French government orders Uber taxi ban after protests
bbc.com
bbc.com
1. Taxi drivers began selling each other taxi driver licenses (although they are obtained for free from the state, on a waiting list). They are angry that Uber registers in a new category, so they "skip" the entry price. But, it's only the taxis fault if they bought licenses and thought they had "value".
2. Violent taxi demonstrations should lead these drivers directly in jail. But it's France, so you don't go to jail... and if you're a lobby (and they clearly are), you even don't get arrested.
3. The government is 100% wrong to side with taxis from day one and punish Uber for the taxi drivers riots, rewarding people who harassed drivers and their customers, destroyed cars and burned streets. It's a huge blow for their popularity which is already very very low. It shows a poor image of the state to both citizens and visitors.
4. People will just stop using taxis more and more. Who wants to be driven by violent guys, and who already are usually bad drivers that even harass people who are not their clients (saw one cab driver last week yell at a woman who was wearing a summer dress)?
5. We're now sure that everybody in France knows about Uber!
(and it's not only about Uber, as there is also a French competitor named https://www.chauffeur-prive.com/ )
I'd be curious how this is being spun by the various local news services in France. It wouldn't be that hard to spin this to make Uber look bad. Consider a headline like "Uber spawned another violent outburst today", and similar spin on the details; it'd be easy to obscure who is actually responsible for the violence.
Approximate translation of Les Echos on my desk: "2500 taxis [...] protested against UberPOP, a service provided by amateur drivers", "the government puts pressure on Uber, the company behind the service".
Taxis are, in France, under the tutelage of The Ministry of Interior. They also have strong historical ties with the political party currently in power.
The principal taxi company had or still has, within its ranks, a close friend of a former French president (François Mitterand, same party as the current one), and the former Cabinet Treasurer for the current president's campaign.
It's not. UberPOP might be illegal. Uber as a whole, not.
UberX/van etc... is a simple transporter service which completely fits with the transporters-related legislation in France.
AFAIK you need to be a legal owner of a transporter licence to be an UberX driver. Most UberX/van drivers I've driven with even use Uber as a complementary stream of revenue on top, or besides, their main revenues as transporters. They will also drive for the main local UberX competitor, "Chauffeur Privé".
> The government has to take an action, then have this resolved in the court of law
Not really. It seems you are unaware that the court of law has already resolved the case once, on December 12th, 2014, stating that UberPOP could pursue its activity in France (http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/12/12/le-tribuna...).
> I saw a video yesterday where someone dropped a cinder block from a bridge to what they suspect is an Uber car.
I know right... shocking... :-( The worse part? A (Uber) driver on duty at the airport gets harassed by about 60 taxi drivers. He's already on crutches because of a leg injury (few days ago a Uber client was beaten by a bunch of taxi drivers). So he panicks, and uses a portable tear gas can (some drivers carry one in their car because of carjackers) and spray it around on the taxis to be able to evacuate the zone. Instantly gets arrested by the police (yes, the police are always there, they just DON'T stop the taxi drivers). Just got himself 6 months in jail. http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-faits-divers/taxis-contre-ube...
More generally, France is notorious for being suspicious of foreign influences (international Communism, globalization, Islamism -- heck, even Catholicism, though most of them still practice it at least nominally.)
Terrorism... I dunno, terrorists in small groups tend to blow up or gun down people unexpectedly, whereas these protestors in large groups don't generally try to kill or to hide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan#Later_Klans:_19...
Much like the current situation in France, the police were generally complicit and did very little about the terrorists.
Are we so tone deaf in the HackerNews bubble that we don't realize that labor rights aren't a four letter word? I'm not for regulator capture with regards to taxi medallions, but I am supportive of regulations that permit people to have an acceptable quality of life.
Or do we need to wait for the next bubble to burst and devs on the street with signs saying "will develop in React for food" to see that? Shall we look down on them as people look down on these protests? (Note: I DO NOT condone property damage or violence)
There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of people, another group of people loses out.
Software developers have deal with unregulated competition and do quite well.
EDIT (to respond to your EDIT):
> Software developers have deal with unregulated competition and do quite well.
The level of knowledge and critical thinking required to develop (quality) software is a bit greater than that required to drive a vehicle. I'd argue that as additional resources are developed/released to aid people learning to code, along with resources that make writing code remotely with a team more painless, the value of software developers as a whole will drop.
