Uber broke a number of laws when they started operating in Australia. This made it so much cheaper for them than for the taxi companies who were following the laws. Of course this should be prevented. The net overall result is good - the Government made some of the laws less onerous (so taxis are now cheaper for consumers), and makes Uber follow some of the laws they were breaking.
It's the Govt fault when taxi plates 'start' at 40K with a controlled number of plates and up to $600K depending on area. Not Ubers fault, just a monopoly gone wrong while the government cashes in.
Edit: Once purchased, the plates can be leased or sold privately as prices mentioned above.
Uber came in and not only operated illegally but undercut the competition to establish themselves, operating at a loss.
Taxi licenses cost 500k and once uber came in they became worthless.
well welcome to the future taxis. A ridiculous outdated rorting system that should’ve been dead and buried years ago. It continues to still rip off the general public daily.
It’s all peaches so long as you just turn a blind eye to the collateral damage it caused, and pretend this company isn’t also bordering on extortion with their delivery service.
Sure. But why should we allow foreign megacorproarions to come in and operate against the rules with impunity?
If they wanted to change legislation, there are legal avenues for it.
Or is the message here, if you have enough capital to fight legal battles and sustain yourself while you operate illegally, then the rules shouldn't apply to you?
Every taxi driver I knew was broke AF. They would scrape together what was left over from the previous night to rent the car for another days. Having that much cash makes you think you are wealthy.
But it's a separate issue.
Imagine you save up enough money or finally get a loan to afford a license. Then a foreign corporation comes in, decide the rules don't apply to them and use various loop holes to pay drivers less than minimum wage. At the same time they operate at a loss because they know they've got enough capital to sustain it whilst everyone else goes out of business.
The license you had to buy to operate fairly unde the rules, is now worthless and you're stuck with crippling debt.
Uber destroyed the livelihoods of many innocent individuals.
This is it. The be all end all. Uber financially destroyed the lives of some taxi drivers who were left with crippling debt because of another awful system. There is no what about here, Uber was in the wrong. Brainless to think Uber was some saintly company here. Those in charge from either side were both the bad guys, once again it’s the people that suffered.
I haven't read a report of the legal detail but my understanding is that the complaint was based on Uber operating illegally. So it is not a precedent of general application.
But yes, broadly the settlement sucks. The taxi companies had a monopoly which they abused. They had the political clout to make sure their monopoly was difficult to challenge. The only way Uber ever could have broken in was by doing so illegally at first to build up the popular support required to force politicians to allow change.
To be fair they have a state sanctioned monopoly like most taxi's work in the world. That monopoly comes with a bunch of demands from the state to uphold that monopoly. This includes how much they get to charge and the cars condition.
There may originally have been a balance between the benefits to the taxi industry of the state sanctioned monopoly, and the benefits to the community of taxi standards. That balance had long since disappeared.
Instead, the taxi industry had ensured that standards were eroded such that taxis were often grotty and poorly maintained and the drivers substandard. The taxi industry's secure position meant that it felt no need to update to the type of technology that Uber has implemented. Limiting the number of taxi licences and making them tradable meant that taxis carried a large and artificially created debt load that customers had to finance through high fares. It also meant that existing taxi license owners had a motive to (and did) lobby against the issuing of further licenses since it diminished the value of their investment.
The profits derived from the state sanctioned monopoly were sufficient to enable the taxi industry to be substantial donors to political parties, undoubtedly precisely to ensure the supposed trade-off to which you refer was slanted heavily in their favour.
Yeah, Uber sucks as a company but I’m glad it disrupted NYC taxis for the same reasons.
Now I’m hoping a fairer system that works for both drivers and passengers disrupts Uber.
>”I haven't read a report of the legal detail but my understanding is that the complaint was based on Uber operating illegally. So it is not a precedent of general application.”
But it was a merit based case. Uber was operating illegally.
>”But yes, broadly the settlement sucks. The taxi companies had a monopoly which they abused. They had the political clout to make sure their monopoly was difficult to challenge. The only way Uber ever could have broken in was by doing so illegally at first to build up the popular support required to force politicians to allow change.”
Uber needing to operate illegally because of “taxi monopolies” actually isn’t true.
