It is a taxi owners licence. so why does a dispatch company hold those licenses when the drivers are the owners of the taxis?
Because they bought them, rather than the owners of the vehicles buying them.
Quote:
Why does anyone on a progressive board that values labour at least as much as capital even try to defend this?
I don't think anyone's saying it's better this way. But I assume the City's interest is primarily in ensuring a reasonable fleet of inspected and licenced taxicabs on the streets, rather than the relationship of a driver to the means of production.
As we've pretty much all agreed, making licences non-transferable would end the leasing of plates, but as long as they're transferable, whoever buys one can sell it, rent it, buy more, etc.
It is a taxi owners licence. so why does a dispatch company hold those licenses when the drivers are the owners of the taxis?
Because they bought them, rather than the owners of the vehicles buying them.
Quote:
Why does anyone on a progressive board that values labour at least as much as capital even try to defend this?
I don't think anyone's saying it's better this way. But I assume the City's interest is primarily in ensuring a reasonable fleet of inspected and licenced taxicabs on the streets, rather than the relationship of a driver to the means of production.
As we've pretty much all agreed, making licences non-transferable would end the leasing of plates, but as long as they're transferable, whoever buys one can sell it, rent it, buy more, etc.
No to the second part of your post, if the City wants to change that regime they can. It is a regulatory process the city governs. There would be a strong argument that they woudl have to buy them back and there woudl be a compromise amount (not required to be market rate) that they woudl have to pay.
Ok let me rephrase -- it was obvious but I will anyway.
So why SHOULD a dispatch company buy the licenses rather than have them purchased by the people who own the material capital asset being licensed -- the actual taxi. This is a centralization of power to capital rather than labour and that is why. People should not be defending that here.
if the City wants to change that regime they can. It is a regulatory process the city governs.
And I think we agree on this. Make plates non-transferable.
Quote:
There would be a strong argument that they woudl have to buy them back and there woudl be a compromise amount (not required to be market rate) that they woudl have to pay.
And I would argue that the very most the City should have to pay to a plate-owner is the cost that the City charges for a plate. It's really not the City's problem if a plate owner paid an inflated amount for one in the private market. If you own a plate and you'd like to recover what you paid for it, put it on a car and drive it. That's what the City issued the plate for in the first place, and the right to use that plate is all the City ever promised anyone.
Quote:
So why SHOULD a dispatch company buy the licenses rather than have them purchased by the people who own the material capital asset being licensed -- the actual taxi.
I'm not saying that they SHOULD. I'm saying that they CAN, and evidently some DID. And some plates bought in the private market were bought by actual drivers. The City can stop this by making plates non-transferable, but if they don't choose to do that, they can't really start deciding who can or cannot buy one. That's really not in the City's interest.
There's no reason to assume that every cabbie wants to own (and insure, maintain and refuel) the means of production. Lots of us are happy to show up to a building we don't own, sit down to someone else's desk, use their computer and phone, use some electricity they pay for, do our day's work and collect our pay. Why would cabbies be any different?
Note, too, that if owners of a cab -- let's assume a cabbie, who owns their own car and their own plate -- want to see a return on their investment, they're going to want that cab on the streets at all times. So even in a perfect world where every cabbie owns it all, s/he's still going to end up renting that cab+plate for half the time. That or let it sit in the driveway earning nothing while they sleep.
if the City wants to change that regime they can. It is a regulatory process the city governs.
And I think we agree on this. Make plates non-transferable.
Quote:
There would be a strong argument that they woudl have to buy them back and there woudl be a compromise amount (not required to be market rate) that they woudl have to pay.
And I would argue that the very most the City should have to pay to a plate-owner is the cost that the City charges for a plate. It's really not the City's problem if a plate owner paid an inflated amount for one in the private market. If you own a plate and you'd like to recover what you paid for it, put it on a car and drive it. That's what the City issued the plate for in the first place, and the right to use that plate is all the City ever promised anyone.
Quote:
So why SHOULD a dispatch company buy the licenses rather than have them purchased by the people who own the material capital asset being licensed -- the actual taxi.
