Uber Suspends Its Ride-Sharing Service in Spain Following a Court Ruling
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Previously, they always said to continue their ways, going so far as promising to pay fines drivers get (sorry, can't find a link for that, but http://ernstseconomyforyou.blogspot.nl/2014/12/the-untolerab... is an example of what they think laws mean)
They basically are trying to force law changes. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the changes they try to force go against the social structure of much of Europe. "The MP’s there should recognize that Uber is working according to one of the pillars of the Dutch taxi law: more market-like circumstances, better quality and lower prices". Their spokesman forgets about the "protect the weak" pillar of society. In a sense, this is a clash between hard capitalism and the social welfare state (a clash of civilizations, if you want)
Also, I find that he change they are trying to affect does not warrant the harsh approach Uber takes.
For that reason alone, I hope that changes, if they come at all, do not come soon.
All of which are designed to protect women, those who are intoxicated or incapacitated and the mentally challenged from being exploited.
Taxi regulations are like consumer protection laws. You don't know you need them until something bad happens.
Taxis may get cheaper, but taxi drivers may start earning less, too. Even if that is not 1:1, I expect it will become relatively more expensive for taxi drivers and people in similar jobs to take a taxi. If they lose 10% income, they may easily lose 25% of their income after paying for necessities (rent, food). So, taxis would have to become cheaper by over 25% for it to become more affordable to taxi drivers to take one.
They actually already gave up in Germany a few weeks ago. Bascially reducing their fares so far that they are considered ride sharing (which bascially means a driver can make no profit).
The Spanish taxi guild/lobby is very, very strong. Spain has a strong public transit system, but taxis are widely used nevertheless.
Taxi drivers went on strike this year during specific dates and all hell broke loose. They have much to lose, since a taxi license is very expensive and considered an investment, there is a second hand license market, etc. Some people buy houses, they buy taxi licenses. It is a heavily regulated market, since free competition would draw prices to a point so low that the business is not profitable (or so they say)
On one hand, I've never seen a rich taxi driver. I'd argue it's a low/mid-level job for low/middle class people who have nothing else to do. Similar to construction workers; if they lose their job they cannot work as anything else.
On the other hand, I'm pro-competition, but I respect regulated markets for some areas (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc). So why not taxis? I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a strong point for or against taxi drivers.
While Spain is known for its political corruption, courts of law have been pretty professional and their rulings are usually fair and law-compliant. So if a court has banned Uber, it's because the Spanish law protects taxi drivers. It's a political matter.
In summary, devaluing or voiding taxi licenses would leave tens of thousands of people in debt, probably without a job, and with nothing else to work of. Yes, I know that if it were for ice drivers, we would never have had electric fridges, but I can also sympathize. It's basically a matter of jobs. The Spanish government doesn't want our 30% unemployement to be any higher, taxis to be on strike and in general people to be angrier.
TL;DR: Spain is a heavily regulated country and the EU directives also point to that direction. Taxi drivers are a low-mid demographic which need protection or, at least, protection from a total disruption of their jobs from new agents like Uber. Yes, this is bad for free competition, but this is Europe, and the level of legal protection is like this: workers > consumers > companies.
1) Because YOU don't know any. Me neither, but I know a few very wealthy ones (very wealthy for my standards, as in "they own a handful houses")
2) Because the license owner is usually not the driver. This is the trend today at least in Barcelona. They hire at least 3 drivers for an 8 hours shift each, so the taxi works 24 hours a day. So you talk to drivers that are nothing but employees (falsos autónomos probably).
But this isn't true right? It's not that Uber is eliminating taxi jobs, it's that they are competing with the status quo. Surely, if current drivers would lose their jobs, they'd be more than welcome to hop on-board the Uber train (or I guess I should say "Uber car"). Is there a reason that you think that these drivers wouldn't be able to become Uber drivers? I only have a cursory understanding of the whole taxi situation since I hardly ever use a taxi (although I happened to have called one to take me to the airport tomorrow morning).
[1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making...
> There's no way you will stay with Uber if you want to make ends meet. So either Uber will fix things, or drivers will leave."
I don't know what contractual obligations are forced onto drivers so maybe they're tied up for a certain period of time. The following quote from the article though suggests that it shouldn't be the case:
> Uber is not obligated to pay its drivers minimum wage; the drivers aren't employees, they're independent contractors.
Neither do I know if there is a "non-compete" clause of some sort that prevents them from working for Lyft, Sidecar, or even reverting back to traditional taxi services. The article suggests that at present this is not the case:
> "Right now, the TLC is open, so you can work with multiple bases," Diallo tells us. "
All in all, I find the business case for Uber intriguing because I don't fully understand the fuss. Admittedly, this is likely to my lack of understanding of the powerplay behind all of this, but I struggle to understand how drivers have gone from the "no-Uber world" to the "I-rely-on-Uber-and-can't-get-away-and-can't-make-ends-meet-world".
The issues you cite (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc) all involve externalities or market failures. Low wages are not an eternality or a market failure.
