Uber banned in all of Italy
mashable.com
mashable.com
Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice.
If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law.
Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers.
I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice.
So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that.
And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.
You have my upvote for saying it.
I usually don't use taxi in Italy because of the inability of the driver to shut the f*ck up when they are driving. Last time I took one to go back home with my girlfriend and this driver talked to us for half an hour of a conspiracy theory about the Fukushima accident being the result of Japan not allowing some US investment fund to enter their market...
And I have to pay to listen to this shit?
If so that comparison isn't apt. Those apps would summon licensed drivers and the payments would be set by the driver based on the meter or the pre-arranged price. Like a card machine.
It seems to me, that if Uber operated inside the parameters of the law they would not be so profitable. That is really the point.
Facts:
- Licenses are granted by the government and in theory they could not be sold. There are some loopholes in the legislation that make this possible. No government has never tried to fix this. In fact, a license in a big city like Rome is normally sold at around 200k Euros.
- By acquiring a licence, a driver can easily make in big cities between 3-4k euros net (I know people who own taxi licenses). Average salary in Italy is around 1700 Euros/month. - Various time (2006, 2012) in the last years governments have tried to increase the number of licences and reform the market. The results was riots in all big cities, traffic paralized for weeks.
- 20000 licenses represents a lot of votes. At time of election, license-holders and their families represent a large amount of votes. In cities like Rome (6k licenses), they can change the results of an election.
All this to say that at the moment, this represent an un-reformable matter and I see no way a country like Italy can be open up to any type of modernization brought by technology. Uber is trying to work around the laws for their own benefit. But as an Italian (living abroad) I would be very happy to see how city transportation would change with the advent of new players.
Now it is true the judge is only applying the laws. But the matter here is rather if the negotiations between taxi drivers and government of last month should have produced some results like a reasonable reform of the market where I personally see there is room for more then one winner, including users.
Notice that Airbnb, who has also entered the market of house rentals, has found so far much less difficulties: no lobbies to fight against, real-estate generally benefitting from this type of business.
A lot but surely a minority of votes yet.
If this is a so big problem for the users of those services they could vote to somebody that change the system. That's how it works, isn’t?
they are mob criminals, there is no other world to describe their lobby.
Eventually things will change. However, things could have been handled differently, let's say with a proposal to these new companies to offer rides and adapt with the taxi-system in the country. Meaning:
- taxi drivers need to have the highest priority and be sponsored as such (most of them paid for their license, and they MUST exist by law, because it's an essential service)
- all drivers need to pass some screenings and keep it up-to-date (police, etc.)
- all drivers need to pay taxes (because what they are doing right now is simply black-work)
- security on Uber needs really to improve if you want to offer a public service, because as it is now, people can impersonate drivers (there are stories about this)
Uber is currently enjoying third way there thanks to political support (which may or may not be related to Uber IT operations located in town). But overall it (and it's local competitors) are gravitating towards taxi side of things. Taxi license is dirt cheap though. The only issue is yearly (vs bi-yearly) car inspection and more expensive insurance.
Italy is not a place for innovation or efficiency.
I am not a huge Uber fan, but some of the points here neglect to mention how broken the country of Italy is.
You deduced that from your extensive experience in buying a sandwich?
There shouldn't be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice. The Taxi licenses were important when the technology was not there today most of the reasons why a taxi license is requires isn't necessary.
Furthermore uber drivers are freelancers they are the ones who need to pay their taxes by italian law. Italy like many other countries speculate in giving the kind of tax benefits that companies like uber is using. They do so to get jobs which can then be taxed fairly simple through income tax. Ubers model destroy this relationship and politicians who want to score political points have decided to outlaw uber.
There is nothing in what you say which couldn't have been fixed with a better legislation.
Context Denmark went through same exercise recently. Same claims about it being illegal was made.
There are plenty of things to critique about uber, your critique really should be a critique about how your own politicians didn't manage to modernize in proper time. Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot.
Edit: Instead of just down voting me because you disagree try and at least have the courtesy to forumalte an argument against what I am saying that way we all could learn something. I am more than happy in being corrected and correct something if I am wrong, down voting me doesn't help
Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions.
"Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot."
Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber.
There are many many areas which are left to politicians to deal with. Not even Switzerland votes on everything.
Italy, Denmark and other countries allow companies to use them as tax loopholes all the time because it creates jobs in their countries and thats one of the most valuable political currencies.
The Uber model destroys that by contracting freelancers instead and subsidizing the rides allowing them to compete with the existing taxi industry with it's existing political powers and lobbied politicians.
There is nothing noble about banning Uber it's purely a political move to ensure a protected industry can continue and thus it's political powers be used and controlled.
Only one remark: not banning Uber also would be a political move. We can't escape politics.
