court cases go against them.

Its happened for Uber, its happened for Deliveroo, and its happened for many other companies that thought they could force their workforce into accepting terms where they were guaranteed nothing but took all the risk.

The day of the forced contractor is over - the companies lost.

casinterest wrote:
It's not fallacious. Taxi Services are purely supplly and demand. Uber has enabled those services to be enacted over further distances and at will.


It is fallacious because it has utterly no bearing on how the service is regulated. None at all. Nada.

casinterest wrote:
No it is an app that enables private hire taxi services.


So we are back to continually spouting wishes, eh?

Once again, saying it doesn't make it so.

casinterest wrote:
The failure of the EU to appropriately recognize the difference is why their are lawsuits, and why Uber is still winning out over local taxi providers; The regulations of the EU will only slow that process.


If Uber cannot compete, Uber cannot take over. Uber so far cannot compete in many parts of the EU, because it has been legally stopped from operating as it doesn't follow the local laws.

There is no "slowing of the process", this is the destruction of the process.

Just because you want to be recognised as different doesn't mean you actually are. You can come up with all the fancy words you want, "ride sharing", "digital app", but at the end of the day if you can be shown to provide the same or a similar service then you will be regulated the same as everyone else.

casinterest wrote:
Uper fits to taxi about as well as internet to tv service. The physical medium might be the same, but the experience is quite different.


Again, a fallacious argument - you (and Ubers lawyers) have yet to successfully show how it doesn't fit the definition of a taxi service.

Oh, and in the UK, if you view live TV broadcasts over your internet connection, you need a TV license - this has stood up in court.


casinterest wrote:
Keep running to the courts. The court cases by and large are happening because the artificially inflated infrastructure of taxi services can't handle the increase in the amount of private for hire contractors willing to do the same job that are enabled by the Uber/Lyft apps.


The court cases are happening because Uber lowers its costs by ignoring many things that law abiding firms cannot - thats it, in a nutshell. Thats how Uber makes it work - they lower costs by pretending some of them simply do not apply to it.

Thats what this ECJ case is all about.

casinterest wrote:
It won';t fly on appeal in a federal court as California and NY are not at will work states.


Its already stood up in NY on appeal, and Uber were so afraid of losing on appeal in California that they struck an out of court settlement.

So yeah, I think it would fly. And so do Uber.

casinterest wrote:
If any of the locals had decided to be an Uber driver, you could have had service quicker.


Big word there, "if".

And there is utterly no evidence that I would have got service quicker.

casinterest wrote:
Perhaps their were artificial methods preventing efficient service in place, or perhaps Uber was still expanding to that region.


Perhaps there were - although, that goes against your claims earlier that Uber would just work.

The fact remains there is no Uber service. There is plenty in Auckland, so Uber operates in NZ, but once you get outside the major cities there is nothing.

But there are still taxies - odd that.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:07 am

casinterest wrote:
Uber is not a Taxi service. It is an application.


And if you could order drugs with an app, it would be just an application and not drug trading, right?

Not in the EU, but there will be another app that will take over the position.


There are other apps to get transportation. They manage to stay legal somehow....

In the US, the ECJ argument would never fly, and at the end of the day, it is the EU consumers that will suffer. Not those in the congested urban centers, but those in the rural far reaches.


That is cute. Taxi providers have a service requirement.I can get a taxi in my home town any time, night and day. Out of the five or six or so times i tried using Uber on my last vaca to USA & Chile, 3 times none was available, 2 times the Uber driver apparently found something more attractive to do and cancelled the trip on the way to picking me up and i had to holler a new one, one trip went smooth and one time i was dropped some 500 yeards from my destinations in a parallel street.

And of course it won´t fly in the US, no surprise when workers and customers pretty much have no rights whatsoever and pretty much everything is legal if it turns a profit.

best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2947
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:04 am

Good. Time for them to start playing by the rules.
Most recent planes I've been in: A318 F-GUGQ, A319 F-GRHR, A320ceo D-AIZH, A320neo D-AINE, A330-300 VH-QPD, A350-900 B-LRA, A380-800 D-AIMH, B737-600 LN-RPA, B737-700 OY-JTY, B737-800 LN-NGA, B767-300 ZK-NCI, B777-300 ZK-OKN, B787-9 VH-ZNA, CS100 HB-JBG
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:53 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Uber is not a Taxi service. It is an application.


And if you could order drugs with an app, it would be just an application and not drug trading, right?

At the end of the day, it depends on the app. Is IM responsible for drug trading, or google mail?

Not in the EU, but there will be another app that will take over the position.


There are other apps to get transportation. They manage to stay legal somehow....