Issues of redistribution are best dealt with by taxation [1]. Why does a person who earns a low income deserve more of a break, just because they happen to be a taxi driver?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare...
But then, systematic discrimination against new entrants to the labor market and similar barriers to entry have long been typical of many European nations, and it's one of the reasons that youth unemployment over there is such a big problem even in healthier economies than the current one. A quick Google suggests that Spain's youth unemployment rate is about 54% (... contrast with the #1 EU outlier, Germany, with the most liberalized economy and youth unemployment at 7.8%)
Unfortunately, this is probably one of those economic systems typified by positive feedback cycles.
The main difference between political parties in Spain is whether they prefer to build or burn churches, so to speak. In economic matters they are all highly interventionist, and we like it this way, sadly.
I don't think it's that simple. A taxi medallion is an agreement made with the government. If the government then turns around and allows Uber in, what other agreements that they've made will they go back on? It undermines the social contract and the reputation of the government.
If you're sincere about this and if that's really the only objection, would you be willing to champion Uber (and its future competitors) if a way could be found to wind down the existing agreement in a manner that is not ostentatiously financially damaging to taxi medallion holders?
Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city.
Yes totally.
> Because as far as a "social contract" goes, this contract is basically selling out its people to private entities -- taxi customers as property of the medallion-holder. Under other circumstances this would be incredibly objectionable: imagine the outcry if a government decided to sell Uber the exclusive right to run taxis and car services in a city.
Yeah, believe me I'm not defending the medallion system (if we didn't have it I probably wouldn't support the creation of it, nor the exclusive rights selling to Uber), but here we are, we have them, and so the state has created a level of expectations that would be damaging to reverse on. Not only for the medallion holders, but also for the general reputation of the government's word, which I think is important.
i get it in the US, with all those shitty cabs and foreign drivers who don't know their areas, but Europe is different.
Apps like mytaxi.com are closing the payment/booking gap - backed by some powerful companies like Daimler.
Uber-like services are needed in the US where the government is unable to actually do its work due to a culture of distrust and paranoia.
There is no electronic health record, Google could not make it work. Sci Fi in the US. Austrians have had it for years now. Awesomely simple, proven. No startups needed. Also less chances for creating the next billionaires, but maybe it's ok if the rest of the population can enjoy working public services.
Worst cab experience of my life. I would have loved to have Uber available.
you make the government the source of all evil. blame regulation, blame the people working in government, don't pay them well. what happens? public service will suck. no one qualified wants to work there. a self fulfilling prophecy.
the people get the government they are willing to pay for, they deserve.
the whole starving the beast rhetoric of the GOP, etc in the US is what ultimately makes the government dysfunctional - outside of Defense of course, the holy cow. if the DoD would be in charge of healthcare and public infrastructure, maybe then there would be progress in the US.
Also, let's reverse your argument -
"you make the free-market the source of all evil. blame a lack of regulation, blame the people working in corporations, regulate their pay as well. what happens? free-market service will suck. no one qualified wants to work there. a self fulfilling prophecy."
One trip from Gràcia to Barceloneta, 5km:
* Metro: 22 minutes, 1,03€ (with a T-10 card, which is the most expensive integrated transport option)
* Taxi: 15 minutes, 8-9€
* Uber: 15 minutes, 4-5€
Also, Barcelona cab drivers are known for driving you around if you look like a tourist. Uber drivers will never do that, since you rate them after the trip.
Whenever a new and disruptive business model is introduced in a market, people (making a living out of the existing business) might show some resistance and even the governments will take some steps to safeguard the votes (I mean the affected people). However, in the due course things will settle down and the new entrant will emerge as winner (with an understanding of the local culture and regulation).
I personally feel, country like India definitely requires Uber like services to ease the pain of millions of travelers who are literally looted by the unfair taxi drivers and ineffective fare system around the country.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11315782/Uber-I...
Now they're telling us it is "disruptive" to make crime more organized? Hey, we've got this nice app in order to receive your illegal service in an easy, trackable and convenient way.
I'm not saying it should be illegal. I'm saying it is illegal. There's a huge difference. I'm all in for an open taxi market as a side business to cheap public transportation like we have in most places in Europe.
Their argument, and their attitude, fails when they encounter cultures which don't share the US' antipathy towards labor and consumer rights. There are places where the taxis manage to not be terrible, and where people prefer services to be regulated beyond "caveat emptor." Insane, I know.
I was at Spain in my vacation and transportation costs shocked me, TBH.
I don't see nothing morally wrong on their business model. I'm just pointing out it is illegal under the current law and that's why there's no Spanish Uber. Also, we all know this is not ride-sharing, just a cheaper and unregulated taxi company. Blablacar is ride-sharing :)
Transportation costs in Spain are far from free, but if you were shocked I would recommend you not visiting Britain for your health's sake. Well, I actually recommend visiting the country because it is beautiful, but just don't hop on a train.
Does Uber operate in Spain using it's other services?
There is a Spanish Uber competitor called Cabify that does comply with the law. They have professional drivers and cool and clean cars. So yes, Uber could be legal if they want (it implies more effort though as every driver has to have a license)