The reason being, is that there was a market that wasn’t dominated by exclusive taxi medallion system as a state sanctioned monopoly. That market was in Honolulu, and Uber still operated illegally.
In Honolulu, Hawaii. To start your own taxi business it costs $15 to register and $50 for your business tax certificate. That is it.
To get your vehicle (any street legal vehicle) converted to a taxi it has to be less than 10 years old, have it’s tags up to date and costed $100 to install a meter and another $35 to get it certified by the Hawaii state weights and measures department.
If you want to become a taxi driver.
You needed a physical to confirm that you were in good health (no diabetes, or other health conditions that might cause you to crash during driving) be able to lift 70lbs (you need to be able to lift customers luggage into your vehicle and also have the ability to pull customers outside of a vehicle after an car accident like a fire) and confirm eye sight.
A clean drivers abstract over the previous 4 years.
Then you need to take a written road test on your memorization of the shortest route to and from the most popular city locations and the nearest emergency room. The city does not want you to fumble with a map or phone during a medical emergency. Cost is $15
Honolulu was the most open taxi market in the country with the lowest bars to enter the taxi transport market anywhere. There was no limit on how many taxi companies could exist in the city, nor any limits on how many drivers or metered vehicles there could be.
And Uber still came into this open market and operated illegally for years before the state began to regulating rideshares. By then it was too late, the taxi industry was devastated, thousands loss their livelihoods or had to down grade to rideshare rates to continue to operate.
However, since the state requires that all taxis have commercial passenger insurance (the most expensive and comprehensive insurance with up to a million in catastrophic injury coverage) drivers couldn’t continue to pay the insurance during renew every year under rideshare rates.
So yeah, Uber and Lyft never cared a single iota about playing by the rules. Even in an open market in Honolulu, where they could have registered their company as a taxi company for $15. Could have signed up thousands of taxi drivers to operate on their app and operate as a dispatch and payment system for the drivers and customers.
They instead opted to operate illegally for no other reason that they want to establish their own monopoly.
My cousin has been homeless since then. Lives out of his car driving for Uber/Lyft and on EBT (food stamps) to feed himself.
I don't know anything about the Hawaii situation but I strongly suspect that the experience doesn't translate.
When Uber began to get established here, it was signing up drivers by the busload. Meanwhile, taxi companies were absolutely desperate for drivers. That tells you everything you need to know about which system was preferable for drivers.
Uber has not gained a monopoly. Taxis still exist. There are also Didi and Ola.
Über isn't a new industry. It's basically *Let's ignore all regulations and starts an illegal taxi company*.
Not following the law isn't an innovation but a crime
They took advantage of a situation where young, digital savvy people were sick of poorly run taxi services by delivering services that weren’t financially viable. Once they killed taxis and bought market share they ramped up prices.
15 years without a profit is insane. It’s only going to get more expensive from here. Taxis have an opportunity to take back market share now but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Eh, I mean here the taxi service before Uber was shit.
Was very expensive, had to call to book, easily waiting over 20 minutes sometimes, no ETA...
Uber has streamlined the process massively over the years.
Now the competition has actually improved and got with the times it's better than Uber.
Which excuses the damages they caused because:
I get it. It’s an angle. They still heavily disrupted people’s lives and put them in a financial hole. I couldn’t care less for the taxi company, everyone is spot on about that rort. It’s the 8000+ people who aren’t going to get enough to break even with the payout that I care about.
I have to disagree, taxi service has been a corrupt Monopoly, pretty much everywhere internationally for decades. It was only a matter of time until competition came along. There shouldn't be any payouts, whatsoever.
Taxis need to change or go extinct. Taxi driver's wouldn't have felt threatened if their archaic business model wasnt shit. With any industry, it costs to be stagnant. I have no idea why people think Uber should have to subsidize a dying industry for being better.
New companies that people prefer to use have to pay for missed profits of old failing ones now? Just weird
Uber broke a number of laws when they started operating in Australia. This made it so much cheaper for them than for the taxi companies who were following the laws. Of course this should be prevented. The net overall result is good - the Government made some of the laws less onerous (so taxis are now cheaper for consumers), and makes Uber follow some of the laws they were breaking.