The app itself is legal. No one has said the Uber app is illegal. this is about an overly broad determination of a "taxi service"

In the US, the ECJ argument would never fly, and at the end of the day, it is the EU consumers that will suffer. Not those in the congested urban centers, but those in the rural far reaches.


That is cute. Taxi providers have a service requirement.I can get a taxi in my home town any time, night and day. Out of the five or six or so times i tried using Uber on my last vaca to USA & Chile, 3 times none was available, 2 times the Uber driver apparently found something more attractive to do and cancelled the trip on the way to picking me up and i had to holler a new one, one trip went smooth and one time i was dropped some 500 yeards from my destinations in a parallel street.

And of course it won´t fly in the US, no surprise when workers and customers pretty much have no rights whatsoever and pretty much everything is legal if it turns a profit.

best regards
Thomas

I have plenty of rights as a worker who does my job. I get raises and bonuses for perfomance and 5-7 weeks off a year. I get to choose a lot of my own hours as well.

Uber and lyft are thriving here, and they are very disruptive to the old way of connecting people with rides at an understandable cost. The old guard in many "established" taxi areas that have antiquated rules are throwing court challenges, but in areas that were never regulated because they lacked effective service due to old transport methods , Uber/Lyft thrive.

The argument of not being able to use it in areas where the adoption rate is still low, is not an argument against the success of that application, which is in essence an Application instead of a Taxi service itself.
Uber may change, and other apps may come around, but this ruling of Uber as being the same as a Taxi Service, is overly broad, and only creates gray areas due to other issues with public transport in general.

The EU didn't do their citizens much of a good service with this ruling.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:23 pm

casinterest wrote:
I have plenty of rights as a worker who does my job. I get raises and bonuses for perfomance and 5-7 weeks off a year. I get to choose a lot of my own hours as well.


and those are your rigthts, i.e. by law, or have you just been good negotiating? Which is meaningless in this context.

Uber and lyft are thriving here, and they are very disruptive to the old way of connecting people with rides at an understandable cost.


Of course they do, like any other business would by shifting costs onto society.

The old guard in many "established" taxi areas that have antiquated rules are throwing court challenges, but in areas that were never regulated because they lacked effective service due to old transport methods , Uber/Lyft thrive.


Mostly in countries where fictitious, i prefer fraudulent, self employment is largely ignored by regulatory entities.

The argument of not being able to use it in areas where the adoption rate is still low, is not an argument against the success of that application, which is in essence an Application instead of a Taxi service itself.


It is a Taxi Service.

Uber may change, and other apps may come around,


for the 3rd time: there are already other apps that work fine and don´t face legal problems, because they are not run by organized crime like Uber.

but this ruling of Uber as being the same as a Taxi Service, is overly broad, and only creates gray areas due to other issues with public transport in general.


You either missunderstand or missrepresent the ruling. Not Uber, the company, is a Taxi service, UberPop is. Uber is just a transportation company and of course that assessment only applies to their current services.

The EU didn't do their citizens much of a good service with this ruling.


Excellent win for EU citizens, they can not be "employed" while withholding income, that is what Uber does by not paying social security contributions or taxes for their employees, and can rely that they are not left holding the bag after an accident without the insurance paying because it is only for non-commercial use.

best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:43 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
The old guard in many "established" taxi areas that have antiquated rules are throwing court challenges, but in areas that were never regulated because they lacked effective service due to old transport methods , Uber/Lyft thrive.


Mostly in countries where fictitious, i prefer fraudulent, self employment is largely ignored by regulatory entities.

This is a responsibility of the citizen and the countries authorities for accessing income on contractors. I have done contract work myself, and I had to fill out and submit my taxes on my own as an independent worker. This issue only requires cooperation and reporting of the final 1099 in the US that the Employer sends to the employee. In other cases the worker can set up with a set contract worker if the employment is long enough so that taxes are withheld properly.
tommy1808 wrote:
It is a Taxi Service.

But what kind of taxi service? That is the real issue. They are not a Taxi service in any physical form . They depend on contractors and not employees to drive the cars. That is a critical distinction, and one that in the US allows for At Will workers to have flexibility.

tommy1808 wrote:
for the 3rd time: there are already other apps that work fine and don´t face legal problems, because they are not run by organized crime like Uber

It;s not organized crime. Organized crime is the racket of artificial laws and barriers that are rendered useless by the introduction of these applications and new way of doing business.

tommy1808 wrote:
Excellent win for EU citizens, they can not be "employed" while withholding income, that is what Uber does by not paying social security contributions or taxes for their employees, and can rely that they are not left holding the bag after an accident without the insurance paying because it is only for non-commercial use.

