The Politicians' War on Uber

[Alan C.]

The Politicians' War on Uber

 

Hillary Clinton gave a speech warning that the new "sharing economy" of businesses such as the ride-hailing company Uber is "raising hard questions about workplace protections."

Democrats hate what labor unions hate, and a taxi drivers' union hates Uber, too. Its NYC website proclaims, "Uber has the money. But we are the PEOPLE!"

The taxi cartels, which provide inferior service and are micromanaged by government, don't like getting competition from efficient companies like Uber.

Clinton didn't mention Uber by name, but we don't have to wonder which company she meant. The New York Times reports that Clinton contacted Uber and told them her speech would threaten to "crack down" on companies that don't treat independent contractors as full employees. Apparently, Democrats think something's wrong if people are independent contractors.

But no driver is forced to work for Uber. People volunteer. They like the flexibility. They like getting more use out of their cars. It's win-win-win. Drivers earn money, customers save money while gaining convenience, and Uber makes money. Why does Clinton insist on interfering with that?

Clinton's "social democrat" pal, New York's Mayor Bill de Blasio, wants to crack down on Uber by limiting how many drivers they may hire. Uber cleverly responded with an app—a "de Blasio option"—that shows people how much longer they'd have to wait if de Blasio gets his way.

Good for Uber for fighting back. I wish more companies did.

Federal Express didn't.  

FedEx Ground classified drivers as independent contractors. Again, drivers were willing to drive, FedEx Ground was willing to pay, and customers got packages faster and more reliably than they did from the U.S. Postal Service.

But lawyers built a class action suit on behalf of FedEx drivers, saying they should be treated as employees, paying payroll tax, getting workman's compensation, receiving benefits. FedEx settled the case for $228 million and began abandoning its independent contractor system.

Uber's use of independent drivers—who use their own cars—is now called analogous to FedEx's use of delivery drivers.

That means Uber may soon have to treat its drivers as employees. Business analysts at ZenPayroll estimate that the changes will cost $209 million. We customers will pay for that, and we'll have fewer ride-share choices, too.

Lawsuits and politicians' attacks against one company have a chilling effect on others. The "independent contractor" assault will destroy all sorts of companies we'll never even know about because now they won't come into existence.

Some of the entrepreneurs who dreamed of starting them will look at the additional costs, crunch the numbers and decide there's not enough profit potential to risk investing their money.

Who knows what odd but popular sharing-economy innovations aren't happening even now—ones we'd use and love—because businesspeople with great ideas are frightened by the Clintons, deBlasios and lawyers?

In France, the old-fashioned cabbies rioted against Uber, blocking Uber cars and dropping rocks on them from a bridge. Instead of arresting rioters, the French government threatened to arrest Uber executives for breaking taxi rules. Once again, without even a new law directed specifically at Uber, the enemies of free choice got their way. Paris police have been ordered to forbid use of the Uber app.

 

Once again, the interloper assclowns are on a crusade to sabotage progress and innovation.

 

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard referred to the State as a, "...crippling and parasitic blight...upon the voluntary and productive social process."

[labmath2]

Stories like this suggest people are choosing government which makes it hard to call it the initiation of force.

[Anuojat]

It is amazing to the decree people will go to cry foul against progress if its hurts theyre short term interests.

 

And its equally asthunishing how government prevent competation by regulation then competation comes along and tries to provide better service and is attacked.

 

I am concerned that the next thing people/politicians will say is "cabals and monopolies are good for the people if its government granted."

 

The french situation almsot seems like people are demanding no competation and less choice to keep up the status quo.

 

 

Am i wrong here? Is it jsut minority of people here? Do majority in the france and US like uber?

[Alan C.]

Uber faces class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Ontario taxi drivers

 

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Uber and UberX on behalf of cab and limousine owners and drivers in Ontario.

The suit was filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

The plaintiff, Dominik Konjevic, is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages, $10 million in punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting UberX from continuing to operate in the province.

The lawsuit alleges Uber violated parts of the Highway Traffic Act, causing the plaintiff and others in the taxi industry to suffer damages.

. . .

"This protectionist suit is without merit," Uber said in a statement. "As we saw from a recent court ruling in Ontario, Uber is operating legally and is a business model distinct from traditional taxi services."

 

Protectionism is exactly what this is about.

[David Ottinger]

It is amazing to the decree people will go to cry foul against progress if its hurts theyre short term interests.

 

And its equally asthunishing how government prevent competation by regulation then competation comes along and tries to provide better service and is attacked.

 

I am concerned that the next thing people/politicians will say is "cabals and monopolies are good for the people if its government granted."

 

The french situation almsot seems like people are demanding no competation and less choice to keep up the status quo.

 

 

Am i wrong here? Is it jsut minority of people here? Do majority in the france and US like uber?

 

 

Re highlighted text.

