At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them).
If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?
Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last?
Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
> Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
Why do we bother licensing drivers then too? Are we that much of an authoritarian nation that we need to control who drives a car? Should Uber drivers be allowed to drive without a driver's license too?
It's strange that you'd bring this false equivalence.
>I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.
Applying for a taxi-driver license is a whole another different thing than just having taxi mafia run your entire taxi industry. Can the said uber drivers even apply for a taxi license?
The whole system is crooked, even today.
You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
I can accept an argument where it was not fit-for-purpose for a tech-era reinterpretation of how vetted drivers deliver this service. Despite that, I think you're probably reaching if you were to try to tell me that you don't understand why the prevailing legislation existed in order to ensure passengers were picked up by vetted, known drivers whose identities were known and who could face recourse if they scammed passengers (e.g. by driving them around in circles to inflate fares), held passengers hostage or worse.
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested.
You shouldnt have been. Thats the point.
>Why are there different rules for large corporations?
The large corporation defeated cabcharge dominance for all of us. They get minor consideration for that.
Uber took us from a situation where a single large corporation had a complete monopoly, to a place where multiple large corporations compete, a place where you technically have the right to compete against them. They flattened the rules, they didn't create a new rule where only they get special consideration.
It's worth noting that the regulator also blocked a majority of Taxi providers from providing a single app (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.