I'm not saying that they SHOULD. I'm saying that they CAN, and evidently some DID. And some plates bought in the private market were bought by actual drivers. The City can stop this by making plates non-transferable, but if they don't choose to do that, they can't really start deciding who can or cannot buy one. That's really not in the City's interest.
There's no reason to assume that every cabbie wants to own (and insure, maintain and refuel) the means of production. Lots of us are happy to show up to a building we don't own, sit down to someone else's desk, use their computer and phone, use some electricity they pay for, do our day's work and collect our pay. Why would cabbies be any different?
Note, too, that if owners of a cab -- let's assume a cabbie, who owns their own car and their own plate -- want to see a return on their investment, they're going to want that cab on the streets at all times. So even in a perfect world where every cabbie owns it all, s/he's still going to end up renting that cab+plate for half the time. That or let it sit in the driveway earning nothing while they sleep.
Cab drivers rent plates paying more a month for the pleasure than the permanent licensing cost. I don't think there is a cabbie who would not want to be licenced by the city in this context.
The city has created these plates at very low rates. By creating an annual plate it stands to make a lot more money -- this would allow it to buy back at a higher price the ones out there to its own benefit.
As well a taxi license plate should be revoked if it is not being used.
But yes, I suspect we agree on the major stuff here.
Cab drivers rent plates paying more a month for the pleasure than the permanent licensing cost. I don't think there is a cabbie who would not want to be licenced by the city in this context.
Then they can put their name on the list, and wait until it's called.
OR, they can buy a plate in the private market, at market cost.
The person they're currently paying had to have done one or the other.
Quote:
The city has created these plates at very low rates.
That certainly confuses things somewhat, in the sense that the City charges far less for a plate than its market value. But as noted above, the City doesn't really "earn" more than what they charge in terms of services in exchange. As I understand it, the cost of a plate just subsidizes things like inspection and enforcement. It would be a bit unseemly for the City to charge $100,000 for one solely because an owner of one can also charge that in the private market.
Quote:
By creating an annual plate it stands to make a lot more money -- this would allow it to buy back at a higher price the ones out there to its own benefit.
It really doesn't need to "buy back" any plates. Presumably, even if plates are subject to an annual renewal fee, someone with a plate this year will get to keep it next year and the year after and so on (rather than having to apply for one each year, or take their chances with a lottery, or whatever).
And if the plates that were out there were sold as "forever" plates, I see no problem with the City honouring that. It's yours until you retire -- you can't sell it or lease it, but you can use it as long as you're still driving.
Quote:
As well a taxi license plate should be revoked if it is not being used.
I don't disagree. But I'm not aware of any not being used.
Both taxi drivers and Uber drivers are members of the class that's increasingly being called "the precariat"...it's just that driving a taxi is a little less precarious because there are a few rules and regulations imposed by municipal governments that provide some minimal safety rules and income.
For Uber drivers the rules are set by a $40 billion Silicon Valley venture capital corporation.
Cab drivers rent plates paying more a month for the pleasure than the permanent licensing cost. I don't think there is a cabbie who would not want to be licenced by the city in this context.
Then they can put their name on the list, and wait until it's called.
OR, they can buy a plate in the private market, at market cost.
The person they're currently paying had to have done one or the other.
Quote:
The city has created these plates at very low rates.
That certainly confuses things somewhat, in the sense that the City charges far less for a plate than its market value. But as noted above, the City doesn't really "earn" more than what they charge in terms of services in exchange. As I understand it, the cost of a plate just subsidizes things like inspection and enforcement. It would be a bit unseemly for the City to charge $100,000 for one solely because an owner of one can also charge that in the private market.
Quote:
By creating an annual plate it stands to make a lot more money -- this would allow it to buy back at a higher price the ones out there to its own benefit.
It really doesn't need to "buy back" any plates. Presumably, even if plates are subject to an annual renewal fee, someone with a plate this year will get to keep it next year and the year after and so on (rather than having to apply for one each year, or take their chances with a lottery, or whatever).
And if the plates that were out there were sold as "forever" plates, I see no problem with the City honouring that. It's yours until you retire -- you can't sell it or lease it, but you can use it as long as you're still driving.
