TRANS European Union Supreme Court rules Uber Cab is just another taxi service & regulatable as such

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/taxi-app-uber-faces-big-eu-court-decision-012258746.html

Uber suffers new blow as EU court rules it's a taxi service



Alex PIGMAN, Danny KEMP
AFP News20 December 2017

"The EU's top court ruled on Wednesday that Uber is an ordinary transportation company instead of an app and should be regulated as such, in a decision that is being closely watched around the world.

Hailed by the plaintiffs -- a Spanish taxi association -- as "a social victory", the case is yet another thorn in the side for US-based Uber, which has drawn the fury of taxi drivers and officials for flouting local regulations.

It also comes the same week as one of its drivers admitted to the attempted rape and murder of a British embassy worker coming home from a night out in Beirut, Lebanon.

"The service provided by Uber connecting individuals with non-professional drivers is covered by services in the field of transport," said the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice.

"Member states can therefore regulate the conditions for providing that service."

Uber, the biggest name in the growing gig economy, claims it is a mere service provider, connecting consumers with drivers in more than 600 cities.

Uber has run into huge opposition from taxi companies and other competitors who say this allows it to dodge costly regulations such as training and licensing requirements for drivers and vehicles.

The case was brought by a taxi drivers' association in the Spanish city of Barcelona, where belief runs high that Uber is a taxi company that should be subject to rules governing such vehicles.

"This will truly represent a social victory, and the whole of society will benefit from this," Ivan Esma, spokesman for the Elite Taxi association, told reporters, adding that "the road will be long" for the ruling to be enforced.

- Ruling 'won't change things' -

Uber said the ruling would make little difference in practice.

"This ruling will not change things in most EU countries where we already operate under transportation law," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

"However, millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours."

In a dense legal judgement, the ECJ said that Uber was a service that connects "by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys."

That means it is "inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as a 'service in the field of transport' within the meaning of EU law."

The EU court's senior adviser had said in a legal opinion in May that Uber was indeed a transport company.

Uber has had a rough ride in Spain, where a judge ruled in 2014 that its UberPop service risked breaking the law, leading to the Barcelona submission to the ECJ.

Early last year, it decided to only operate a limited a version of its UberX service in Spain which uses licensed, professional drivers instead of the amateurs who had previously worked via the UberPop application.

Uber has already had problems with the law in several European countries, particularly France where the company was forced to overhaul its business model.

The French transport minister, Elisabeth Borne, said the ruling "reinforces the government's determination" to regulate the sector "in favor of both the safety of customers, the working conditions of drivers and fair competition between the players."

In November a labour court in London, where the company is threatened with losing its license, said it had to pay the drivers a minimum wage and give them paid leave.

Uber does not employ drivers or own vehicles, but instead relies on private contractors with their own cars, allowing them to run their own businesses.

Licensed taxi drivers meanwhile often have to undergo hundreds of hours of training, and they accuse Uber of endangering their jobs by using cheaper drivers who rely only on a GPS to get around."
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Agreed...

SUPER!!!!

Next, this has to be worldwide, or at least in the U.S.
Then, Uber Cab's investors and management need to do restitution to the municipalities their company defrauded of license fees, do restitution to the passengers (all of them were this) who found themselves riding in uninsured & uninspected vehicles with insufficiently-screened drivers, do restitution to all the drivers who were lied to by Uber Cab about their prospective income/cheated out of their pay (even under Uber Cab's rules, but really back up to livery driver compensation rates long ago established by law), etc. Even restititution would be minimal IMO, but the RICO 3x would be better. This type of scam needs to NEVER happen again in the U.S., or at least not for a few decades.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
Next, this has to be worldwide, or at least in the U.S.
Then, Uber Cab's investors and management need to do restitution to the municipalities their company defrauded of license fees, do restitution to the passengers (all of them were this) who found themselves riding in uninsured & uninspected vehicles with insufficiently-screened drivers, do restitution to all the drivers who were lied to by Uber Cab about their prospective income/cheated out of their pay (even under Uber Cab's rules, but really back up to livery driver compensation rates long ago established by law), etc. Even restititution would be minimal IMO, but the RICO 3x would be better. This type of scam needs to NEVER happen again in the U.S., or at least not for a few decades.

It is funny how here on TB, certain government actions are infringements on rights while others aren’t. I never have needed to use Uber or Lyft, but the concept is one of freedom to travel and move about and I support the ability for people to use these companies. I’ve heard in some areas the taxi cab industry is very political and very controlled so that only certain people can offer the service and the people at the top can make the money they feel they need to make.