It's the Govt fault when taxi plates 'start' at 40K with a controlled number of plates and up to $600K depending on area. Not Ubers fault, just a monopoly gone wrong while the government cashes in. Edit: Once purchased, the plates can be leased or sold privately as prices mentioned above.
Placard….
Uber came in and not only operated illegally but undercut the competition to establish themselves, operating at a loss. Taxi licenses cost 500k and once uber came in they became worthless.
well welcome to the future taxis. A ridiculous outdated rorting system that should’ve been dead and buried years ago. It continues to still rip off the general public daily.
This does not excuse the behaviour of Uber.
oh no .. they undercut an abusive corrupt cartel in the pocket of the banks and owned by the powerful. they should be stopped
It’s all peaches so long as you just turn a blind eye to the collateral damage it caused, and pretend this company isn’t also bordering on extortion with their delivery service.
Blame your government for creating a system where taxi drivers have to pay absolutely insane extortion rates just to practice, its fucking ridiculous
Sure. But why should we allow foreign megacorproarions to come in and operate against the rules with impunity? If they wanted to change legislation, there are legal avenues for it. Or is the message here, if you have enough capital to fight legal battles and sustain yourself while you operate illegally, then the rules shouldn't apply to you?
Every taxi driver I knew was broke AF. They would scrape together what was left over from the previous night to rent the car for another days. Having that much cash makes you think you are wealthy.
And you don't think there's a problem with 500k taxi licenses?
But it's a separate issue. Imagine you save up enough money or finally get a loan to afford a license. Then a foreign corporation comes in, decide the rules don't apply to them and use various loop holes to pay drivers less than minimum wage. At the same time they operate at a loss because they know they've got enough capital to sustain it whilst everyone else goes out of business. The license you had to buy to operate fairly unde the rules, is now worthless and you're stuck with crippling debt. Uber destroyed the livelihoods of many innocent individuals.
This is it. The be all end all. Uber financially destroyed the lives of some taxi drivers who were left with crippling debt because of another awful system. There is no what about here, Uber was in the wrong. Brainless to think Uber was some saintly company here. Those in charge from either side were both the bad guys, once again it’s the people that suffered.
Wild precedent this. That a new industry arrival should contribute to the less-competitive legacy factions of the industry
I haven't read a report of the legal detail but my understanding is that the complaint was based on Uber operating illegally. So it is not a precedent of general application. But yes, broadly the settlement sucks. The taxi companies had a monopoly which they abused. They had the political clout to make sure their monopoly was difficult to challenge. The only way Uber ever could have broken in was by doing so illegally at first to build up the popular support required to force politicians to allow change.
To be fair they have a state sanctioned monopoly like most taxi's work in the world. That monopoly comes with a bunch of demands from the state to uphold that monopoly. This includes how much they get to charge and the cars condition.
There may originally have been a balance between the benefits to the taxi industry of the state sanctioned monopoly, and the benefits to the community of taxi standards. That balance had long since disappeared. Instead, the taxi industry had ensured that standards were eroded such that taxis were often grotty and poorly maintained and the drivers substandard. The taxi industry's secure position meant that it felt no need to update to the type of technology that Uber has implemented. Limiting the number of taxi licences and making them tradable meant that taxis carried a large and artificially created debt load that customers had to finance through high fares. It also meant that existing taxi license owners had a motive to (and did) lobby against the issuing of further licenses since it diminished the value of their investment. The profits derived from the state sanctioned monopoly were sufficient to enable the taxi industry to be substantial donors to political parties, undoubtedly precisely to ensure the supposed trade-off to which you refer was slanted heavily in their favour.
Yeah, Uber sucks as a company but I’m glad it disrupted NYC taxis for the same reasons. Now I’m hoping a fairer system that works for both drivers and passengers disrupts Uber.