Quote:
As well a taxi license plate should be revoked if it is not being used.
I don't disagree. But I'm not aware of any not being used.
Ok now this post has degenerated into circular blather ignoring what has already been said. Clearly you are arguing just to argue and have no interest in the topic so there is little point continuing. After all the only possible response to this other than letting it go is to remind you of what already has been said.
I'm at least interested enough to look into how it all works. You're interested enough to just assume the the City prefers to sell plates to some "cabal". I even asked you whether you found any support for that.
I'm at least interested enough to look into how it all works. You're interested enough to just assume the the City prefers to sell plates to some "cabal". I even asked you whether you found any support for that.
Well your interest does not go so far as representing the discussion accurately.
Show me where I speculated that the city "prefers to sell to a cabal."
I have said that in plates have been allowed to accumulate in the hands of a couple people who are also players in the market (there is a conflict there). I have said the effect is not equitable and that there are no more plated being issued. Now good luck demanding that I support something I have not said.
Show me where I speculated that the city "prefers to sell to a cabal."
OK, disqualified on a technicality. I should have written "cartel" not "cabal".
Still want to see what you said?
Check again -- that wasn;t the point.
I never said that the city had an intention or a preference. I said what happened -- the effect of actions.
What has happened is not a good thing but it evolved that way and they copied models from elsewhere. I have no evidence that this result is what they wanted or planned to have happen.
The city set the rules for the market and they are the ones that allow the plates to go to a small cartel. Essentially the city gives the paltes away to a small group who then lease or sell them at massive profit. The market for Cab drivers does not include plates at $600. The little guys had to buy from the cartel the city practically gave the plates to by the bundle.
Here's the best I've been able to find about how the City of Ottawa actually releases new plates (in this case, Accessible and Ambassador; no new Standard plates in a while).
Quote:
Accessible plates
City to issue 25 accessible plates
Plates to be issued by lottery / $1 per plate
All licensed drivers/taxicab owners are eligible subject to completion of Accessible Training Program
More than one driver per car permitted
Accessible vehicles can operate in all zones
Must initially use vehicle 2 model years or less
Accessible plates are transferable and can be sold after 5 years in business
Ambassador plates
*City to issue up to 40 ambassador plates annually to a maximum of 1/668 population ratio
Plates to be issued by lottery
Only drivers that have been licensed 5 years, do not own a plate and complete the ambassador training program are eligible
Only one driver per car
Must initially use vehicle 2 model years old or less
Plates are not transferable and are returned to City when the ambassador plate holder leaves business
All bolding above is mine.
And I'm not saying any of this solely to bicker. It just seems like the City of Ottawa actually has a reasonably fair process that in and of itself -- notwithstanding a limit to the number of plates offered -- doesn't prevent a driver from becoming a driver-owner, nor seek to help someone acquire their 20th plate.
The city set the rules for the market and they are the ones that allow the plates to go to a small cartel. Essentially the city gives the paltes away to a small group who then lease or sell them at massive profit. The market for Cab drivers does not include plates at $600. The little guys had to buy from the cartel the city practically gave the plates to by the bundle.
Here's the best I've been able to find about how the City of Ottawa actually releases new plates (in this case, Accessible and Ambassador; no new Standard plates in a while).
Quote:
Accessible plates
City to issue 25 accessible plates
Plates to be issued by lottery / $1 per plate
All licensed drivers/taxicab owners are eligible subject to completion of Accessible Training Program
More than one driver per car permitted
Accessible vehicles can operate in all zones
Must initially use vehicle 2 model years or less
Accessible plates are transferable and can be sold after 5 years in business
Ambassador plates
*City to issue up to 40 ambassador plates annually to a maximum of 1/668 population ratio
Plates to be issued by lottery
Only drivers that have been licensed 5 years, do not own a plate and complete the ambassador training program are eligible
Only one driver per car
Must initially use vehicle 2 model years old or less
Plates are not transferable and are returned to City when the ambassador plate holder leaves business
All bolding above is mine.