I also find it odd that articles like this want to discuss the crimes committed by drivers. Am I to believe that a traditional cab driver has never committed a crime while on-duty? I highly doubt that is the case. I think adults should be able to choose who they want to pay to give them a ride in a vehicle to whatever destination. If gov regulation is a great thing for the cab industry, shouldn’t we push that towards firearm ownership and carrying (licensing, regulation, inspection)? How about just at shooting ranges?

Now if a company is scamming people out of contracted wages, that is another issue entirely. If it is criminal, file charges, otherwise let the drivers who are claiming a wrong of some sort file a lawsuit and let a court decide.
 

Macgyver

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I like ubber. Last time I was in Boston we took 5 ubbers and 1 taxi. Punjab driving the taxi did not even know where fesden hall was. I had to look it up and give him the address. That is a top landmark place you should know where it is.
Plus the cab smelled like curry and piss.
The ubbers we were picked up in were all nice cars that a cab service would never use.
I remember a forester, another subie, a lexus SUV, and suburban or Tahoe type vehicle.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Surely the concept of Equality Under The Law/a Level Playing Field should be easy sells...

I advocate that providers of livery services for hire (both Yellow Cab and Uber Cab are this) operate under the same regulations and laws, whether they do dispatch by phone or by smartphone app. If someone doesn't like the laws governing an industry, they are welcome to try to get the legislature to write new ones (that apply to ALL such companies, not different laws for different corporations, depending on who bribes more).

Anyway, Uber Cab is a LESS efficient livery service provider than the established providers; it charges only something like about 43% of the actual cost of providing the ride. The rest is made up from the drivers being lied to about their net profit, after expenses such as vehicle depreciation (hint: most of them are working essentially for free, and many at a loss, but have no idea of it) and from wealthy venture capitalists. Uber Cab currently loses about 2 BILLION dollars a year. Those venture caps do so because they believe Uber Cab's hype that it will run all those better providers out of business, then jack up per mile prices enough to make back the ~7 billion dollars in losses and more. Given both those losses and being worse competitors in fair competition, Uber Cab clearly intends to charge substantially more per mile than current legal taxicab companies do.

A link to through analyses by a transportation economics professional about Uber Cab's prospects: http://horanaviation.com/Uber.html
(Hint: about like those of someone with Stage 4 pancreatic cancer and no health insurance.)

Re the curry odors, I have long advocated scooping up anyone whose family was Hindu (Muslim even more so) and sending them back, with no more coming here (unless they are STEM types with >150 IQs, and they couldn't bring anyone else here or send any money home). That would solve that. Without legal and illegal immigration from the Third World post-1965, wages would be higher, so nondiversities could support families (as opposed to only cigarette habits) on what they make from entry-level jobs, which taxi driving is.
 
I advocate that providers of livery services for hire (both Yellow Cab and Uber Cab are this) operate under the same regulations and laws, whether they do dispatch by phone or by smartphone app.

How about if the service is provided by a "thumb-held-out" request?

Uber and Lyft are automated/glorified hitchhiker services, that you KNOW you will be charged for, ahead of time.


intothegoodnight
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Uber and Lyft are automated/glorified hitchhiker services, that you KNOW you will be charged for, ahead of time.
intothegoodnight

Yes, they are livery services. Definition of same: https://tinyurl.com/y9fljveq

"What does “Livery” mean?
I am not surprised that many people are not familiar with the term “livery”. I had never heard of it prior to being involved in the limousine business. The word itself has a few different meanings but the context of automobiles it is actually the proper term for chauffeured transportation. The term pre-dates automobiles and extends back to when a horse drawn carriage was dispatched from a livery stable to fetch certain people and transport them.

From reference.com:

A business that offers vehicles, such as automobiles or boats, for hire.

From Wikipedia:

A “livery vehicle” remains a legal term of art in the U.S. for a vehicle for hire, such as a taxicab or chauffered limousine, but excluding a rented vehicle driven by the renter."

So, it's not "sharing" if it involves a MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR corporation arranging the ride for a profit, credit cards, legal contracts, dispatching paid drivers to pick up paying customers, etc. It's only "sharing" if it's free.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
The EU (and the UK) have very different laws on what constitutes who is and who is NOT an employee; with UBER it has been ruled that if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck; it is a duck (aka an employee).

There are also some pretty strict laws in the UK/EU about drivers having background checks, proper insurance, etc.

This is why crimes committed by Uber drivers are being brought up, by not doing the required background checks on drivers (because they claim they are not employees) UBER may be liable for some extreme damages to people (or their families) who were attacked or robbed by their drivers.