Why should someone be paid quite a high salary, for job that in your words requires a lower education? Shall we mandate all jobs should be paid well? If low skill jobs pay almost as well as high skill/high paying jobs, where's the economic incentive in increasing your skills? In many ways its a trap, because you won't go out of your way to increase your skills.
And when people say Taxi driving is actually quite a high skill job. I say you should have no problem fighting off the competition then.
"software developers as a whole will drop." And on that day, I'll get an MBA instead proving that the incentives work.
Regarding your MBA:
“A degree has value only if the degree is scarce, and the MBA is completely unscarce,” says Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organisational behaviour at Stanford Graduate School of Business.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2313a2f8-7c81-11e3-b514-00144feabd...
"Regarding your MBA:" Or whatever degree pays.
And the correct way to change that in a modern democracy is to lobby for better laws in parliament and/or found your own party and then win the population’s votes to fix your issue.
Wilfully ignoring existing laws implies a fundamental lack of respect for society and democracy.
French labour laws in general overwhelmingly advantage the older(as in already employed), and established workers and disadvantage younger workers and new entrants.
In general terms, labor laws such as wage prohibitions and occupational licensing tend to give relatively economically advantaged workers artificial advantages over lower skilled workers. In this respect, they serve as upwards redistribution of wealth and opportunity. At the same time, they restrict consumer sovereignty and the ability for people to freely engage in commerce. Of course, there are counter arguments to these as well. My intent here is not to make any overly simplistic sweeping claims, but to point out that there are some thoughtful and powerful lines of reasoning that call into question the morality of many existing labor regulations.
I don't believe we disagree on this. Labor laws are a balance between the right of a citizen to earn a living wage and the right of a consumer to engage in commerce permitted by the State.
With that said, I believe that consumer sovereignty should never take precedence over labor rights.
Because the buggymaker's job is more important than the consumer's right to buy an automobile?
1. Can work on my own schedule. "When I was a Taxi driver, I had to show up at the dispatcher to pick up a car on their schedule." 2. Driving someone else's car. "Sometimes I sit 2 hours waiting for a car to be returned to begin my shift, often it is dirty and I am required to clean it before taking it out." 3. Freedom to engage in a side business. "My wife makes jewelry, I display it on the back seat and sell it to tourists who are interested." 4. Higher pay. Yes, there are studies that try to debunk this by citing higher costs or higher variability, but the arguments are unpersuasive. They count the cost of a driver maintaining his Uber car, while treating the medallion company's maintenance as a benefit, but an UberX driver and a Taxi Cab driver who owns a personal vehicle both pay car maintenance costs, albeit there's more wear and tear on the UberX car. Likewise, while variability is higher in salary, so is freedom in work hours and Uber drivers consistently rate this as the most loved feature of being an Uber driver.
This isn't really about labor laws, this is about regulatory capture. The French government has created an artificial shortage of supply, assigned special rights to a Guild, which simultaneously jacks up prices and provides more inconvenience to the customer, while establishing a monopoly in which bad drivers with bad attitudes can't be contested.
It then lets this group which has performed regulatory capture, essentially engage in mass property damage, terror (smashing cars with people in them), actions which are inherently dangerous and could lead to people getting killed on the roads, all without arresting them, or making them criminally or civilly liable.
What will France do if the entire world moves to self-driving vehicles? Will they ban them to protect French Taxi cab drivers? Will you claim the Robots are Slaves? What would they do if public transport threatened Taxi Cab driver salaries if some new public transport system made cabs less needed?
The French government has allowed itself to be captured by a minority industry. This isn't about broad labor rights, it's about a small guild trying to protect its monopoly by holding the government / citizenry hostage with violent protests.
The people are the system, it is impossible for the system “democratic society” to disrespect “the people”. I also did not say that one must respect immoral laws, I said that breaking laws implies disrespect for the way by which these laws were put into place – namely the free democratic society.
You can disrespect immoral laws all day long and I encourage you to do so, just don’t break them unless absolutely necessary (because the alternative would be much worse). Taxi transportation is such a triviality that it certainly doesn’t qualify for that.
A government, as governed by its citizens. That's what laws are for.
In part because they not pay social security like everyone else and that is part of how they drive the prices down.
Frankly, consumer's demands and rights take a backseat to the rights of citizens of a country.
What? Consumers are citizens as well...