 

 

They pretty much already say that.  They call them natural monopolies.  To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single monopoly that has risen due to market forces.   In other words, it is fundamentally impossible to trade your way into a monopoly.   Monopolies are a direct or indirect product of state intervention, i.e. protectionism, in the economy.    The so called natural monopolies are examples of the former.  Or, you can look at Cornelius Vanderbilt's steamboat case to find an example of exclusivity granted to a select few.   And, the best example of a monopoly arise via indirect means would be Rockefeller's so called monopoly.

 

 

Or better said, monopolies arise due to NAP violations or violations of the Principle of Equal Consideration (contract theory).  Any violations of these 2 principles between exchanging parties, and you cease to have an act of trade.  Instead, you would have fraud, theft, or extortion. 

[fractional slacker]

Salon.com ,along with most lefty outfits, has entire departments dedicated to smearing UBER or any business not paying liberal extortion fees and touting the big government mantra. It's quite interesting to watch.

This is their typical line of "thinking." If a business isn't fighting against racism and sexism, it can't be a good business. That's Salon's idea journalistic integrity.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/23/progress_isnt_always_progressive_what_ubers_celebrity_defenders_dont_understand/
 

[Anuojat]

Salon.com ,along with most lefty outfits, has entire departments dedicated to smearing UBER or any business not paying liberal extortion fees and touting the big government mantra. It's quite interesting to watch.

 

This is their typical line of "thinking." If a business isn't fighting against racism and sexism, it can't be a good business. That's Salon's idea journalistic integrity.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/23/progress_isnt_always_progressive_what_ubers_celebrity_defenders_dont_understand/

 

 

 

Sounds to me like good old puritan/christian ostrcism and shaming of certain people who DONT do something instead of doing something

[hannahbanana]

I recently heard that traffic in NYC doubled after Uber began operating there, making it take much longer to get where you want to go. In my mind, it makes sense that this sort of behavior would lead to basically a self-regulation of the business, without needing any government intervention. That is, if they have the patience for it

[shirgall]

I recently heard that traffic in NYC doubled after Uber began operating there, making it take much longer to get where you want to go. In my mind, it makes sense that this sort of behavior would lead to basically a self-regulation of the business, without needing any government intervention. That is, if they have the patience for it

 

Traffic doubled in NYC in February 2015 when Uber opened service... right after one of the worst freezes in a while (freezing temperatures every night, and over a week of highs below freezing from the 13th through the 21st). Not many people like to walk in that crap.

[hannahbanana]

Traffic doubled in NYC in February 2015 when Uber opened service... right after one of the worst freezes in a while (freezing temperatures every night, and over a week of highs below freezing from the 13th through the 21st). Not many people like to walk in that crap.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Not to mention a possible opening rush sort of thing where you first hear about it, get really excited to use it (even more so if the weather is bad), then after the excitement fades you have some time you evaluate the pros and cons. Kind of like Craigslist.

So it seems even more flawed to assume the initial trend is a fair representation of the entire life of the business, and rush in to make unnecessary regulations

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

''In France, the old-fashioned cabbies rioted against Uber, blocking Uber cars and dropping rocks on them from a bridge. Instead of arresting rioters, the French government threatened to arrest Uber executives for breaking taxi rules. Once again, without even a new law directed specifically at Uber, the enemies of free choice got their way. Paris police have been ordered to forbid use of the Uber app.''

 

I reckon I never knew the humans on this planet. I don't have a home, I don't have a group almost all the minds and lands are taken by bs ( so much for NAP). I'm sitting here doing stuff, but I know how it could be better, I know this isn't my highest state of being.

[Alan C.]

Australia faces nationwide taxi driver strikes in protest against Uber
 

Australia has become the latest country to see mass protests from its taxi drivers calling for ride-sharing service Uber to either face the same regulations they do or be banned outright.

Around 400 drivers rallied on the steps of Victoria's state parliament in Melbourne on Thursday demanding the government crack down on Uber, which they say is an illegal, unregulated service.

[Anuojat]

Australia faces nationwide taxi driver strikes in protest against Uber

 

 

Same old shit. People respond to incentives and want violance to be used if it aids them in the process.

 

Or to put it another way: "My busness is in danger of goign under because you provide better service. Stop being nice to my girlfriend she is thinking of leaving me."

[AccuTron]

I recently heard that traffic in NYC doubled after Uber began operating there, making it take much longer to get where you want to go. In my mind, it makes sense that this sort of behavior would lead to basically a self-regulation of the business, without needing any government intervention. That is, if they have the patience for it

Doubled?  Sounds like a lot, however subjective the origin of the claim.  If Uber customers are replacing taxis, it sounds like it would be one for one, and no increase in real traffic.  Unless the taxis are able to stay occupied, in which case it doesn't sound like a competition problem.  

[Aether]

China has banned Uber (typical).

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-china-ban-2015-1

[Alan C.]

Public Utility Commission fines Uber $50 million for defying regulators’ authority

 

A pair of Pennsylvania judges on Tuesday recommended a massive $50 million fine against ride-sharing company Uber for operating in the state without a license and for resisting the state Public Utility Commission’s efforts to obtain information about how many rides Uber has provided in the state.