The drivers aren't their employees. The Employees are those that develop the app. The drivers are the contractors. In the EU, that may be a more difficult distinction, but at the end of the day, the pay and the work will determine what kind of contractor workforce Uber has.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:02 pm

casinterest wrote:
The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules.


That is easy.
Transporting people for money from any point A to any point B reachable by the method of transport chosen.
Service providers are required to be that little bit more qualified to do the job and prove it.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:21 pm

WIederling wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules.


That is easy.
Transporting people for money from any point A to any point B reachable by the method of transport chosen.
Service providers are required to be that little bit more qualified to do the job and prove it.

In Europe maybe. But here in the US it is menial labor as everyone has a GPS , insurance, and a car.

But Uber doesn't transport people. It is an app that has contractors that provide that service.

The biggest problem in places like NYC and other localities is that they think people need a Cheuffer's license to drive the same amount of people you would drive with in a family.
Here in NC, you don't need a Cheuffer's license, and there are not medallion rules, and there are not requirements for Holidays, time off, and vacation, since as an Uber Driver, you get to set your limits.

The fact that Uber is now a "taxi service" for law of Europe, is that it is just a broad definition, that doesn't apply to many places in the US, where they are just an app to get a ride from a person willing to give a ride.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:35 pm

casinterest wrote:
This is a responsibility of the citizen and the countries authorities for accessing income on contractors.



And we did that by way of having very strickt rules on what constitutes contract work. Uber drivers can qualify, occasional drivers, or can't, Uber is a dominant part of their income driver.

But what kind of taxi service? That is the real issue. They are not a Taxi service in any physical form .


Now I get it, you don't know what a taxi services is. Someone upstream did explain it though I think.
A taxi service doesn't have to be a physical company in any more of a sense as Uber is. In some places Taxi services may have literary been a phone and a radio in someones kitchen. A taxi service connects passengers with contract drivers. Often Taxi services do own their own fleet of cars, especially in small towns, but in larger cities the taxi service may have zero vehicles. In my old home Hanover the taxiservice had zero cars, and when you got in one of those 400 taxis it may have been an employed driver from a company running a bunch of them, or an ower-operator with his single vehicle. So

They depend on contractors and not employees to drive the cars.


So...

That is a critical distinction, and one that in the US allows for At Will workers to have flexibility.


That is exactly what Uber does and exactly why they are a taxi service. And a taxi service can not just trust its contract drivers to pay their taxes, social security contribution and having their vehicles properly maintained and insured, they have to check.

It;s not organized crime.


An organisation is systematically breaking the law for profit, that is what organised crime does.

Organized crime is the racket of artificial laws and barriers that are rendered useless by the introduction of these applications and new way of doing business.


As explained above, they do what taxi services have always done.

The drivers aren't their employees.


Several courts have ruled they are, here and in the US, so that was that.

Best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:05 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
This is a responsibility of the citizen and the countries authorities for accessing income on contractors.



And we did that by way of having very strickt rules on what constitutes contract work. Uber drivers can qualify, occasional drivers, or can't, Uber is a dominant part of their income driver.

But what kind of taxi service? That is the real issue. They are not a Taxi service in any physical form .


Now I get it, you don't know what a taxi services is. Someone upstream did explain it though I think.
A taxi service doesn't have to be a physical company in any more of a sense as Uber is. In some places Taxi services may have literary been a phone and a radio in someones kitchen. A taxi service connects passengers with contract drivers. Often Taxi services do own their own fleet of cars, especially in small towns, but in larger cities the taxi service may have zero vehicles. In my old home Hanover the taxiservice had zero cars, and when you got in one of those 400 taxis it may have been an employed driver from a company running a bunch of them, or an ower-operator with his single vehicle. So

They depend on contractors and not employees to drive the cars.


So...

That is a critical distinction, and one that in the US allows for At Will workers to have flexibility.


That is exactly what Uber does and exactly why they are a taxi service. And a taxi service can not just trust its contract drivers to pay their taxes, social security contribution and having their vehicles properly maintained and insured, they have to check.

It;s not organized crime.


An organisation is systematically breaking the law for profit, that is what organised crime does.

Organized crime is the racket of artificial laws and barriers that are rendered useless by the introduction of these applications and new way of doing business.


As explained above, they do what taxi services have always done.

The drivers aren't their employees.


Several courts have ruled they are, here and in the US, so that was that.

Best regards
Thomas


http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/02/01/co ... employees/

A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.

Here in the US we don't extend that uber is a taxi service onto it's own. Only in the EU, where they can't disseminate into specializations.