I'd be in a pretty bad situation, but I'd just have to accept reality, retrain, specialise, or find a new way to be competitive that sustained my existing lifestyle or at least didn't have it drop off a cliff.
Of course in reality it's not overnight that these things happen, and it's not a sudden decision that people have to make because as yet, technological and societal progress isn't fast enough that people can't see change coming a few years off if they have their ear to the ground and follow what's going on in an industry.
It's a really bad position to be in and I understand the instinct of wanting to fight it and looking to regulation for protection when it doesn't feel like there are many other choices. However, to continue to support the idea that taxi services the way they are currently operated and priced are needed, or even wanted, by the majority of people who know that a better way exists (i.e. Uber etc) is absurd. It's just denying reality.
If a majority of customers know there is a better option, and want that better option, it will happen. The same will be true when driverless cars come along, are even cheaper and more convenient, and are therefore what people want more than a car with a driver.
The choice then becomes: are you going to embrace change by changing yourself and trying to ride the wave, or put up an exhausting fight, ultimately lose and be left behind.
No, I'd expect the government to force consumers to pay you a minimum wage. What's the problem with that?
> If a majority of customers know there is a better option, and want that better option, it will happen. The same will be true when driverless cars come along, are even cheaper and more convenient, and are therefore what people want more than a car with a driver.
I agree! And as long as you're following the relevant labor and transportation laws, feel free to provide said services to a customer base.
Have you seen any indications that either Uber or taxis are failing to meet minimum wage laws?
Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.
Yes. Uber is violating the guidelines set out for classifying workers as independent contractors. Based on Uber's requirements, they should be properly categorized as employees, with the taxes paid by employers for their employees properly paid.
> Not all "labor laws" are equivalent and useful. Some are bought and paid for by the current set of companies to stifle competition, because it's easier for them to comply than a new company, or because the laws outright ban competition.
And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.
I specifically asked about minimum wage laws, which are what you held up as being important for protecting workers.
As for contractors versus employees, that's under widespread debate, and is not nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting.
> And its not up to the tech industry to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore because its convenient for their VCs. Want to change the law? Go change the law.
Sometimes the most effective way to change a bad law is to demonstrate that the world doesn't end when it's ignored. As long as you're willing to accept that you might well get penalized for doing so. (Which in turn can spark critical evaluation of whether such penalty is right or wrong.)
And as long as we're talking about deciding which laws to obey, how about the taxi folks setting fires and other violent acts? Perhaps those much more serious crimes ought to get addressed, as well.
In my original post, I specifically mentioned:
(Note: I DO NOT condone property damage or violence)
Violent crimes and property damage should be prosecuted, just as Uber should be fined and prohibiting from operating unless they follow the law.
This is the same reasoning as DMCA btw. I'm curious, have you NEVER gotten ahold of media illegally? Even if you haven't, if artists were to riot on the streets and put people's lives in danger, only have the government make even STRICTER internet laws, would you consider people being concerned by this tone deaf?
If you think the instances are different, what makes it different? Your own personal judgement that taxi laws are actually necessary for taxi drivers but DMCA laws aren't necessary for artists? Both are ultimately "THE LAW". If you have the ability to make a subjective decision, then shouldn't I be able to make it in reverse?
Content providers need to get paid just as much as taxi drivers, taxi drivers even moreso. Content providers can take advantage of the zero marginal cost of them distributing their product, taxi drivers are stuck working at an hourly wage, and for them not to receive at least an hourly wage is tantamount to theft.
This is ultimately just your reasoning. It is either 1) our place as individuals to decide which laws are more necessary (and thus it is fine for some of us to think transportation laws are disruptable or not), or 2) to hold a strict view of regulations and be as unsympathetic to people that write DRM evaders (regardless of the purpose).
I continue to talk to my legislators to explain why Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in the jurisdiction(s) where I take up residence. I encourage you to do the opposite if that's how you feel.
That's how democracy and government is intended to function.
There is nothing special about Uber's backend or mobile apps that couldn't be replicated by another tech team, and we'll find out how easy it is as self driving cars get here.
Anyway, there is no place for such regulation and it's on its way to be terminated soon by some european order, if I recall correctly.
If the people are Arabs doing it for Islam, it's called "terrorism". If the people are white and doing it for greed masquerading as left wing causes, it's called "protests".
Weird how that works.