Uber loses its license to operate in London & may cease in the capital from October

Don't uber do the horrible fare gouging at "peak times", though? Like "oh soz we're experiencing 'high demand' now so you gotta pay three times as much lol"

Like literally every time I've tried to book one it's been high demand. Probably because there's only about three in my area.

Frank wrote:Don't uber do the horrible fare gouging at "peak times", though? Like "oh soz we're experiencing 'high demand' now so you gotta pay three times as much lol"

Like literally every time I've tried to book one it's been high demand. Probably because there's only about three in my area.

They do but it still ends up cheaper than black cabs.

I’m not a Trump supporter in any way, but the similarities between Trump’s vision and actions and those of UK and EU regulators are remarkably similar,” said Bradley Tusk, an outside advisor who’s been called “Uber’s political genius.”

Tusk argued that “when Trump tries to roll back the clock and reinstate policies that are clearly outmoded or just plain dumb, European leaders love nothing more than to scoff, make snide remarks, and assert their moral superiority. But when it comes to protecting their own local entrenched interests, they act exactly like Trump and try to put the genie back in the bottle, regardless of logic, economics, or fairness. They’re no better than Trump. In fact, in some ways, they’re worse because they don’t even acknowledge the backwardness or hypocrisy of their actions.”

...

“I think UK regulators will have more success changing some of Uber's fundamental practices because labor has typically been much stronger in Europe than it has in other countries like the US,” said Harry Campbell, a former Uber driver and blogger. “I don't see the regulations in UK cascading all the way to the US but could definitely be a leader for other European countries where Uber is facing similar issues.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/22/1635 ... e-reaction

KK wrote:
They’re no better than Trump. In fact, in some ways, they’re worse because they don’t even acknowledge the backwardness or hypocrisy of their actions.

Eh?! The whole deal with Trump is that he doesn't acknowledge his backwardness or hypocrisy... So they're not worse, they're just the same.

Some tweets...

twitter.com/_Younger_Z/status/911514103973376001

twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/911499584073076737

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/911179139922776064

And finally, my personal fave:

twitter.com/Whoozley/status/911487323090620416

You should have posted Piers Morgan’s opinion. I’m automatically on Uber’s side if Piers hates them.

twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/911179843416547328

Seriously though, there are lots of people that support Uber and dislike the black cabs. Some Tweets from the other side.

twitter.com/therealnihal/status/911214498454876160

twitter.com/tomhfh/status/911500384958652416

Uber are shitty but the future is an app based taxi service. I think a lot of the furore over Uber comes from the black cabs (who used to say exactly the same stuff about minicabs) and black cabs are overpriced and usually driven by arseholes.

Uber need to wake up though and comply with all laws and regulations.

Uber is a horrible attempt to make billions not employing a single ground floor employee even though they probably qualify as such by leveraging only technology. Glad to see them held to account for giving employees zero rights.

Most of the right leaning papers today sided with Uber. Here's The Sun's hot take...

SO THAT’S what Labour policy in action looks like.

Sadiq Khan’s spineless decision to cave in to the noisy protests of union bully-boys on Uber’s licence will leave drivers out of work and consumers coughing up.

It’s a harsh lesson for all the young idealists who voted for Labour in June: this is what happens when you vote for flag-flying socialists.

Heavy-handed state intervention. People cast out of jobs at the stroke of a pen. And an economy dictated by unions rather than customers.

Let’s see if the Glastonbury revellers who paid £230 a ticket to chant pro-Corbyn songs are so keen on Labour policies when their favourite app disappears off their phone.

Black cabbies deserve a level playing field but the consequences of this outrageous assault on consumer choice are higher prices and unemployment.

If Corbyn gets into Number 10, we’ll all have to get used to that.

Sadiq Khan and TfL make a decision.

The Sun blame Corbyn. :lol:

If you can link separate things together like that, does that mean we can hold The Sun responsible for Fox News? No wait, that wouldn’t work, The Sun is worse than Fox News.

Hard to know who to root for here - on the one hand, the black cabs are a monumental rip-off and are very poor value for money, but on the other, I hardly want Uber to push every cab company out of business and monopolize the incoming auto-cab sector.

KK wrote:Most of the right leaning papers today sided with Uber. Here's The Sun's hot take...

SO THAT’S what Labour policy in action looks like.

Sadiq Khan’s spineless decision to cave in to the noisy protests of union bully-boys on Uber’s licence will leave drivers out of work and consumers coughing up.

It’s a harsh lesson for all the young idealists who voted for Labour in June: this is what happens when you vote for flag-flying socialists.