And currenty in Ca and NY, the drivers are not currently employees. It could change in the appeals courts, but is is not see that way.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
LJ
Posts: 4375
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:02 pm

casinterest wrote:
A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.


You fail to understand the basic concept of law. A radio is a radio if it meets the specifications of a radio which are mentioned in a law or directive. These specifcations can differ and whilst something may be a "radio" in the US, it doesn't have to a "radio" in the EU. The same for what's defined as a "taxi service". It's not what you or I think it is, it's what a regulator determines it is. If your work involves working with government regulation or any other supervisory institution you'll have to deal with this on a daily basis (sometimes very frustrating).
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:10 pm

LJ wrote:
casinterest wrote:
A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.


You fail to understand the basic concept of law. A radio is a radio if it meets the specifications of a radio which are mentioned in a law or directive. These specifcations can differ and whilst something may be a "radio" in the US, it doesn't have to a "radio" in the EU. The same for what's defined as a "taxi service". It's not what you or I think it is, it's what a regulator determines it is. If your work involves working with government regulation or any other supervisory institution you'll have to deal with this on a daily basis (sometimes very frustrating).


No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice. I don't think the Uber App is the end all be all of a taxi service, especially when it's contractors can drive for Lyft or any other app at the same time as an independent contractor.

The EU wants to force Uber into the mode of being a taxi service in order to organize their contracted taxi drivers as employees.

Which is problematic, especially in the states as many folks contract with Uber and Lyft, and set their own hours.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Olddog
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:19 pm

In the EU, the ECJ is the suprem court. What an US company think it is is totally irrelevant after an ECJ ruling.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:40 pm

casinterest wrote:
But what kind of taxi service? That is the real issue. They are not a Taxi service in any physical form .


Many many countries disagree with you. In the UK, they are regulated exactly the same as any other private hire taxi service. The ECJ ruling allows them to be regulated as a private hire taxi service across the entirety of the EU.

casinterest wrote:
They depend on contractors and not employees to drive the cars. That is a critical distinction, and one that in the US allows for At Will workers to have flexibility.


Thats a distinction only YOU care about - the various regulatory bodies do not care if the drivers are contractors or employees, the company will still be regulated the same way as a private hire taxi service.


casinterest wrote:
It;s not organized crime. Organized crime is the racket of artificial laws and barriers that are rendered useless by the introduction of these applications and new way of doing business.


Thats some droll hyperbole you have going there...


casinterest wrote:
The drivers aren't their employees. The Employees are those that develop the app. The drivers are the contractors. In the EU, that may be a more difficult distinction, but at the end of the day, the pay and the work will determine what kind of contractor workforce Uber has.


The UK disagrees with you - the drivers are employees, and Uber was illegally forcing them to act as contractors. This was ruled on, several times through appeals, earlier in 2017 and Uber lost at every stage - their drivers *are* employees, and Uber cannot claim they are contractors.

Which means Uber is on the hook for past holiday and sick pay and must pay its drivers at least minimum wage.

casinterest wrote:
In Europe maybe. But here in the US it is menial labor as everyone has a GPS , insurance, and a car.


And this is exactly what I mentioned in an earlier comment - everyone might have insurance, but do they have the *right* insurance. You cant just hop into the family car and legally drive for Uber in most jurisdictions, you need commercial insurance to carry paying passengers - this is the part Uber ignores, and this is the part many drivers ignore in order to make driving for Uber profitable.

Which means that, in the wacky world of US insurance, you can be hit by an Uber driver, crippled for life and not receive a single penny in compensation.

casinterest wrote:
A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.


You can keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

casinterest wrote:
No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice.


Actually, this entire thread is about what YOU think is and is not a taxi service - you haven't provided one shred of evidence as to why the ECJ ruling is unlawful or wrong, just your own assertions that it is. This isn't a situation where you can simply repeat a million times "Uber is not a taxi service" and it magically becomes fact - thats Trumps line of reasoning, and it doesn't work in reality.

casinterest wrote:
The EU wants to force Uber into the mode of being a taxi service in order to organize their contracted taxi drivers as employees.


Again, you have this wrong - I go back to my earlier comment about how in hell can you legitimately argue ANYTHING here if you don't understand the ruling that just happened.

The ECJ just ruled on the regulatory status of Uber - they ruled that Uber is a transport services company.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with its drivers status as contractors or employers - nothing at all. The EU doesn't cover that, whether or not a worker is defined as a contractor or an employee is something the individual EU nations defines - the ECJ hasn't ruled on it at all.

casinterest wrote:
Which is problematic, especially in the states as many folks contract with Uber and Lyft, and set their own hours.