And I'm not saying any of this solely to bicker. It just seems like the City of Ottawa actually has a reasonably fair process that in and of itself -- notwithstanding a limit to the number of plates offered -- doesn't prevent a driver from becoming a driver-owner, nor seek to help someone acquire their 20th plate.
Big capital knows it is on to something with the model. It is a perfect end run around workers rights and wage legislation. They will seek to loosen the rules and talk about freedom and all.
Artificial freedom is the new servitude. It won't go easily.
The ride-hailing service Uber is encouraging its drivers to continue operating in Quebec, even though its activities are illegal under a new law that came into effect last month.
In some cases, it has offered financial incentives for drivers to stay behind the wheel.
CBC News obtained messages an Uber representative sent in September to two different drivers who were seeking to clarify whether they could legally pick up clients.
Amid confusion among Uber drivers about changing taxi-industry regulations, Uber told one driver on Sept. 16: "For the moment, you can continue driving as an Uber Quebec partner-driver as usual."
But under a law passed last June, which went into effect on Sept. 8, Uber drivers face steep fines and the seizure of their vehicles if they continue to offer rides through the app.
So how much longer before Uber bites the dust as people working for them, these self-employed contractors are making less than minimum wage. What a miserable contribution to society Uber has been.
I'm skeptical about this whole for profit share industry.
Airbnb is proably contributing to a real estate bubble. Some people have no idea how much damage to a dwelling one person can do in a very short period of time.
Good riddence. Winnipeg is thinking of inviting them in. I guess Uber was good in pushing long-standing firms to update their service platforms but I'm sure they would have gotten there soon enough regardless.
I guess Uber was good in pushing long-standing firms to update their service platforms but I'm sure they would have gotten there soon enough regardless.
I'm kind of curious here. Which "long-standing" firms, and when would be "soon enough"? Do you mean existing taxicab companies?
Uber said Tuesday that it had made a mistake in the way it calculated its commissions, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars to its New York drivers, and the company vowed to correct the practice and make the drivers whole for the lost earnings.
Bonny's & Queen City Taxi are affiliated companies servicing the lower mainland of British Columbia, Canada. They provide taxi services, delivery services, roadside assistance and tourism services for Burnaby and New Westminster via automated dispatch systems.
The B.C. Green Party announced Monday it will introduce legislation to enable ride-hailing services this fall — putting the pressure on the NDP government to come up with a more specific timeline regarding the popular online applications.
Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Greens, said he wants to see the government take a proactive response to technology, pointing out Vancouver is the largest city in North America without ride-hailing.
"The government cannot stick its head in the sand when it comes to new technology," he said.
What's the difference between 'ride hailing' and taxicab'? One operates outside the law, doesn't comply with safety and insurance regulations, and doesn't provide transportation for the physically handicapped.
Well, there's another interesting difference. Municipalities arbitrarily restrict the number of taxicabs, which is why a taxicab license that originally sells for one or two thousand bucks can be resold for a hundred times that amount.
If lots of people want to open up an IT consultancy, or sell Avon, or become a contractor, or whatever, they're free to, and it's assumed that if too many try, market forces will weed out the worst and reward the best. But when it comes to driving someone around in a car, you need to either win a lottery to get a license, or outbid someone else and buy a license from someone who won that lottery.
I think that's probably the biggest concern with Uber; it's not trying to gerrymander the market for rides, and it disrupts municipalities' attempts to do so.
Quote:
and doesn't provide transportation for the physically handicapped.
Well, there's no shortage of stories of licensed, legitimate taxicabs who mysteriously won't provide transportation for the "dark skinned". So it's not super clear how this licensing guarantees anyone a safe, clean, courteous ride.
As to the physically handicapped and taxis, the City of Vancouver mandates that a certain number of taxis are able to deal with people in wheelchairs. This usually means a van (Toyota van, etc.) that is equipped with a lift, and the necessary securing features inside.
Uber doesn't offer any of that.
And Uber is still a taxi company, however you dresss it up.
Uber has been stripped of its London licence in a surprise move that has triggered an outcry from drivers at the ride-hailing company and Conservative politicians.