Furthermore your claim that it's somehow an expression of the italian voter is simply flat out wrong.
The article says:
"Italy's taxi associations succeeded in winning the ruling after they brought a lawsuit against Uber to court."
It sounds like it was illegal. Why it was illegal? Because the Italian legislative branch decided so. To who the legislative answer? To the Italian voters.
Is this system a democracy? yes. Could be the system be more democratic? Sure.
The voter has nothing to do with it they didn't vote for or against it.
The Italian legal system decided on it because it was brought up by someone with political and economic interest. The law is made so that it protects the industry through the licenses and thus political in it's essence.
The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal and contrary to your claim this wasn't a product of democracy but of a legal system which favorites existing industries.
"[..] thus political in it's essence."
The law is always political in its essence. How could be otherwise?
"The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal"
That it's your opinion that, I dare to say, many Italians don't share.
It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process.
"Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber."
Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly.
Absolutely, but, lately, with the current Zeitgeist and all,I feel like it's not going overboard to remember it from time to time.
"Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly."
As it's their right (just remembering it again, only in case).
There are reasonable reasons to require registration when cabs had to find people on the street, but mobile apps have significantly changed how drivers can operate and should result in rethinking the laws rather than blindly supporting the existing special interests.
Allegations of predatory pricing can be investigated separately if that's an actual concern.
I have not idea. I suppose we should ask them, using the democratic established channels. Meanwhile, Uber should follow the law.
This brave new world and such marvels in it. Reminds me of when a nation (Thailand?) 'banned' bitcoin. What on earth could that even mean?
Same with bitcoin actually. A pretty big majority of people aren't going to use it if it is cut off from most of their local economy.
It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it.
Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.
Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?
My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.
I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply.
Are Italians better off?
No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.
So what? This is a non-factor in any sort of discussion like this.
> small business, so they have to limit the supply.
Why?
Why they want to control the price?
My perception is that the Italian society feel that they should have a minimum wage. In other words, that market forces shouldn't be allowed to push the wages below a minimum. As taxis operate as little business and not as standard employees, they can't control that minimum directly, so they control the supply.
Is that the right decision? I have no idea, but, I defend their right to go with it.
Nobody is questioning whether an elected official or government bureaucracy has the "right" to make the decision, it's clear they do. What is being questioned directly is the morality of the decision and whether this is a good decision.
It would be great if you stopped this "I defend their right to do this" commentary because it's not relevant to the conversation and distracts from what we're actually talking about.
When "I defend their right to do this", I don't mean only in a legal sense, but in a moral one, which, in your own words, is being questioned here.
I think that they have a moral right because they are the expression of aggregate preferences of the Italian society through their democratic institutions. I realize that, probably, you don't share this view.
Is this a good decision? Well, you have to define good first. Good for who? We should assume is good enough for Italians that allow it. As I said before, they are expressing their aggregate preferences.
I take issue with the action itself, because I question the motives and the reasoning behind it, in that, it's likely just political and no forethought has gone into the consequences.
Assuming an action is good because it is allowed is a poor assumption.
So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.
The law is, obviously, political in nature and decided through the Italian democratic institutions.
Really, I don't know what more to say.
Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be.
Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.
In my opinion, the most important point is that the Italians have the right to do so if they choose. Or to change their minds in the future.
" I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again." OK, good for them, in that case.
Taxis clog up the carparks because the taxi stands are full and they congest the roads.
I would happily take a restriction if it meant a higher standard of taxi and service.
Local knowledge is important though, roads change more frequently than maps are updated, and here at least a lot of street names and suburbs are not in English - someone who is not from the city would struggle to enter in the names of streets and suburbs and might end up on the other side of town before they know it.
So I don't buy that argument.
Uber has been also banned in Berlin and Amburg and I haven't seen any similar comment here. I would be very curios to understand why.
if you wanna do business you must follow to law, if you don't like it then either change law or go back to US where are people apparently more relaxed about breaking law, but Stilton is not do business while breaking law
The best autocorrection I've seen for ages!
Can you share the source for this information? I've been having trouble finding out any details about why they were banned, and the articles I've read just say they were banned, not that they have 10 days to comply.
The primary English source seems to be a brief Reuters article with no details.
However, whether that's a plausible outcome depends on the reason why they're banned. If the Italian court determined that the "ease of hailing rides through a smartphone app" was the reason why competition was "unfair" (just to make something up - I haven't been able to discover the actual reason), then there's no real way for them to come into compliance.
There are many, many sentences that apply a law in a different way given a specific case, that create a precedent that can then be used in the future to regulate something. You don't need a new law.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure judges weren't allowed to choose to do that in this case.
