19 ms·

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 wou

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?

lannisterstark 3y ago
>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?
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.
  - abigail95 3y ago
    if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums. those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages." You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
  - johngladtj 3y ago
    All the ones that restrict freedom without good reason
  - mianos 3y ago
    The taxi laws didn't end up protecting the wages of the drivers. They ended up protecting the rights of the 'plate owners', who, having too much cash, used taxi plates as an investment and rented out the taxis to drivers on a nightly basis often for half cash. Which makes taxi drivers do anything for cash over recorded transactions. The whole system is crooked, even today.
- NamTaf 3y ago
  I'm not wondering why it's illegal for me to start a fly-by-night taxi business because I understand that the regulation was developed over a long time to avoid dodgy drivers who'd scam passengers or worse. 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.
- EarthMephit 3y ago
  I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers. > 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?
  - lannisterstark 2y ago
    Except in this case you can't start that business without getting arrested. You can still get a license without getting arrested. 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?
protocolture 3y ago
Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it no longer was. >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.
- aragilar 3y ago
  Given uber developed software to block the regulator from regulating (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/10912940 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/109129... and links therein), I'm not sure they can have said to have any moral ground in this. 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-taxi-industry27s-uber-style-ihail-app/6847584 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    They don't need moral ground just agency to act against the greater evil.

lannisterstark 3y ago

>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?

jazzyjackson 3y ago
do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?
- protocolture 3y ago
  Just the ones designed to protect cabcharges monopoly.
- abigail95 3y ago
  if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums. those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  Giving certain monopolies complete control over the industry and not letting competition in which drives down the prices for consumers is anything but "protecting workers' wages." You don't work if you are getting 0 rides because they're too expensive for end-user. What wages?
- johngladtj 3y ago
  All the ones that restrict freedom without good reason
- mianos 3y ago
  The taxi laws didn't end up protecting the wages of the drivers. They ended up protecting the rights of the 'plate owners', who, having too much cash, used taxi plates as an investment and rented out the taxis to drivers on a nightly basis often for half cash. Which makes taxi drivers do anything for cash over recorded transactions. The whole system is crooked, even today.
NamTaf 3y ago
I'm not wondering why it's illegal for me to start a fly-by-night taxi business because I understand that the regulation was developed over a long time to avoid dodgy drivers who'd scam passengers or worse. 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.
EarthMephit 3y ago
I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers. > 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?
- lannisterstark 2y ago
  Except in this case you can't start that business without getting arrested. You can still get a license without getting arrested. 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?

protocolture 3y ago

Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it no longer was. >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.

aragilar 3y ago
Given uber developed software to block the regulator from regulating (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/10912940 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/the-uber-story/109129... and links therein), I'm not sure they can have said to have any moral ground in this. 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-taxi-industry27s-uber-style-ihail-app/6847584 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/accc-blocks-launch-of...), I think uber should also be able to be regulated.
- protocolture 3y ago
  They don't need moral ground just agency to act against the greater evil.