The firm’s application for a new licence in London was rejected on the basis that the company is not a “fit and proper” private car hire operator.
It`s not often I agree with Montreal mayor Denis Coderre, but I do in this case. Uber has threatened to leave the province of Quebec because the government passed a law requiring 35 hours of training and police security checks for drivers.
“I don’t care,” Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal, told BNN news channel. “Frankly we need to have some regulation, and if they threaten to leave I don’t care.”
Uber had special team to obstruct legal cases and spy on rivals, court told
Ex-employee says unit worked to ‘impede, obstruct or influence’ investigations
Uber-Waymo trial delayed after revelations Uber withheld evidence
Uber was sued by Google’s self-driving car spinoff Waymo in February, alleging that the ride-hail company stole trade secrets. Photograph: Gene J. Puskar/AP
Uber had a team of employees dedicated to spying on rival companies and “impeding” legal investigations into the company, a former employee testified in federal court Tuesday.
Because they bought them, rather than the owners of the vehicles buying them.
I don't think anyone's saying it's better this way. But I assume the City's interest is primarily in ensuring a reasonable fleet of inspected and licenced taxicabs on the streets, rather than the relationship of a driver to the means of production.
As we've pretty much all agreed, making licences non-transferable would end the leasing of plates, but as long as they're transferable, whoever buys one can sell it, rent it, buy more, etc.
No to the second part of your post, if the City wants to change that regime they can. It is a regulatory process the city governs. There would be a strong argument that they woudl have to buy them back and there woudl be a compromise amount (not required to be market rate) that they woudl have to pay.
Ok let me rephrase -- it was obvious but I will anyway.
So why SHOULD a dispatch company buy the licenses rather than have them purchased by the people who own the material capital asset being licensed -- the actual taxi. This is a centralization of power to capital rather than labour and that is why. People should not be defending that here.
So it is wrong AND it can be fixed.
And I think we agree on this. Make plates non-transferable.
And I would argue that the very most the City should have to pay to a plate-owner is the cost that the City charges for a plate. It's really not the City's problem if a plate owner paid an inflated amount for one in the private market. If you own a plate and you'd like to recover what you paid for it, put it on a car and drive it. That's what the City issued the plate for in the first place, and the right to use that plate is all the City ever promised anyone.
I'm not saying that they SHOULD. I'm saying that they CAN, and evidently some DID. And some plates bought in the private market were bought by actual drivers. The City can stop this by making plates non-transferable, but if they don't choose to do that, they can't really start deciding who can or cannot buy one. That's really not in the City's interest.
There's no reason to assume that every cabbie wants to own (and insure, maintain and refuel) the means of production. Lots of us are happy to show up to a building we don't own, sit down to someone else's desk, use their computer and phone, use some electricity they pay for, do our day's work and collect our pay. Why would cabbies be any different?
Note, too, that if owners of a cab -- let's assume a cabbie, who owns their own car and their own plate -- want to see a return on their investment, they're going to want that cab on the streets at all times. So even in a perfect world where every cabbie owns it all, s/he's still going to end up renting that cab+plate for half the time. That or let it sit in the driveway earning nothing while they sleep.
Cab drivers rent plates paying more a month for the pleasure than the permanent licensing cost. I don't think there is a cabbie who would not want to be licenced by the city in this context.
The city has created these plates at very low rates. By creating an annual plate it stands to make a lot more money -- this would allow it to buy back at a higher price the ones out there to its own benefit.
As well a taxi license plate should be revoked if it is not being used.
But yes, I suspect we agree on the major stuff here.
Then they can put their name on the list, and wait until it's called.
OR, they can buy a plate in the private market, at market cost.
The person they're currently paying had to have done one or the other.
That certainly confuses things somewhat, in the sense that the City charges far less for a plate than its market value. But as noted above, the City doesn't really "earn" more than what they charge in terms of services in exchange. As I understand it, the cost of a plate just subsidizes things like inspection and enforcement. It would be a bit unseemly for the City to charge $100,000 for one solely because an owner of one can also charge that in the private market.