I was actually talking about this with a lawyer because of a problem I was having, and that's what he told me. You can pretty safely use precedents to guide you on what you want to do. The difference is that laws tend to of course carry less uncertainty than precedents, and you can't get punished if you were following a law (unless it gets changed retroactively). In case of a trial (in my case, at least), you would admit that you haven't followed the law, but cite the precedents and most likely win.
So, precedents are not binding, but in practice they're close to it.
Scientists have also been put to prison in Russia and North Korea, and I haven't seen any similar comments here. I would be very curious to understand why.
These are the facts: all the scientists have been absolved. The only person convicted has been the vice-president of the civil protection for declaring in public ( and in TV ) at the beginning of the earthquake that there were "absolutely no risks" associated to the initial earthquake waves. He has been found guilty of providing superficial, generic and inaccurate informations in relation to the role and responsabilities he was covering.
Instead of merely reporting acritically what you read in newspapers from other countries , if you want to be objective try also to read italian newspapers:
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/20/terremoto-laquila...
Right now you are just showing your bias as many others have done before you. These are just personal attacks against a country and are not based on any fact. Can we start to downvote these kind of posts??
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/italy-s-supreme-court...
I just can't even.
Do those rules make any sense? If they broke a nonsense law, then it's not as simple as "broke the law, period". Maybe there should be outrage against the people that put the law into place. But that's only an 'if'.
If there is a law, you can't simply break it and claim that the country is too old and full of lobbies (both may be true, still you are not entitled to enter a country and break the rules just because you are "cool" and "the new"). This is not how this world works.
It's easy to become rich and powerful when you play with different rules.
All companies have to adapt, you (the company owner) find the way out and then complain a country is "behind".
You see this as a stress test, and while I agree with you because as I wrote above things could have been done differently, it's also true that there are many companies innovating without breaking laws (see the iphone, etc), meaning that you don't necessarily have to break the law to do something good. There are other more peaceful ways to propose your ideas, but the reality is that they wouldn't bring innovation "right now, the way I want it". At least, that's my opinion. Sometimes things take time. We are talking about a whole category of people that you want to replace just because you think they are out of date.
Do you really think Netflix wants to pay warner? Do you think that they want to set geographical limitations?
But the test, the confrontation itself is still valuable, and I think Uber is ethically entitled to try.
> If there is a law, you can't simply break it
Don't strawman me. I didn't say they should get to break any law. I just said that bad laws should be complained about and not just blindly followed.
Let me try stating my point again: in "they broke the law, period" I am fine with "they broke the law", but I object to ", period". ", period" is an explicit discussion-ender. We should not be ending the discussion immediately without considering the pros and cons of that law.
Just because something is "law" doesn't mean you have an obligation to follow it.
Uber offers services far superior to uncompetitive, entitled taxi drivers that should've been put out of business years ago. I hope Uber will continue operations in Italy.
If they charged the amount to of money needed to actually turn a profit/breakeven then suddenly all those regular taxi companies would be competitive at worst and cheaper in many situations.
Edit: About price dumping, this is a myth. When has this ever happened and tell me how could Uber remain a monopoly if its prices are too high? Competitors will show up because there will be good money to be made. The only monopolies that can last despite being overpriced are the ones protected by state violence and state laws that make competition illegal, a good example here would be, I don't know, Italian taxi companies?
Also see on how accusations of 'price dumping' are always used as a disguised for protectionism https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
You do that so that you can take a stranglehold on the market and then dictate prices yourselves.
It's the texbook definition of dumping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
and protecting against that practice is NOT the texbook definition of fascism at all, quite the opposite; also keep in mind there are no taxi corporations here, as the taxi license must be owned by the individual driving it (with some small and irrelevant exception).
That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with Uber selling its services as long as they abide by the law, they and their drivers pay the taxes and they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
Calling the banning of a company which has pointedly ignored every law that gets in its way "fascism" is just childish, and when it's referring to a country that actually suffered the results of having a Fascist government, it's offensive childishness.
Taxi-drivers willing or not have to pay taxes. They definitely do also "black" money, but at the end of the month they'll have to declare X euros in / Y euros out.
Do you have to do the same if you are a driver for Uber?
They are a zombie firm, existent purely due to the infusions of external, non-business activity derived cash.
Stop the capitalism welfare! Let Uber burn itself to the ground!
They may cause great havoc on their way down. Some jurisdictions are anticipating this and banning Uber preemptively.
This is rational. Let Uber prove that it's viable on someone else's turf. If it does so, then great, the laws can be changed and Uber can be admitted into the market later. If it turns out to be a total disaster then these jurisdictions have saved themselves a lot of trouble.
I'm a high school IT teacher, so I don't pretend to know much about economics :)
You may be right that the market will work itself out. I don't think free markets are a solution to every problem though. Some industries are highly regulated with state sanctioned monopolies because the free market can't be relied upon to provide a reasonable solution. Look to US healthcare as an example of free market economics gone awry.