Heavy-handed state intervention. People cast out of jobs at the stroke of a pen. And an economy dictated by unions rather than customers.

Let’s see if the Glastonbury revellers who paid £230 a ticket to chant pro-Corbyn songs are so keen on Labour policies when their favourite app disappears off their phone.

Black cabbies deserve a level playing field but the consequences of this outrageous assault on consumer choice are higher prices and unemployment.

If Corbyn gets into Number 10, we’ll all have to get used to that.

The Sun don't give a gooseberry fool if some women get sexually assaulted, though. As long as it's not them, they simply don't care.

Uber are an innovative business and offer a far better service to the consumer than the alternatives, hence their success, but it's definitely important to have good regulation in place. Business models will continue to change in an increasingly connected world, companies like Uber aren't going to go away, regulators should be thinking about how best to regulate these innovative businesses rather than simply trying to ban them.

Pancake wrote:Uber are an innovative business and offer a far better service to the consumer than the alternatives, hence their success, but it's definitely important to have good regulation in place. Business models will continue to change in an increasingly connected world, companies like Uber aren't going to go away, regulators should be thinking about how best to regulate these innovative businesses rather than simply trying to ban them.

They lost their license specifically because regulators have thought about how to regulate businesses like this and Uber don't want to follow the regulations.

Uber are using technology to circumvent hard won labour laws and avoid legal responsibility for the welfare of passengers. Spouting buzzwords like "innovative" doesn't change that. I'm one of the biggest tech enthusiasts you could imagine but it seems their is a hyper liberal attitude in the tech industry that says ignores the human impact of their actions as just inevitable collateral. I do not accept that. Consumers and workers can and must be protected.

They have been using the fact that tech usually outpaces the law to their advantage, but they had to realise the law would catch up eventually.

Of course, there is no end of companies that are overdue for a similar reckoning. It is not a loss. The tech industry is vibrant and adaptable and better, more humane models will quickly fill any gaps they leave behind.

Lagamorph wrote:
Pancake wrote:Uber are an innovative business and offer a far better service to the consumer than the alternatives, hence their success, but it's definitely important to have good regulation in place. Business models will continue to change in an increasingly connected world, companies like Uber aren't going to go away, regulators should be thinking about how best to regulate these innovative businesses rather than simply trying to ban them.

They lost their license specifically because regulators have thought about how to regulate businesses like this and Uber don't want to follow the regulations.

Not really, they've asked Uber to play by the same rules rather than thinking about whether the current regulations might need updating to accommodate new business models. This doesn't excuse some of Uber's attitudes to employee welfare though.

Pancake wrote:
Lagamorph wrote:
Pancake wrote:Uber are an innovative business and offer a far better service to the consumer than the alternatives, hence their success, but it's definitely important to have good regulation in place. Business models will continue to change in an increasingly connected world, companies like Uber aren't going to go away, regulators should be thinking about how best to regulate these innovative businesses rather than simply trying to ban them.

They lost their license specifically because regulators have thought about how to regulate businesses like this and Uber don't want to follow the regulations.

Not really, they've asked Uber to play by the same rules rather than thinking about whether the current regulations might need updating to accommodate new business models. This doesn't excuse some of Uber's attitudes to employee welfare though.

So what about current regulations needs to be updated to accommodate the Uber business model exactly?

I've no idea, that wasn't really the point I was making to be honest. In my initial post it's clear I was making a more general point about how technology is changing business models and this will lead to changes in regulation, government is typically well behind the curve and will take a while to adapt. Uber has problems but is a compelling business to the consumer.

Uber was, and possibly still is, spending heavily on actively avoiding regulation and regulators through the use of their greyball programme. Changing regulations in order to accommodate new types of business should only be considered if those business are capable of acting in good faith and have shown themselves to be trustworthy. Uber have shown the opposite of those qualities whenever they have been put to the test so easing regulations in order to accommodate them would be farcical.

Perhaps so in the case of Uber, I've not been paying close attention to their behaviour, I'm just an occasional user who appreciates the massive convenience.

Repeating myself but I was making a more general point. It sounds as though Uber consider themselves above such petty things as regulation and as I said, it's important to have good regulation in place.

However, that doesn't mean current regulation is fit for purpose and government is typically slow on the uptake, there are countless examples (I'm thinking about open access publishing for example)

Given Uber's endgame is to make all the people it's exploiting to hold the company up literally unemployable, it is worrying that so many people can't see beyond "taxis are cheaper and more convenient right now".

Uber loses its license to operate in London & may cease in the capital from October

Who is online

Affiliates