It really doesn't need to "buy back" any plates. Presumably, even if plates are subject to an annual renewal fee, someone with a plate this year will get to keep it next year and the year after and so on (rather than having to apply for one each year, or take their chances with a lottery, or whatever).
And if the plates that were out there were sold as "forever" plates, I see no problem with the City honouring that. It's yours until you retire -- you can't sell it or lease it, but you can use it as long as you're still driving.
I don't disagree. But I'm not aware of any not being used.
Both taxi drivers and Uber drivers are members of the class that's increasingly being called "the precariat"...it's just that driving a taxi is a little less precarious because there are a few rules and regulations imposed by municipal governments that provide some minimal safety rules and income.
For Uber drivers the rules are set by a $40 billion Silicon Valley venture capital corporation.
Ok now this post has degenerated into circular blather ignoring what has already been said. Clearly you are arguing just to argue and have no interest in the topic so there is little point continuing. After all the only possible response to this other than letting it go is to remind you of what already has been said.
I'm at least interested enough to look into how it all works. You're interested enough to just assume the the City prefers to sell plates to some "cabal". I even asked you whether you found any support for that.
Well your interest does not go so far as representing the discussion accurately.
Show me where I speculated that the city "prefers to sell to a cabal."
I have said that in plates have been allowed to accumulate in the hands of a couple people who are also players in the market (there is a conflict there). I have said the effect is not equitable and that there are no more plated being issued.
Now good luck demanding that I support something I have not said.
OK, disqualified on a technicality. I should have written "cartel" not "cabal".
Still want to see what you said?
Check again -- that wasn;t the point.
I never said that the city had an intention or a preference. I said what happened -- the effect of actions.
What has happened is not a good thing but it evolved that way and they copied models from elsewhere. I have no evidence that this result is what they wanted or planned to have happen.
Okay, but here's what you said:
Here's the best I've been able to find about how the City of Ottawa actually releases new plates (in this case, Accessible and Ambassador; no new Standard plates in a while).
All bolding above is mine.
And I'm not saying any of this solely to bicker. It just seems like the City of Ottawa actually has a reasonably fair process that in and of itself -- notwithstanding a limit to the number of plates offered -- doesn't prevent a driver from becoming a driver-owner, nor seek to help someone acquire their 20th plate.
ed'd to add: and an interesting article about Toronto cabs.
These are not regular cabs
What a fucking mess
https://www.fastcompany.com/3042248/the-gig-economy-wont-last-because-it...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/uber-class-action-lawsuit-new-york
Gig will not be up for the gig economy.
Big capital knows it is on to something with the model. It is a perfect end run around workers rights and wage legislation. They will seek to loosen the rules and talk about freedom and all.
Artificial freedom is the new servitude. It won't go easily.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/uber-paying-its-drivers-to-flout-... paying its drivers to flout Quebec law[/url]
The free market. I love it. Yes I do.
We have a canadidate in our municipal election who just came out in support of this too "because it is what the people want".
Even though it has not been established that they do.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/uber-loses-london-law...
"I don't need a ride to Vichy"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/29/why_users_deleted_uber...
Meanwhile, Lyft donated $1 million to the ACLU.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-02/uber-to-pay-7-75-mill...
Uber CEO bows out of Trump connection after users' boycott
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/travis-kalanick-delet...
Somebody give me a good reason why I should need anybody's permission to exchange rides for cash on a "ride at your own risk" basis.
Let's start with insurance.
Then there's the little matter of income taxes.
With Mercedes Benz now in their fleet car2go will do some serious busines
https://www.car2go.com/CA/en/joincar2go/?cid=c2g_ola_ca_yvr_cpm_joinc2g_...
In Silicon Valley, a Voice of Caution Guides a High-Flying Uber
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/technology/bill-gurley-uber-travis-ka...
Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting, citing differences over ‘beliefs and approach to leadership’
He is leaving after apparently deciding the current controversies are too much to handle.
http://www.recode.net/2017/3/19/14976110/uber-president-jeff-jones-quits
Riding With the Underdogs: Apps Fill a Void Left by Uber and Lyft
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/personaltech/south-by-sout...