The SV mantra of "move fast and break things" works well if you're building some new dating app, not so much if you're potentially disrupting something that's actually important. If Uber strong arms its way into a market and then subsequently shits the bed, then what? How do local economies deal with the resulting vacuum? Maybe the vacuum get's filled, and if it doesn't? Then what?
There are other industries where such disruption is not tolerated. Can you imagine if power, sanitation or road maintenance was completely deregulated and some foreign entrant was allowed to come in like a wrecking ball to experiment with "innovative" new models? The potential downsides far outweigh the possible upsides.
Maybe taxis don't fit into the critical infrastructure jigsaw puzzle. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I can see how Uber's tactics can have a net negative impact on the communities it enters. We'll see how it all plays out in good time. There are enough markets that are allowing Uber to operate that eventually it will shake out one way or another.
Exactly! Instead of strikes and whining, the taxi drivers should have a hard look at themselves why people like Uber better besides money. Because those entitled drivers are not providing quality of service compared to Uber and they should be out of business. I hope Uber continues as even legally (aka more expensive) they would beat regular cabs easily.
Except of course they won't, because they like those licenses, as they reinforce their monopoly. So complaining that Uber doesn't pay them is just like any cartel complaining that the newcomer doesn't play by their rules.
Taxi drivers in all countries, even with me having Google maps, will try to take longer routes. They are often rude because complacent: why not, you cannot pick your driver anyway right? Spanish, Italian, HK, Shanghai taxi drivers generally speak no English: their Uber counterparts do. Might not be good but they try because ratings.
I travel a lot and everywhere and take taxis anywhere (do not like subways) and regular taxi standards universally awful; we miss Uber instantly.
My friend from Portugal always jokes about how rude the drivers are in his country when we get in/out a cab with him; he imitates them etc but then says 'what can you do?'.
I don't think the majority of Italians are going to be all beat up about the fact that taxi drivers in their country speak (gasp!) Italian and not English.
Although, stalking you via your HN profile, I note that you may not in fact be American. That just means you have no excuse!
And they do their best to accomodate you even as a foreigner.
And maybe it is different in Italy, but in NL (where I am from) not too many people like the rude regular cab drivers: it is not only tourists :) That has changed a bit since Uber but not a lot so still not a lot of incentive to take the regular ones.
Sometimes the law sucks but there is a democratic process in order for it to change. A US company knowingly breaking the law repeatedly cannot get a pass because the local law "doesn't make any sense to them". Uber had no problem breaking laws everywhere it operates in Europe, until the justice catches up.
In my country, taxis have always been a cumbersome and painful existences. Trying to catch an early morning international flight meant - either trusting an unreliable operator to send you a taxi or paying way above the market rates to reach the airport on time.
What the apps have achieved is this: for me, as a customer, hailing a taxi is as simple as pressing a button. for a driver, they allow customer acquisitions to be super easy and not depend on unreliable operators. I am really grateful to the apps for this and happily pay the apps the middleman/operator fee.
But, the same apps routinely break laws in various countries and that too knowingly. It doesn't matter if the law makes sense to the multi-national company or not. They are supposed to follow the rule of the land. If every other MNC thought itself to be above the law of the land, I can't imagine what the world might look like. Like say for example - no Chrome or other browsers because MS could (did?) think that the EU anti-competition law was nonsense. They could continue shipping Windows with IE and asking people to outrage against the nonsense law which made it difficult for people (without a technical know how) to get a browser and get on the internet.
The best approach to burdenous regulation is to grow fast enough to challenge it.
Also, how do you measure innovation?
The law is not a "holy Bible" but in order for society to function people need to obey the law, and if they disagree with it, they need to use the democratic process to change it.
hope you are enjoying that superior GDP in your wallet and daily life
No it doesn't. And we're not talking about "Innovation" here, we're talking about a pure lucrative business.
If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.
Keep in mind, this is Europe and not the US. The argument "more car-based transportation at lower prices is good for everyone" is not necessarily something that the majority of the population in Italy or elsewhere in Europe is necessarily aspiring to. So if the government - at state and local level - is keeping the number of taxis in check by high taxes/fees while subsidizing green or mass transit, thats OK too. And the government of Italy has every right to do that. just my two cents.
There was recently a very controversial reportage about this (in italian): http://www.iene.mediaset.it/puntate/2017/03/26/maisano-quell...
There's a lot of shady stuff even if they seem to be following the law...
In this case, the law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Holders of existing taxi licenses actively lobby to restrict the issuance of additional licenses. This isn't new: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articl...
Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else is respecting them is a completely different story.
Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate outside of the law.
Why do you favor one rent-seeking monopolist over another?
I understand what you are saying, and agree in principle, though a big part of me worries the outcome is stagnation.
i.e. nothing will ever improve or change because the laws are such that everything must be done strictly to the letter.