>”I haven't read a report of the legal detail but my understanding is that the complaint was based on Uber operating illegally. So it is not a precedent of general application.” But it was a merit based case. Uber was operating illegally. >”But yes, broadly the settlement sucks. The taxi companies had a monopoly which they abused. They had the political clout to make sure their monopoly was difficult to challenge. The only way Uber ever could have broken in was by doing so illegally at first to build up the popular support required to force politicians to allow change.” Uber needing to operate illegally because of “taxi monopolies” actually isn’t true. The reason being, is that there was a market that wasn’t dominated by exclusive taxi medallion system as a state sanctioned monopoly. That market was in Honolulu, and Uber still operated illegally. In Honolulu, Hawaii. To start your own taxi business it costs $15 to register and $50 for your business tax certificate. That is it. To get your vehicle (any street legal vehicle) converted to a taxi it has to be less than 10 years old, have it’s tags up to date and costed $100 to install a meter and another $35 to get it certified by the Hawaii state weights and measures department. If you want to become a taxi driver. You needed a physical to confirm that you were in good health (no diabetes, or other health conditions that might cause you to crash during driving) be able to lift 70lbs (you need to be able to lift customers luggage into your vehicle and also have the ability to pull customers outside of a vehicle after an car accident like a fire) and confirm eye sight. A clean drivers abstract over the previous 4 years. Then you need to take a written road test on your memorization of the shortest route to and from the most popular city locations and the nearest emergency room. The city does not want you to fumble with a map or phone during a medical emergency. Cost is $15 Honolulu was the most open taxi market in the country with the lowest bars to enter the taxi transport market anywhere. There was no limit on how many taxi companies could exist in the city, nor any limits on how many drivers or metered vehicles there could be. And Uber still came into this open market and operated illegally for years before the state began to regulating rideshares. By then it was too late, the taxi industry was devastated, thousands loss their livelihoods or had to down grade to rideshare rates to continue to operate. However, since the state requires that all taxis have commercial passenger insurance (the most expensive and comprehensive insurance with up to a million in catastrophic injury coverage) drivers couldn’t continue to pay the insurance during renew every year under rideshare rates. So yeah, Uber and Lyft never cared a single iota about playing by the rules. Even in an open market in Honolulu, where they could have registered their company as a taxi company for $15. Could have signed up thousands of taxi drivers to operate on their app and operate as a dispatch and payment system for the drivers and customers. They instead opted to operate illegally for no other reason that they want to establish their own monopoly. My cousin has been homeless since then. Lives out of his car driving for Uber/Lyft and on EBT (food stamps) to feed himself.
I don't know anything about the Hawaii situation but I strongly suspect that the experience doesn't translate. When Uber began to get established here, it was signing up drivers by the busload. Meanwhile, taxi companies were absolutely desperate for drivers. That tells you everything you need to know about which system was preferable for drivers. Uber has not gained a monopoly. Taxis still exist. There are also Didi and Ola.
No lyft down here so wtf are you spouting off about?
Not to mention most of those regulations are stupid or irrelevant. Uber did the right thing
Über isn't a new industry. It's basically *Let's ignore all regulations and starts an illegal taxi company*. Not following the law isn't an innovation but a crime
Fun fact Uber never had a profitable year ever .
r/confidentlyincorrect
They did last year
yeah now that they cut the wages down
They took advantage of a situation where young, digital savvy people were sick of poorly run taxi services by delivering services that weren’t financially viable. Once they killed taxis and bought market share they ramped up prices. 15 years without a profit is insane. It’s only going to get more expensive from here. Taxis have an opportunity to take back market share now but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Makes McConnell look like an idealistic softie.
Put that down as a tax write off.
If only this payout be for all of Taxi drivers that Uber screwed over all over the world.
Eh, I mean here the taxi service before Uber was shit. Was very expensive, had to call to book, easily waiting over 20 minutes sometimes, no ETA... Uber has streamlined the process massively over the years. Now the competition has actually improved and got with the times it's better than Uber.
Which excuses the damages they caused because: I get it. It’s an angle. They still heavily disrupted people’s lives and put them in a financial hole. I couldn’t care less for the taxi company, everyone is spot on about that rort. It’s the 8000+ people who aren’t going to get enough to break even with the payout that I care about.
I have to disagree, taxi service has been a corrupt Monopoly, pretty much everywhere internationally for decades. It was only a matter of time until competition came along. There shouldn't be any payouts, whatsoever.
Taxis need to change or go extinct. Taxi driver's wouldn't have felt threatened if their archaic business model wasnt shit. With any industry, it costs to be stagnant. I have no idea why people think Uber should have to subsidize a dying industry for being better.
so what they all got like 40 cents? lmfao
More like 30-35k aud