Uber executives defend embattled CEO in latest damage-control effort
Board member Arianna Huffington and other executives repeatedly said they support Travis Kalanick despite weeks of turmoil and public relations crises
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/21/uber-ceo-travis-kalan...
So how much longer before Uber bites the dust as people working for them, these self-employed contractors are making less than minimum wage. What a miserable contribution to society Uber has been.
CAN UBER BE SAVED FROM ITSELF?
‘They have dug themselves a very deep hole’
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/6/14791080/uber-sexism-scandal-strike-way...
I'm skeptical about this whole for profit share industry.
Airbnb is proably contributing to a real estate bubble. Some people have no idea how much damage to a dwelling one person can do in a very short period of time.
Going, going, .........
How Uber lost its way in the Steel City
The relationship between Uber and city mayor sours.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/uber-pittsburgh-city-mayors-237772
Good riddence. Winnipeg is thinking of inviting them in. I guess Uber was good in pushing long-standing firms to update their service platforms but I'm sure they would have gotten there soon enough regardless.
I'm kind of curious here. Which "long-standing" firms, and when would be "soon enough"? Do you mean existing taxicab companies?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/hong-kong-cops-arrest-21-uber-driv...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/economy/uber-drivers-tax.html?emc=edit_nn_20170524&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=77748371&te=1
http://www.bonnystaxi.com/defaultx.htm
Green Party hits the accelerator on ride-hailing, will introduce legislation this fall
Well, the Greens' support surely had a price.
What's the difference between 'ride hailing' and taxicab'? One operates outside the law, doesn't comply with safety and insurance regulations, and doesn't provide transportation for the physically handicapped.
Well, there's another interesting difference. Municipalities arbitrarily restrict the number of taxicabs, which is why a taxicab license that originally sells for one or two thousand bucks can be resold for a hundred times that amount.
If lots of people want to open up an IT consultancy, or sell Avon, or become a contractor, or whatever, they're free to, and it's assumed that if too many try, market forces will weed out the worst and reward the best. But when it comes to driving someone around in a car, you need to either win a lottery to get a license, or outbid someone else and buy a license from someone who won that lottery.
I think that's probably the biggest concern with Uber; it's not trying to gerrymander the market for rides, and it disrupts municipalities' attempts to do so.
Well, there's no shortage of stories of licensed, legitimate taxicabs who mysteriously won't provide transportation for the "dark skinned". So it's not super clear how this licensing guarantees anyone a safe, clean, courteous ride.
As to the physically handicapped and taxis, the City of Vancouver mandates that a certain number of taxis are able to deal with people in wheelchairs. This usually means a van (Toyota van, etc.) that is equipped with a lift, and the necessary securing features inside.
Uber doesn't offer any of that.
And Uber is still a taxi company, however you dresss it up.
Cabbies want support from B.C. NDP as Uber debate looms
Green Party plans to introduce ride-hailing legislation this fall
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-taxis-ride-hailing...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for-london-tfl?CMP=share_btn_tw
Uber sexism case: London-based female driver issues sex discrimination proceedings against taxi company
A London-based female Uber driver is issuing sex discrimination proceedings against the group
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-sexism-case-london-...
It`s not often I agree with Montreal mayor Denis Coderre, but I do in this case. Uber has threatened to leave the province of Quebec because the government passed a law requiring 35 hours of training and police security checks for drivers.
“I don’t care,” Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal, told BNN news channel. “Frankly we need to have some regulation, and if they threaten to leave I don’t care.”
How many unethical decisions does one organization have to make make before they are forced to go away and get lost!
Uber Paid Hackers to Delete Stolen Data on 57 Million People
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/uber-concealed-cybera...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/21/technology/uber-hacked-2016/index.html?a...
Uber had special team to obstruct legal cases and spy on rivals, court told
Uber was sued by Google’s self-driving car spinoff Waymo in February, alleging that the ride-hail company stole trade secrets. Photograph: Gene J. Puskar/AP
Uber had a team of employees dedicated to spying on rival companies and “impeding” legal investigations into the company, a former employee testified in federal court Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/28/uber-court-waymo-trad...
Pages