It would appear that taxis are extremely expensive and many people around the world find them inconvenient. Uber is trying to change this. I'm not saying they should be allowed to "get away" with breaking the existing rules, but surely as a society we should allow things to be attempted/trailed if there is a chance something will get better.
I'm Italian and I oppose the horrible, horrible taxi lobby, as well as the equally horrible, extremely expensive service taxi drivers provide.
Luckily there's car sharing were I live, but I have no sympathy for taxi drivers (and it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love in other comments), or anyone who's in business solely because there are laws to protect their category, rather than offering a good service than people want to pay for.
Why is it fair that taxi drivers can provide a crappy service and get protected by laws, while other categories actually have do provide good service because they have competition and they would close down? Why not protect local restaurants from McDonald's, then?
I share your sentiment towards our taxi drivers, but I'd rather ask our laws to change to be fairer than to advocate Uber's right to just break the law.
Since when McDonalds doesn't follow the Italian laws and regulations? can you show me an example of McDonalds breaking Italian laws or food safety and regulations? Can you show me a McDonalds operating as an illegal restaurant?
The sentence you quoted means: why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet?
What's so special about taxi drivers?
Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS?
I would love to hear any valid enough answer that would make me change my mind.
There are many, many cases where a judge will go against a law and create a precedent, which most of the times will be followed in following trials if the situation is the same or very similar.
They still take precedents into great consideration, although they're not binding.
you don't have in Italy taxi apps with ratings, choice of cars and pretty much everything same as in Uber just legal? strange...
There is nothing worth defending.
Signing a document at a notary can cost 1,000 and for no reason. In the States the same thing gets done for 50 by a notary (I can talk about that).
These are imposed monopolies. They must end. You will damage a few hundred thousand people for a few years, but 60 million (in case of Italy) would gain immensely, as well as future generations.
Also just because a law is in the law book doesn't make it sacrosanct. Think about the Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights movement.
After that experience you have no recoarse to complain: with Uber you tap in the app and even get some or all money back. And drivers under a certain score drop off. With regular taxis it is fuck you very much for your money.
So banning Uber is nice and all and logical but then the gov should at least demand of taxis to offer the same level: hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances, so even if we do not mention that all the rest should be at the same level. I know they cannot and that is why Uber breaking the law is needed; that is a sad thing. The client is king and that has been lost by traditional cabbies in Europe a long time ago.
I mean, that's kind of the point. If customers want to be picked up in shiny Teslas that's ok. But it's only fair that they pay the actual cost of the ride. At present, Uber riders are being subsidised to the tune of $2bn per year [0]: that's a deeply anti-competitive business practice.
[0] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic...
http://i.imgur.com/rUfz6aU.png ???
Also, if taxis were to ratchet luxury up to uber levels, their prices would need to rise a lot as well, making the exercise rather useless. Laws over here demand certain safety, inspection and insurance standards. Stuff that is important. Demanding luxury would be very stupid.
> Stuff that is important. Demanding luxury would be very stupid.
You think it is for safety or just paper pushing? Because I'm sure in most countries it is sold as safety but it is really a bureaucratic exercise nothing to do with safety. If it is for safety, of course that comes first. I highly doubt it is (seeing that normal cabbies drive like maniacs in cars where the seatbelts do not actually work a lot of the time while they still have the official license) or that you know for sure that it is or even attributes to safety at all.
Yes. I cannot look up the actual regulations for Italy, since i don't speak italian, but i know that the licenses at least require a written test. I also know that in Germany for example the regulations are extremely strict. I expect the italian ones to fall somewhere between the us and german regulations.
E: http://www.italy.army.mil/visitor_transportation.asp states about taxis: "Taxi drivers must be properly licensed and insured and their vehicles inspected for safety."
> seeing that normal cabbies drive like maniacs in cars where the seatbelts do not actually work a lot of the time while they still have the official license
In Italy?
Or a train, or a bus, or a hire-bike (or your own bike). Taxis aren't the only competition for many Uber journeys - pretty much anywhere in London, for example.
Given that governments often invest heavily in trains, buses and bike-hire schemes, which all in their own way contribute to more liveable cities, there is an additional incentive not to let Uber dump on the wider transport market.
BTW not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English
Because it is embarrasing to have a tourism-based economy and at the same time to be proud of not speaking any English, which is highly likely to be at least one of the common languages you are going to share with the customer.
Disclaimer: I am a native spaniard. If you are going to visit Sevilla for Semana Santa, you better have some Spanish under your belt because it's highly unlikely anyone around you speaks anything else.
>not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English
for many reasons I would find obvious (economic etc) but besides that: given the choice between someone with and without multiple languages the better service is multiple, so sure, does not have to but overall it helps.
Do a lot of Uber drivers in your city speak Spanish or Chinese?
