←back to thread

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

(www.bbc.com)
256 points reubensutton | 5 comments | 25 Nov 19 10:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.465s | source
Show context
_vrmm ◴[25 Nov 19 10:59 UTC] No.21627000[source]▶
I know this opinion is not popular but I'm so happy everytime I see bad news for Uber and all these companies that only exist thanks to basically exploiting THEIR workers.

Private transporting is not sustainable and it is not something that has to be affordable for everyone, even less by lowering workers wages or playing with the tariffs by demand. Taxi regulations gives us passengers safety and fair prices. There are taxi apps that work exactly like Uber's like 'Free-now' where you can see your trip, its aproximate cost, the driver's rating...

We have to promote governments that support affordable and good quality public transport, even though I love driving alone in my car.

I hope Deliveroo, Glovo and other companies are also punished for their labour rights abuses. Make sure your delivery guy is payed fairly or either go to the restaurant yourself.

So many years of labour rights fights being attacked by these startups that do not invent anything but base their business model on lower wages.

replies(21): >>21627130 #>>21627141 #>>21627219 #>>21627230 #>>21627272 #>>21627311 #>>21627320 #>>21627376 #>>21627412 #>>21627419 #>>21627437 #>>21627482 #>>21627513 #>>21627518 #>>21627769 #>>21627794 #>>21627895 #>>21627957 #>>21628003 #>>21628080 #>>21629020 #
djohnston ◴[25 Nov 19 11:26 UTC] No.21627130[source]▶
I can agree with you on worker treatment but I take issue with "So many years of labour rights fights being attacked by these startups that do not invent anything but base their business model on lower wages."

The only reason ANY of the taxi companies have improved service with new apps and lower prices is because of the competition introduced by ride sharing companies.

replies(2): >>21627174 #>>21627365 #
1. TeMPOraL ◴[25 Nov 19 12:09 UTC] No.21627365[source]▶
Let's not conflate Uber with ride sharing/app-taxi in general. Uber wasn't the first company of its type, it's only the one that became most known. It also wasn't like all the other ride share companies, it was well-known for utter disregard for laws and deeply sociopathic management. And it's not like this behavior was necessary to bring in all the innovation; disruption of the taxi space by private companies was happening for a while now. Uber only used its antisocial behavior to gain market dominance, and as a side effect it legitimized such dishonorable practices in the startup scene.

Personally, I like and use this "new breed" of app-based taxi services (except Uber). I just want to see Uber finally die. It should have died years ago.

replies(2): >>21627552 #>>21627639 #
2. asah ◴[25 Nov 19 12:36 UTC] No.21627552[source]▶
Very interesting, I sense you're right. Got examples?
replies(1): >>21633188 #
3. Zach_the_Lizard ◴[25 Nov 19 12:47 UTC] No.21627639[source]▶
And the mafia connected taxi regime isn't sociopathic?

The government granted a cap on drivers to guarantee its buddies got to earn a lot of money off the backs of taxi drivers.

Here in NYC, drivers rent a medallion to be allowed to drive. They start off the day in the hole.

If we're going to judge Uber for breaking this monopoly, let's also turn that same critical eye on the monopoly it broke.

replies(1): >>21633347 #
4. TeMPOraL ◴[25 Nov 19 21:51 UTC] No.21633188[source]▶
My favorite example is iCar - a private company that successfully broke into the taxi market in my city (Kraków, Poland) some 15 years ago. AFAIR, they exploited a legal loophole that, coupled with increasing popularity of GPS car navigation, let them run with a single taxi license for the entire company (vs. each driver). Legacy taxi drivers were pissed, there were few cases of tire slashing on both sides, then the courts got involved, taxi regulations got clarified, and the company is alive to this very day. I switched to them the moment I first heard of them, and rode with them up until MyTaxi came, offering an app that could be used not just to order a ride, but also pay for it.
5. TeMPOraL ◴[25 Nov 19 22:08 UTC] No.21633347[source]▶
> And the mafia connected taxi regime isn't sociopathic?

That's quite an accusation (going from "taxi mafia" to taxis connected to actual mafia), though I suppose it's true in some parts of the world.

Either way, sure, plenty of cities had their taxi services thoroughly broken. However, that doesn't justify fighting the bad with the worse. Despite the PR narrative they pushed, Uber wasn't some tiny upstart bravely fighting against the great taxi mafia - it was a VC backed corporation (later on, a multinational) fighting individual taxi networks in a divide-and-conquer fashion. And when I call Uber sociopathic, I don't just mean I don't like them - this particular company has a long documented history of antisocial behavior.

> If we're going to judge Uber for breaking this monopoly, let's also turn that same critical eye on the monopoly it broke.

Again, multinational corporation breaking city after city, in isolation? Also, I'm not judging Uber for being a monopoly. I'm judging them for being a morally bankrupt company that achieved market domination by breaking the law and only got away with it because they moved fast and burned through lots of investor money.