And here in the UK you can still do that as an employee - you don't have to be exclusive, and you don't have to have defined hours. You can still work for both Uber and Lyft, and for any other taxi service - you still fall under PAYE and your taxes do not change.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:01 pm

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
But what kind of taxi service? That is the real issue. They are not a Taxi service in any physical form .


Many many countries disagree with you. In the UK, they are regulated exactly the same as any other private hire taxi service. The ECJ ruling allows them to be regulated as a private hire taxi service across the entirety of the EU.

casinterest wrote:
They depend on contractors and not employees to drive the cars. That is a critical distinction, and one that in the US allows for At Will workers to have flexibility.


Thats a distinction only YOU care about - the various regulatory bodies do not care if the drivers are contractors or employees, the company will still be regulated the same way as a private hire taxi service.


casinterest wrote:
It;s not organized crime. Organized crime is the racket of artificial laws and barriers that are rendered useless by the introduction of these applications and new way of doing business.


Thats some droll hyperbole you have going there...


casinterest wrote:
The drivers aren't their employees. The Employees are those that develop the app. The drivers are the contractors. In the EU, that may be a more difficult distinction, but at the end of the day, the pay and the work will determine what kind of contractor workforce Uber has.


The UK disagrees with you - the drivers are employees, and Uber was illegally forcing them to act as contractors. This was ruled on, several times through appeals, earlier in 2017 and Uber lost at every stage - their drivers *are* employees, and Uber cannot claim they are contractors.

Which means Uber is on the hook for past holiday and sick pay and must pay its drivers at least minimum wage.

casinterest wrote:
In Europe maybe. But here in the US it is menial labor as everyone has a GPS , insurance, and a car.


And this is exactly what I mentioned in an earlier comment - everyone might have insurance, but do they have the *right* insurance. You cant just hop into the family car and legally drive for Uber in most jurisdictions, you need commercial insurance to carry paying passengers - this is the part Uber ignores, and this is the part many drivers ignore in order to make driving for Uber profitable.

Which means that, in the wacky world of US insurance, you can be hit by an Uber driver, crippled for life and not receive a single penny in compensation.

casinterest wrote:
A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.


You can keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

casinterest wrote:
No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice.


Actually, this entire thread is about what YOU think is and is not a taxi service - you haven't provided one shred of evidence as to why the ECJ ruling is unlawful or wrong, just your own assertions that it is. This isn't a situation where you can simply repeat a million times "Uber is not a taxi service" and it magically becomes fact - thats Trumps line of reasoning, and it doesn't work in reality.

casinterest wrote:
The EU wants to force Uber into the mode of being a taxi service in order to organize their contracted taxi drivers as employees.


Again, you have this wrong - I go back to my earlier comment about how in hell can you legitimately argue ANYTHING here if you don't understand the ruling that just happened.

The ECJ just ruled on the regulatory status of Uber - they ruled that Uber is a transport services company.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with its drivers status as contractors or employers - nothing at all. The EU doesn't cover that, whether or not a worker is defined as a contractor or an employee is something the individual EU nations defines - the ECJ hasn't ruled on it at all.

casinterest wrote:
Which is problematic, especially in the states as many folks contract with Uber and Lyft, and set their own hours.


And here in the UK you can still do that as an employee - you don't have to be exclusive, and you don't have to have defined hours. You can still work for both Uber and Lyft, and for any other taxi service - you still fall under PAYE and your taxes do not change.



And at the end of the day, i still say that calling a app company a taxi service is wrong , and it doesn't address the issues of competition fairly. The regulators are concerned about being able to call it a taxi service, when it isn't. it is an APP. the taxi service itself is the person performing the service. the person/company that provides the actual service can at any time choose to use a different app or no app at all to perform the act of being a taxi. The value added service provided by Uber, makes providing taxi services easier for those doing it, and in that I see no value in calling it a taxi service, as they have no set employees that are actual taxi employees.

If Uber finds something new for it's app, then it would not longer be a taxi company.


Wanting to regulate Uber is for lack of being able to effectively regulate the drivers by the local authorities so that they are following the local rules. You are so worred about taxes, then the individuals should be brought to bear for failure to pay taxes. We have the same rules for contractors in the US. they are responsible for their taxes.

All these lawsuits are being brought by drivers who are victims of artificial barriers to market entry and are going through the hoops to try to keep the barriers to entry artificially high. Anyone can drive a car and use a GPS. The app just makes it easier for folks to find fares as customer, and for drivers to learn where the hotspots are.

Even if Uber follows all the new regulations . those "professional" drivers are going to see their wages plummet, as the app still makes driving easier for others to get the "professional" requirements in those artificial barrier environments.