It would be useful to me that wherever I travel people talk some common language with me, but I don't feel like they have to.
It seems to me that if you choose to visit a foreign country you should expect some inconveniences and adapt to the local population.
But as a citizen, I expect my countrymen to do better than the bare minimum, and learning English is part of that. I write this as a non-English speaker myself.
Maybe they should get PHd in Nuclear Physics and make some real money.
And how many existed before Uber? That's their value: they give a nice push to a complacent industry used to have a nice little monopoly. After that, it can burn to the ground for all I care.
That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).
I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.
Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.
I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.
I'd also say that money that doesn't end up taxed and back in the economy and instead magically appears in a tax paradise to be held there as a bargaining chip for exemption from US tax laws should probably anger Americans too. It was utterly frustrating to see both presidential candidates bow down and be ready to give huge tax cuts on the repatriation of multinationals' profits just so they could at least see some of that trickle down into actual projects like infrastructure. Reading about it really felt like global-scale a ransom-situation.
Lowering and simplifying taxes would increase revenues (per the Laffer Curve,) however that would result in politicians not being as powerful. Milton Friedman explains this brilliantly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8
You do realize that tax dodging is practically national sport in Italy and the Mediterranean in general?
Yet Starbucks follows the law -- they have a huge legal and tax team for that purpose. So how can we complain about Uber not following the law and Starbucks following the law and be intellectually consistent at all?
There is no such thing as a loophole. The law either is or it isn't.
I can't blame my government for it because the Dutch Sandwich is based on loopholes in several other countries' laws.
I do blame the EU for not cracking down on it more efficiently but the recent injunction against Ireland and Apple is a good start.
It's very difficult to compete on a level playing field when the multinationals don't pay taxes. Google, Apple, Facebook, Ikea, McD, Amazon should all be slapped a proper fine.
But I don't have high hopes as long as Juncker from Luxembourg is running the show.
> That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).
> I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.
> Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.
> I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.
I'm no fan of Uber but wouldn't it be better to get rid of the loopholes? What laws do you think those governments care about? Why?
Why we have licensed cabs is because the country is very sparsely populated. The taxi license is specific for a certain area and the driver must service mainly that area. This lets the officials haggle with the private taxi companies and thus guarantee taxi service to all areas. Essentially, riding in the city subsidizes riding in the countryside. Whether this system is changed is a local domestic political decision. Until then I wouldn't condemn the licensed taxi operators suing Uber here.
Though Uber has had one positive impact: the taxi unions now advertise how safe the "real taxis" are compared to illegal rides and have tightened the checks on their already strict quality standards on proper customer service, vehicle cleanliness, driver clothing etc.
We've gone from a shortage of taxis, to an overabundance. When Uber launched, it wasn't interesting as our taxi system (which Uber appears to comply with the laws of) already works.
I don't know, I find this quite unfair to say to be honest.
Once you make an agreement, as non-sensical as it can be, you should hold your end up. Especially if you are an important institution.
The agreement here concerns the taxi licenses (and the fact that you can sell them). It's a bit selfish and narrow-minded to scrape off all that was agreed upon (leading people to pay 200k+ euros !) because "modernity" has arrived.
A better solution would be to legalize services like Uber and charge them a royalty fee for a certain number of years. The collected money should serve as a reparation to current owners of taxi licenses.
Once I tried to get a taxi from Ciampiano to Garbetella - I asked for the price and the driver said €50. I pointed at the ad on the side of his car saying it's a fixed €30 to the city, but apparently as Garbetella is outside the city walls, even though it was closer, it was more expensive. Guess I should have asked to go to Pyramide and walked a couple of hundred metres :-)
My go to transport was Car2Go and Enjoy, but they didn't cover the airports - which I assume is just because taxi drivers protested against it.
I'm curious because black car services (such as limousines and black towncar services) generally do not need taxi licenses in the US. A taxi license is only needed for hailing rides on the street, not for picking someone up by prior reservation. The Uber service provides a variety of different kinds of cars, some which operate more like limos while others operate like taxis (they even have medallioned taxis in some cities).
Edit: Thanks! Interesting to know how standards and norms vary by country in this area. It will be fascinating to see how transport evolves over the next decade.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noleggio_con_conducente
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/No...
The differences are several ones:
a Taxi has a meter and follows some time + km official tariff (+ a number of "fixed" supplements in some cases, like going to the airport, etc.) a NCC works by private agreement (usually, taken in writing or verbally) in advance.
a Taxi is a public service, i.e. they cannot refuse the service (unless of course there are serious reasons), whilst the NCC is a private one.
a taxi can be (though rarely it is as since the dawn of time, years before Uber came out, most cities have "RadioTaxi" where you phone a number and they send you the nearest available taxi which is contacted via radio) hailed on the street, the NCC must (in theory) start each and every trip from their (private) garage and end it again at the garage on return, i.e. unlike the taxi in which it is "yours" just for the time you are onboard, the NCC is rented for the whole trip and cannot take other passengers on the way back.
moreover there are territorial limitations (different for each category) on the operations of both taxies and NCC, as an example a taxi licensed by city "A" can bring a customer to city "B" but cannot take another passenger in city "B", a NCC licensed by city "A" must initiate the trip (i.e. pick up the passenger) within city "A".
