Hacker News Reader

Comment by dexen | Hacker News Reader

>1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve

I sure hope they'll declare all taxi drivers "employees of the cities they get the medallions from". With the city being equally on hook for all the insurances and other benefits for its taxi drivers.

How is the relationship, as described, any different from relationship between a city-managed tax driver? Aside of the star rating system - cities, having local monopoly, have literally no interest in maintaining high quality.

View on HN

Licensed taxi drivers agree to provide services at the industry rate (minicab providers don't even have to do that) and follow some license conditions. They don't have an obligation to use a dispatch service which constantly alters the rate of pay they're expected to accept to maximise its own revenues. UK taxi licensing authorities aren't even allowed to make a profit on selling the licenses (the budget is ring-fenced)

We don't have the (corrupt and failed) medallion system in the UK and we certainly don't have "city" managed "taxi" drivers.

This is the UK supreme court (the one where the judges have real world experience)

How did traditional taxi work then?

Does the city auction the permits every year?

Uber was absolutely great in the US because it replaced the medallion system that was more of less a pyramid scheme. That's one of the big reason, I think, it worked so well.

London famously has one of the strictest requirements for licensing taxi drivers, and the rest of the Uk seems to have city managed licenses as well.

For taxis (which you can hail on the street) the fares are fixed. For private hire vehicles (which you can't) they aren't. In both cases there are 'fit and proper person' requirements to get a licence, and in London there is a famously difficult test of the driver's knowledge of city streets and routes to get a taxi (but not a private hire) licence.

In no cases do we have a medallion system, though. Licences are not transferable and have no monetary value.

No, but you do have city managed taxi drivers where the city limits how many licenses are given out. While they aren't transferrable like the US medallions, that doesn't change the point of the post.

Not in London (which is mostly where Uber works) and the number of private hire licences (again, the category which Uber operates in) are not IIRC limited anywhere. And in practice the value of a taxi over a private hire licence not much higher anywhere except London because there's much less street hailing and a car is only a phonecall (or app click) away.

But you don't have to buy a fabulously expensive medallion

Are you seriously asking how the relationship is different between a driver and Uber and a driver and the city they live and work in? The difference is both Uber and drivers are subject to the rule of law, whereas the rule of law isn't subject to Uber or the drivers except through the legislative process, which this is an article about.

Nobody is saying that Uber can't apply whatever terms they want to the relationship if they're in international waters and not under any particular flag.

edit: the city can require that people who live in it must work under the exact same terms as Uber, and will not be treated as employees of the city (if they can get this enacted in legislation and it has been found not to conflict with higher laws or treaties.) Uber doesn't get to require anything of local law.

I am unhappy with your mis-representation of my post. I'm not asking beyond a clear "rhetorical question" used to emphasize the incredulity of the situation, quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the points, as described, are equivalent. That's not a contentious issue here.

Obviously different points could be raised and argued - as per other posts in this thread. However the specific points on which the court decision was based do match the relationship between cities and (regular) taxi drivers. If UK was a nation of laws, this ruling would also change the relationship between cities and taxi drivers.

But we know that won't happen - because public entities get an extra leeway with laws.

I'm saying that they're not in any way equivalent other than they are both sets of rules.

The government gets to determine whether you are an employee, because Uber is subject to laws. The government is also subject to its own laws, but there's no requirement that a government be subject to the same rules that it applies to a company that operates within its jurisdiction. Otherwise, why would we even try this in court? If Uber is entitled to identical treatment as the government, this case could have been tried in Uber's own court.'

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm disagreeing with a false statement. The government's medallion system is not the same as Uber's structure with respect to drivers because drivers are considered citizens in their relation to the government, while they are considered employees in their relationship to Uber. The medallion holders are not entering into either an independent contractor or employee relationship with the government, they're following the law as all citizens (and companies) are required to.

taxi drivers can reject as many rides as they want, no?

In London there are only a few specific circumstances when a taxi driver (in their taxi) can reject a ride. E.g.

- they aren’t working (eg they’re going home, this isn’t a general excuse that can always be used)

- they’re going to pick up a prearranged passenger

- they’re eating their lunch (this exemption was introduced by Churchill, hence ‘Churchill’ is cabbie slang for one’s lunch break)

Your argument would be helped if you would actually respond to each of these points, which you don't.

Let's do it for you > 1) cities indeed in somec countries set the fare regulating taxis like a utility. it's pricy for consumers but transparent and stable for everyone. drivers can earn more money by reducing cost compared to their competition. Seems fair. 2) well, it's a public utility. So people can actually go and vote for or against taxi laws. You can't do that with uber... 3) I am not aware that a self-employed taxi-driver has to transport people? 4) as I'm not aware that cities monitor rides?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com