Also at the end of the day, Uber is a value added service, and perhaps that should be regulated as such, but the EU trying to pigeon them into a taxi service will eventually be found to not be the right place.

In my job, I configure and troubleshoot secure audio video transport as part of my service, but i am not a Telecom Service provider. I make the telecom service provider's job easier and more profitable.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:27 pm

casinterest wrote:

And at the end of the day, i still say that calling a app company a taxi service is wrong , and it doesn't address the issues of competition fairly. The regulators are concerned about being able to call it a taxi service, when it isn't. it is an APP. the taxi service itself is the person performing the service. the person/company that provides the actual service can at any time choose to use a different app or no app at all to perform the act of being a taxi. The value added service provided by Uber, makes providing taxi services easier for those doing it, and in that I see no value in calling it a taxi service, as they have no set employees that are actual taxi employees.


You are getting fixated on what service is being provided - you are fixating on your belief that "driving person from A to B" is the sole thing which constitutes a "private hire taxi service", and it is not - and that is why the ECJ have ruled as they have.

AND YET AGAIN YOU FIXATE ON THE EMPLOYEE/CONTRACTOR THING.

Stop it. I've shown time and again that its the wrong thing to fixate on - the employee status issue DOES NOT MATTER.

casinterest wrote:
If Uber finds something new for it's app, then it would not longer be a taxi company.


You seem to be fundamentally misinformed as to how regulation works - if a company is doing X, and being regulated for doing X, and then decides to ALSO do Y, the regulation for X doesn't go away.

If Uber decides to start hiring out lawnmowers alongside its ridesharing product, it gets regulated as both a private hire taxi service AND a lawnmowing company.

Your magical "it would no longer be a taxi company" would only happen if it dropped its rideshare product. Not if it took on a second or third product.

casinterest wrote:
Wanting to regulate Uber is for lack of being able to effectively regulate the drivers by the local authorities so that they are following the local rules. You are so worred about taxes, then the individuals should be brought to bear for failure to pay taxes. We have the same rules for contractors in the US. they are responsible for their taxes.


In the UK, employers should be paying their employees National Insurance contributions, and paying into a pension fund for them.

Thats the crux of the employee/contractor argument (which Uber lost) - Uber wanted to ditch its obligations by saying its drivers were contractors, and Her Majesties Revenue and Customs took them to court over it and Uber lost the argument.

This isn't about the taxes the employee has to pay - you are quite right, the employee is on the hook for those, not Uber.

This is about the taxes Uber is trying to avoid paying.

You can't simply declare all your employees are contractors, not in the EU. I'm glad that you rejoice that people can be ripped off in such a way in the US, but then there is so much wrong with the US labour market...


casinterest wrote:
All these lawsuits are being brought by drivers who are victims of artificial barriers to market entry and are going through the hoops to try to keep the barriers to entry artificially high. Anyone can drive a car and use a GPS. The app just makes it easier for folks to find fares as customer, and for drivers to learn where the hotspots are.


Again, you seem to have totally ignored things we have already covered.

Uber is entering the private hire taxi service market - here in the UK, the "barrier to entry" is less than £2000 for your first year, and then much less than that per year ongoing.

And those barriers to entry are things like "proper licensing", "ensuring you have the right insurance", "background checks", "vehicle checks" etc etc.

The barrier to entry for taxi drivers here in the UK are basically the same Uber should be setting for accepting a driver. The fact that Uber doesn't do most of those checks is appalling, and a threat to public safety.

casinterest wrote:
Even if Uber follows all the new regulations . those "professional" drivers are going to see their wages plummet, as the app still makes driving easier for others to get the "professional" requirements in those artificial barrier environments.


So? The regulators dont care about that - if Uber can provide the same service under regulation, then no one cares that the market moves toward them.

The argument so far has been around the fact that Uber has been lowering costs by avoiding regulation - thats just been ruled on, so it will be interesting to see if they can still undercut the competition in the manner they have been doing. They haven't been able to do it in the UK.

casinterest wrote:
Also at the end of the day, Uber is a value added service, and perhaps that should be regulated as such, but the EU trying to pigeon them into a taxi service will eventually be found to not be the right place.


Found by who?

casinterest wrote:
In my job, I configure and troubleshoot secure audio video transport as part of my service, but i am not a Telecom Service provider. I make the telecom service provider's job easier and more profitable.


And your point is? You keep coming up with these pointless examples, but you never actually address Uber.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:48 pm

casinterest wrote:
WIederling wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The definition of a Taxi service is dictated by quaint local rules.


That is easy.
Transporting people for money from any point A to any point B reachable by the method of transport chosen.
Service providers are required to be that little bit more qualified to do the job and prove it.