Overall, the situation is messy and overcomplicated and the (IMHO illegal) costs for the licenses (and their clearly too limited number) do represent problems, but Uber it is (still IMHO) not the solution to them.
Yes, you see that there is the problem (also in Portugal, and perhaps in other countries in EU). You have a local taxi mafia running a black market operation right there.
Those licences cost less than 150 euros! (not thousand euros, just plain one hundred and fifty euros) when you get them from the city hall, then some taxi mafia gets to buy all those licenses when they are issued (in their, sons/spouse/cousins/uncles/etc name) and then they go around selling them to the people that actually work in the taxis by those absurd prices.
I think Uber must follow the rules, but don't ask me any sympathy for the Taxi drivers and for the mafia behind them.
Now, after Uber is banned, many more car owners will lose the opportunity to earn extra income, and many many more people will have to pay more to take a taxi. Which is the better economical choice?
I spend more money on a taxi, I spend less money at the restaurant. And get less value from my money than I should.
So we 'protect' taxis but what about struggling restaurant owners (or other shops) that lose money because taxis aren't subject to competition? Who cries for them?
Taxi have their own finite licensing problem but NCC are easier to get. You still need a permit from the local Comune[0] and to abide to the rules. In exchange NCC vehicles can use the same fast lanes taxi can use.
The most contested rule is that NCC are hired only for specific rides (eg form A to B, or for N hours) and they need to go back to the garage between rides. They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride, and the garage to be in the same Comune that gave the NCC permission.
This clearly doesn't work well for Uber as it doesn't have any garage, nor it's willing to accept the suboptimal usage the go-back-to-garage is going to cause.
Disclaimer: INAL, but I've talked to some Italian lawyers about this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune
edit: formatting
In Italy, do you also to print an e-bill before paying it online? That may be a bad analogy but it just seems wasteful to me.
In the US we had similar rules enforced by armed men - don't compete with the Lucchese in the Bronx, the Genovese in Little Italy, etc. Clearly this system is working well for Italy. Maybe in the US we can end RICO and bring back the old system ruled by the capo di tutti capo. That could help boost our economy to Italian levels.
That makes it sound like the license acts as a proxy for a pension. If so, $200K is really not absurd at all. That's a very small pension, and Uber's disruption of the market is going to mean a lot of Italian taxi drivers have a horrible time living in poverty in their old age. That's obviously not Uber's fault, but it's understandable that the taxi drivers and the government would be very much against a sudden change to the status quo.
why not open restaurant chain recycling leftovers from other customers, storing all ingredients without fridge on floor of kitchen with some rats running around BUT hey I am American corporation bringing you cheap food and don't dare to tell me I am unfair competition compared to those dumb local restaurants meeting local hygiene rules
If the Italian taxi industry is anything like the Venician gondoliers association, then this ruling has zero to do with safety and everything to do with protectionism.
But even ignoring that, there is a fundamental contention between state regulation and free markets. It's obvious that Europe in general prefers at least some level of state regulation, and is willing to suffer the market inefficiency for it. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is difficult to determine, but there's certainly a number of arguments that can be made in favor of state-wide rather than piecemeal regulation, e.g. the uneven information relationship between producer and consumer(I'm not really qualified to determine whether the product is safe), the unrealistic time investment for each consumer to verify with an independent agency whether a producer is up to their standards, and so on.
It's basic supply and demand and it prevents shortages. If it's peak hour and I must get to a meeting and someone else is just going shopping, I would be willing to pay more so I am not late. I think the shopper is willing to pay less to go on the trip at a different time.
Supply and demand. Impossible to ignore. Either high demand leads to high prices or high demand leads to shortages if prices were constrained.
Since you said "you can keep that stuff in US," I have to ask: does supply and demand work differently in your country? It would seem, based of the state of many European economies (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, as examples,) that perhaps they need more of that free market competition "stuff" and much less government and taxes.
The argument "Uber has low prices because it pays badly, therefore it should be banned" is good. The argument "Uber is actually not cheaper and nobody cares about it, therefore it should be banned" is not.
This is going to replay in many other countries. It may look like a clash of the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled capitalism with the European model built on top of cross-subsidies and tighter regulations to support all kinds of safety nets. But it's not. To me it looks like a shift away from capital assets (e.g. annual licenses) toward per-per-use economics. If you think about it, there is nothing that prevents the Italian authorities to levy mileage-based fees on Uber to level the paying field.