If they had done a proper background check, then UBER would probably be off the hook; because that is all the law requires, you can't predict future behavior but you can look into previous behavior.

Uber bet they could pull the same stunts in Europe they pulled in the US by pretending not to be employers but at the same time requiring this, that and the other thing from their drivers.

They failed to notice that the bar for fantasy "self-employment" that really isn't is much higher than it is in the US: it is looking like UBER is going to owe billions in back wages, benefits and taxes; I won't be surprised if they go bankrupt over here in their current form.

This is a mixed issue for the public, London tried to shut down UBER after the first bad court ruling but had to let them stay while the government demanded the drivers be recognized as employees and things were sorted out; just because there wasn't enough taxi's and public transportation to deal with commuters in the short term; but UBER was warned to clean up their act or they will be banned in London anyway.

They have something like a year to sort things out...
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Ravekid, above, makes some very good points about our perception of rights. I have long been opposed to business licensing, both for individuals and larger companies. The right to - unimpeded - make a living is one of the most basic human needs and rights. Why should any of us have to pay any governmental agency for the right (or in their eyes, privilege)? Additionally, when one considers the many thousands of state and municipal laws regarding businesses and tradesmen, there is no way that employment rights can be equally applied across the country.

Virtually everyone here is extremely opposed to violent and property crimes, so I have to ask you this: Why would you be supportive of any laws which hamper an individual's ability to make an honest buck? Take the example of a guy who's unexpectedly financially strapped. Would you rather see him steal something or get into his truck with the family lawnmower and try to scare up odd jobs cutting grass? Well, legally, in most areas, to try to make a few dollars cutting grass, he'd have to go into town and - only after approval from TPTB - buy a business license and then, especially if he wanted to hire a buddy or two, be subjected to a raft of additional regulations and insurance requirements. Not only is this impractical and inefficient, it really represents layer upon layer of parasitically-inclined entities feeding off of their victims. If a willing customer wishes to purchase a service from a willing provider, it really shouldn't be any of the government's legitimate concerns and certainly not yet another source to fill government coffers.

The US, with our (supposed) traditions of liberty, is sadly amongst the most sclerotically-congested nations with its endless laws and regulations. Think about it.

Best regards
Doc
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I wouldn't have a problem with a lessening of regulations that allowed an individual to "hang up their shingle" the way Ronald Reagan's Dad did during the Great Depression by hanging a sign saying "taxi" on the side of the family car; as long as it is realized that such a self-employed person is really self-employed and on their own to make sure they have proper insurance etc or suffer the consequences if they don't.

I DO Have a problem with a giant, multinational corporation that controls a huge piece of the local market share; one that demands that things be done in a certain way and puts customers with their own agents, claiming to NOT be a corporation and not an employer. Even though anyone who doesn't follow their rules and regulations is not going to be "self-employed" by them.

I forget all the details at the moment (they are online) but it was stated in the UK courts and the EU ones exactly what it was that transformed Uber from what they claim to be - a simple Smart Phone App to what they actually are which is a for-profit company that demands their drivers conform to a variety of rules that under UK and EU laws at least, makes them employees.

There have been moves for the last 40 years both inside the US and outside the US for giant corporations to try and have their cake and eat it too; by simply declaring they have no employees and make everyone "self-employed."

Most US States and quite a number of foreign countries now place limits on how far that can be taken and often insist that unless a person is working for multiple companies and/or works essentially for themselves, they are not "self-employed."

If they only work for one company, and company mandates various rules and regulations (especially regarding time worked, take-home-pay, contracts etc) then most of the time they are considered an employee who is legally mandated to be provided with certain benefits and employer obligations.

Uber has consistently violated those terms (at least in the UK and the EU) despite numerous warnings that they could not legal continue on in this way; they chose to ignore reality and reality is not biting them where it hurts.

Anyone (at least in Ireland) can still take the tests, ensure their car as required by law, have a background check and pay to get a "hackney" license (which is independent taxi service) in fact most of our local taxies/hackneys in the rural areas are run this way by individuals or extended families.

But, if UBER gets involved telling them where to go, when to be there and how to do their jobs; then they cease to be those self-employed "Hackney" drivers and become UBER employees.

There is a bit of grey area, but the courts in Europe and the UK are siding on the part of the drivers (and their competition who HAS to go through the legal hoops to make sure they are covered in case of accidents etc) that has UBER creating an unfair playing field but refusing to accept the responsibilities that go with that as employers.
 
Top