In Europe maybe. But here in the US it is menial labor as everyone has a GPS , insurance, and a car.

But Uber doesn't transport people. It is an app that has contractors that provide that service.

The biggest problem in places like NYC and other localities is that they think people need a Cheuffer's license to drive the same amount of people you would drive with in a family.
Here in NC, you don't need a Cheuffer's license, and there are not medallion rules, and there are not requirements for Holidays, time off, and vacation, since as an Uber Driver, you get to set your limits.

The fact that Uber is now a "taxi service" for law of Europe, is that it is just a broad definition, that doesn't apply to many places in the US, where they are just an app to get a ride from a person willing to give a ride.


You have not understood the issues.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:00 am

WIederling wrote:
casinterest wrote:
WIederling wrote:

That is easy.
Transporting people for money from any point A to any point B reachable by the method of transport chosen.
Service providers are required to be that little bit more qualified to do the job and prove it.

In Europe maybe. But here in the US it is menial labor as everyone has a GPS , insurance, and a car.

But Uber doesn't transport people. It is an app that has contractors that provide that service.

The biggest problem in places like NYC and other localities is that they think people need a Cheuffer's license to drive the same amount of people you would drive with in a family.
Here in NC, you don't need a Cheuffer's license, and there are not medallion rules, and there are not requirements for Holidays, time off, and vacation, since as an Uber Driver, you get to set your limits.

The fact that Uber is now a "taxi service" for law of Europe, is that it is just a broad definition, that doesn't apply to many places in the US, where they are just an app to get a ride from a person willing to give a ride.


You have not understood the issues.


No I understand it well. The over regulating psychopaths are cowtailing to uneducated professionals seeking to regulate a menial task in the effort to drive up costs . In between that and there, the EJC has decided to call a company that is not a taxi service, a taxi service. Is an engine manufacturer a taxi service?
Is a taxi-Meter a taxi servie? They are far more instrumental in making taxi's possible. But now a piece of software that helps the clients connect with the taxi drivers, is a taxi service. IUber is only a tool of the trade, it is not the service itself.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:04 am

moo wrote:
casinterest wrote:

And at the end of the day, i still say that calling a app company a taxi service is wrong , and it doesn't address the issues of competition fairly. The regulators are concerned about being able to call it a taxi service, when it isn't. it is an APP. the taxi service itself is the person performing the service. the person/company that provides the actual service can at any time choose to use a different app or no app at all to perform the act of being a taxi. The value added service provided by Uber, makes providing taxi services easier for those doing it, and in that I see no value in calling it a taxi service, as they have no set employees that are actual taxi employees.


You are getting fixated on what service is being provided - you are fixating on your belief that "driving person from A to B" is the sole thing which constitutes a "private hire taxi service", and it is not - and that is why the ECJ have ruled as they have.

AND YET AGAIN YOU FIXATE ON THE EMPLOYEE/CONTRACTOR THING.

Stop it. I've shown time and again that its the wrong thing to fixate on - the employee status issue DOES NOT MATTER.

casinterest wrote:
If Uber finds something new for it's app, then it would not longer be a taxi company.


You seem to be fundamentally misinformed as to how regulation works - if a company is doing X, and being regulated for doing X, and then decides to ALSO do Y, the regulation for X doesn't go away.

If Uber decides to start hiring out lawnmowers alongside its ridesharing product, it gets regulated as both a private hire taxi service AND a lawnmowing company.

Your magical "it would no longer be a taxi company" would only happen if it dropped its rideshare product. Not if it took on a second or third product.

casinterest wrote:
Wanting to regulate Uber is for lack of being able to effectively regulate the drivers by the local authorities so that they are following the local rules. You are so worred about taxes, then the individuals should be brought to bear for failure to pay taxes. We have the same rules for contractors in the US. they are responsible for their taxes.


In the UK, employers should be paying their employees National Insurance contributions, and paying into a pension fund for them.

Thats the crux of the employee/contractor argument (which Uber lost) - Uber wanted to ditch its obligations by saying its drivers were contractors, and Her Majesties Revenue and Customs took them to court over it and Uber lost the argument.

This isn't about the taxes the employee has to pay - you are quite right, the employee is on the hook for those, not Uber.

This is about the taxes Uber is trying to avoid paying.

You can't simply declare all your employees are contractors, not in the EU. I'm glad that you rejoice that people can be ripped off in such a way in the US, but then there is so much wrong with the US labour market...


casinterest wrote:
All these lawsuits are being brought by drivers who are victims of artificial barriers to market entry and are going through the hoops to try to keep the barriers to entry artificially high. Anyone can drive a car and use a GPS. The app just makes it easier for folks to find fares as customer, and for drivers to learn where the hotspots are.