Ironically, the only time I was forced to use it was in Italy, because it turned out it was a public holiday, so no public transport (including taxis) were running.
This is really bad news.
Uber's entrance into the market was a great opportunity to either change another awful law/system that's in place, or create a precedent by ruling to not apply the current law. Of course, they didn't do it.
Currently, in order to be a taxi driver you have to pay a license, which costs up to €200,000 (from what I know). Since it would take too long, taxi drivers aren't obliged to give you a receipt. If you ask for one for tax purposes, they give you a piece of paper so that you can write off the expense, but they still don't have to report that to the government. How do they pay taxes? The association itself sets an estimate of how much they're supposed to make each month, that they then pay taxes on. This is many times less than what they actually make. It's a joke, unheard of for any other category (that I know of).
Most importantly, taxis provide a horrible, horrible service. They're super-expensive, to the point of being ridiculous, and known to scam people by overcharging them many times the usual fare (tourists in particular, but not only tourists, I can speak of that).
Public transportation in many cities is inadequate.
Luckily, in many cities (including mine, Florence) they're now offering great car sharing services, where you can select a car near you from the app, and use it for ~€0.25/min. There are 3 different companies doing it, so the market is very healthy. I use it regularly, buses will take me to x in 45' for €1.20, using the car sharing service I can get there in 15' for €4. For comparison, a taxi ride would cost me €15-20.
One thing I don't understand is that in Dublin, I had the impression that most Uber rides were taxi drivers—whom used both the taxi company dispatch system and Uber—and they said they'd make more money with Uber because their share was less than the taxi company's. Although I don't know much about this, I wonder if the same thing would be true in Italy.
If you want to be a taxi driver, Uber would remove having to spend €200,000 to get started (which by the way sounds like a horrible investment to me, since after that you're stuck being a taxi driver). Of course, this isn't fair to those who paid that, but I wouldn't oppose the government buying those back (perhaps with tax credits?) and then change the law. Honestly, I wouldn't oppose those people just losing the money, since they don't seem to refund restaurateurs that close down because they open a McDonald's next door, small shops when a supermarket gets open next door, programmers that make less money because of outsourcing to India, factory workers whose factory closes down and moves to Poland.
Mainly, this situation is not fair. Why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet? What's so special about taxi drivers? Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS, as I'm legally required to do?
I think a more accurate reason would be: banned due to competition.
Are Italian court transcripts generally available online? If this was in the US, I'd normally try to find and read the court docket.
Not following the local laws that everyone else follows, makes it unfair.
Uber is ignoring laws and don't pay these fees and taxes and SOMETIMES is able to offer cheaper ride than taxi, while in rush hour it cost more than taxi
i can easily day from comments here who is American without clue about Europe and who is European pissed about some American corporation which is ignoring any laws and pretending they are bringing some progress, like we don't have taxi woods without them, F Uber
...taxi apps...
I am fed up of corporations that think otherwise.
it's funny how are Americans here defending Uber breaking laws in Europe, where most people agree with regulating it so they won't break laws and have unfair advantage over taxi, any idiot can drive illegally car and charge less than company which need surcharge taxi insurance, taxi license, car of specific color and standard,etc.
now i am not big fan of taxi (public transport FTW) and still think most of the taxi drivers are thieves if given opportunity, but thanks to taxi apps I don't need to worries about it, not sure where some completely illegal service like Uber fit here
> after a judge ruled Friday that it created "unfair competition"
And in the linked Reuter's article:
> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations.
Italy's economic troubles should come as no surprise.
In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Taxis are therefore mostly a comodity for affluent people : most never use them. Uber is neither important nor a progress in terms of mass transportation.
Hard to generalize.
In Italy public trasportation in most cities—even major ones—is absolutely horrible.
In Florence, it takes me 45 minutes to get anywhere by bus instead of 15 by car, some areas are not served at all, and most buses don't run after working hours or 10PM at the most. Buses are often late, overcrowded, and many (most?) without air conditioning with 40C in the summer.
Not in Italy, you don't. In no developed nation have I ever found public transportation as unreliable as I have in Italy, and in that I'm including northern Italy.
Milan has as many problems as anywhere else in Italy, and it's not immune from their insane strikes, either.
only thing to be thankful to Uber for is making taxi app, which would happen anyway without them, their prices are not that low compared to taxi, they can't compete with European public transport, but they keep breaking law and have unfair advantage
Low prices? Better services? More reliability and accessibility? Which laws are they breaking, except the ones that grant taxis an unfair monopoly?
> they can't compete with European public transport
Then how are they in business and why do they need to be banned? As other commenters have said, Italy's public transportation is among the worst on the continent.