Again, you seem to have totally ignored things we have already covered.

Uber is entering the private hire taxi service market - here in the UK, the "barrier to entry" is less than £2000 for your first year, and then much less than that per year ongoing.

And those barriers to entry are things like "proper licensing", "ensuring you have the right insurance", "background checks", "vehicle checks" etc etc.

The barrier to entry for taxi drivers here in the UK are basically the same Uber should be setting for accepting a driver. The fact that Uber doesn't do most of those checks is appalling, and a threat to public safety.

casinterest wrote:
Even if Uber follows all the new regulations . those "professional" drivers are going to see their wages plummet, as the app still makes driving easier for others to get the "professional" requirements in those artificial barrier environments.


So? The regulators dont care about that - if Uber can provide the same service under regulation, then no one cares that the market moves toward them.

The argument so far has been around the fact that Uber has been lowering costs by avoiding regulation - thats just been ruled on, so it will be interesting to see if they can still undercut the competition in the manner they have been doing. They haven't been able to do it in the UK.

casinterest wrote:
Also at the end of the day, Uber is a value added service, and perhaps that should be regulated as such, but the EU trying to pigeon them into a taxi service will eventually be found to not be the right place.


Found by who?

casinterest wrote:
In my job, I configure and troubleshoot secure audio video transport as part of my service, but i am not a Telecom Service provider. I make the telecom service provider's job easier and more profitable.


And your point is? You keep coming up with these pointless examples, but you never actually address Uber.


Uber is not anyhting more to a taxi servie than an engine is.

The drivers are contractors, that is how it works. The ECJ is to lazy to regulate those that provide the service, and instead goes after an App. They might as well go after puegot and visa.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4655
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:25 am

casinterest wrote:
Uber is not anyhting more to a taxi servie than an engine is.

The drivers are contractors, that is how it works. The ECJ is to lazy to regulate those that provide the service, and instead goes after an App. They might as well go after puegot and visa.


And yet again you demonstrate you have no idea about the issues you are arguing about.

You seem to be fixated on the employee status, which has nothing to do with the ECJ ruling.

Its obvious that you don't know anything about the topic, and you don't want to educate yourself about the topic once you are told you are arguing about the wrong things. You do, however, keep coming up with analogies which just don't work, they don't even pass the sniff test.

Which simply makes you a troll.

Uber will be regulated in the EU as a transport service company - that is regardless of whether the workforce actually providing the service is classed as employee or contractor. You simply cannot accept that those two things are unrelated.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6970
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Uber ruled taxi firm, not 'digital provider'

Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:11 am

casinterest wrote:
LJ wrote:
casinterest wrote:
A taxi service is not a radio. A radio is a radio. A taxi service is an end to end process that involved the whole process. Uber only has a part of that process, and it contracts out the taxi portion.


You fail to understand the basic concept of law. A radio is a radio if it meets the specifications of a radio which are mentioned in a law or directive. These specifcations can differ and whilst something may be a "radio" in the US, it doesn't have to a "radio" in the EU. The same for what's defined as a "taxi service". It's not what you or I think it is, it's what a regulator determines it is. If your work involves working with government regulation or any other supervisory institution you'll have to deal with this on a daily basis (sometimes very frustrating).


No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice. I don't think the Uber App is the end all be all of a taxi service, especially when it's contractors can drive for Lyft or any other app at the same time as an independent contractor.

The EU wants to force Uber into the mode of being a taxi service in order to organize their contracted taxi drivers as employees.

Which is problematic, especially in the states as many folks contract with Uber and Lyft, and set their own hours.


Which is exactly what taxi drivers do when they work with a taxi service. It is exactly the same. Every time you are describing what Uber does and doesn´t do, you are describing what a Taxi Service does and doesn´t do. By your own argument, Uber is a taxi service. The ECJ just happens to agree with you, you only resist the conclusion, simply because you don´t want to. But no matter how you twist and turn, the ECJ didn´t rule Uber is a Taxi company, which you constantly try to debunk, they rules it is a taxi service, what you are in perfect agreement with.

And YOU agree that Uber does exactly what a taxi service does.

Just because you insist that word doesn´t have the same meaning in the US doesn´t change the meaning it has here. You will probably notice that many legal terms have different meaning in Europe, other parts of the world and the US.

Here aiding and embedded tax evasion and social security fraud is not looked kindly upon, just like we wouldn´t vote for someone bragging to use all possible tax loopholes.

best regards
Thomas
This signature is a safe place.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afcjets, dfwjim1, ER757, phatfarmlines, Route66, vikkyvik and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos