French taxi drivers pulled out the throttle in an all-out confrontation with the ultra-cheap Uber car service Thursday, smashing livery cars, setting tires ablaze and blocking traffic during a nationwide strike that caught tourists and celebrities alike in the mayhem. — washingtonpost.com
Parisian taxi drivers have taken to the streets, smashing cars and burning tires to protest UberPop, a budget iteration of the car-sharing service akin to UberX in the States. Traffic came to a stop in the French capital, with reports of stranded travelers walking along the highway with luggage in tow, attempting to catch flights out of Charles de Gaulle airport. So far, 70 vehicles have been reported damaged around France and ten people arrested, according to the AP report.
One passenger caught in Thursday's melee was the singer Courtney Love, who tweeted throughout the experience. Love was able to escape via two men passing by on a motorcycle.
Over the past few weeks, taxi drivers have turned increasingly violent in their opposition to the car-sharing service, which they contend unfairly undercuts their business. Unlike Uber drivers, taxi drivers have to pay tens of thousands of euros for certification each year. Drivers are also frustrated by passenger complaints over a lack of tech-integration.
The French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve met with taxi unions and called for an immediate shutdown to UberPop services in France. Despite court rulings earlier this year and last banning the service, UberPop has continued to operate. The head of UberFrance, Thibaud Simphal went on the radio telling drivers "to continue," asserting that French law "has not demanded that UberPop be forbidden."
This is not the first time that Uber has drawn the ire of taxi drivers and government officials. The tech company is known for flouting laws and has been temporarily suspended from operating in Spain, while a Dutch judge ordered UberPop to stop in the Netherlands.
171 Comments
These idiots are rioting because there is a more competitive product on the shelves that people like better than their shitty cabs...what the fuck is wrong with these entitled shit heads...
jla-x, the competitiveness of the new product is only possible due to the workers not being paid a living wage and the consumers not having any protections base on liability. Is that the world you want to live in?
Donna, The drivers live on tips for the most part... not all that different from waiters... From what I have heard they make pretty good money...certainly more than min wage.
So far, all those photos look they could be from a birthday party at Courtney Love's house.
Does Uber operate differently in France than in the US? In the US Uber does not expect anyone to tip. It's a cashless operation. Also, I know a couple people here in LA that have been driving for Uber making a pretty decent living.
The way I've perceived this problem is that the Taxi system is archaic, and Uber is disrupting the system and taking advantage of an opportunity to offer something much better for workers and commuters. From what I've read, however, there have been a lot of growing pains.
Though most taxi drivers in Paris were quite nice to us during out last visit to Paris, they need to deal with this new system of crowdsourced transit. It is going to happen no matter what.
Paul, not sure but I always tip them...I assume most people do but not sure...Anyway, technology changes things... Sucks for people who are losing money, but thats the way things work in a capitalist society...Did video stores riot when red box or netflix came out? Have you noticed that all the factory assembly lines are being done by robots now? Imo at least actual people are still making money rather than just being replaced by automation...that may change too in 20 years when the self driving cars are out.
Did anyone see the Southpark episode where Timmy started an Uber like business with his wheel chair?
^I was totally just thinking "what about when google just takes over the whole biz with it's self driving cars?"
The problem is a difficult, but solvable one, cabbies typically pay a ridiculously high fee for their medallion/license - $250k and up - and they have to take special tests. So this is why the riots, people who are just scraping by, fighting off a sharing economy that typically favors a certain class of people. I mean you know it's not some french-type-person driving a Yugo 45 giving you a ride to Montparnase.
I've just recently used Uber for the first time in NYC, and it seems as though the livery services also have Uber as part of their model.
Paul, I'm not against the ride-share, self-employment model of car ownership in theory. But I have two large issues with it:
1. Selfishly, I've been told over and over, for 48 years, never ever get in the car with a stranger. I was too young to experience the fun and freedom of hitchhiking in the 60s and 70s, so while it has a definite romance, my generation of women has been taught that getting into a car with a stranger is "asking for it". I can't even get into the gender politics of women "asking for it" whenever we choose to exist because I'll have a rage stroke, but suffice to say the Uber experience for women is vastly different than it is for men, and Uber in particular has done a less than admirable job dealing with safety issues of its users (not only women, men get beat up too).
2. I'm personally a believer in the benevolent hand of a large entity being not only possible but positive. Uber and similar businesses do not offer any social welfare benefits for their drivers OR their users. If we lived in a country with universal health care, universal free education, and a Guaranteed Minimum Income, then working for someone like Uber (or on the other end of the scale, working freelance for a tiny company or a sole proprietor designer/artist, etc.) for additional income/personal growth/opportunities for advancement would all make more sense. For people barely holding on to subsistence let alone a good middle-class lifestyle, the numbers of which are growing every day, Uber represents a furthering of the trend of income inequality AND a lessening of general public safety that institutional oversight provides.
jla-x: Uber is a tip-free service, that's the entire point of it. It allows people the least amount of human interaction absolutely necessary, because having a one-on-one economic transaction with another human can be uncomfortable - which frankly points, again, to us becoming less of a communitarian society and more of a non-communicative collection of factions.
I'm all for disruption of unworkable systems, but not without completely understanding the benefits and detriments of both.
Donna, why are drivers signing up with Uber in France if, as you allege, they're getting so screwed by the bargain?
France has universal healthcare etc, as I understand? And a much broader social welfare net than the US? And perhaps being a little bit screwed by Uber is better than being totally screwed by some other employer? But shouldn't we as humans hope that none of our fellow humans should have to be screwed in the first place?
Look at it this way, Alternative (I'm assuming you're in the US): You can be paid a dollar an hour for your work as an architect, or you can be paid nothing. Which would you choose? Or are you allowed to say "neither of those is a good option"? I'm asking us to talk about much larger questions than "Hey, i can make ten bucks driving someone to the airport!"
The metaphor for Archinect would be allowing anyone to practice architecture.
Donna, I'm suggesting that if they're even driving for Uber, then they might not think it's such a bad deal.
Which is worse for the drivers? Making less money through Uber than would a licensed cabbie, or being shut out of the car service market altogether because of regulation (i.e. licensure/medallion requirements, or what have you)?
Alternative, the tradeoff to regulation is safety. And liability.
Regulation sucks for coal fired power plants. It doesn't suck for everyone who breathes the air on the same planet as the coal fired power plants.
As beta said, it's complex but solvable. Throwing our hands up and saying " Well never mind the dirty air, then, because rich people will always be able to afford gas masks!" is defeatist.
You realize that UberPop is a regulated entity, subject to French law, right? And how is Uber any less safe than traditional cabs?
Donna, you're describing a distinctly American version of Uber, but I still think some fact checking is necessary.
In my Canadian city uber drivers are required to hold $5M of commercial/personal liability insurance specifically for working for Uber. They also undergo the same level of police background/criminal checks as cab drivers. So if the two central ways of ensuring passenger safety are equal, it is unrealistic to say one is safer than the other. You don't actually know the cab driver you are getting in with any more than you know the uber driver, correct? These are not 'underground' cab drivers, they are explicitly answerable to a larger entity in Uber. It could be argued that Uber drivers are squeezing out the underground cabs more forcefully than any cab Union has done previously. I've had almost every female friend remark that they feel much safer ordering an uber from inside a bar and getting a notification when it is parked out front, rather than waiting on a streetcorner for 30minutes hoping to hail an open cab.
In terms of pay I believe the average pay is approximately in the $15/hr range depending on the working hours and city based inflations.
The main completely valid issue i se with this is the artificially low overheads that Uber can get away with by not paying any licensing fees. This needs to be addressed in some way to make an even playing field, and Uber needs a seat at the table when negotiating this with municipalities.
I've taken quite a few uber rides at this point and can't see myself ever taking another cab. The convince, experience, price difference, and quite frankly a much more secure feeling add up to make a much better experience than cabs. I love it, but I do acknowledge that it still needs some fine tuning. Even if that raises their prices as much as 10% I will still glDly take it.
Very well put, Ben, I'd only add one thing about licensing fees-- municipalities have enjoined Uber from operating for violation of licensing fee requirements.
Uber is just engaging in regulatory arbitrage—many other emerging companies are doing this (see, e.g, Airbnb), and municipalities are free to shape the rules of the game as they see fit.
If municipalities have a problem, the onus falls on them to stop it (and they have in the past, to be absolutely clear).
I have used Uber a few times, and as someone else also points out, there is nothing stopping tradition taxi drivers to be Uber drivers as well.
I live in LA, where the taxi drivers seem more of an organized crime ring than a public service, so I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Try getting a ride to LAX for $120, with the driver not knowing the directions to the airport.
That's a very helpful post, Ben, and yes I'm talking about Uber in the US.
I'll point out again though, that there are several levels of impact: Uber doesn't "employ" drivers in the US, the drivers are independent contractors. Which means the drivers don't get employment benefits, and also means users of the service have a very hard time holding Uber as an entity liable in an injury. This situation is great for some people, and lousy for others.
Lack of employment benefits is expensive in the long run for all of society, as are large entities that can't be held liable. there's a balance to be found, and a lot of this is growing pains, and I do think over time a lot of it will get worked out, hopefully to the benefit of more than just Uber's stockholders.
Let's be honest, the main problem affecting municipalities on this issue is that they want their licensing money. That's a valid concern, as cabs/transport services clearly run on municipal roads at a significantly higher rate than your average driver, so making a fee to contribute to higher ware is fair (in principle). When Uber can charge an arftificially low price by skipping this fee, that needs to be addressed. However, uber can legitimately cut out other huge parts of their overhead on the simple fact that it just works so damn well, autonomously.
Unfortunately, municipalities seem completely unwilling to address it one way or another with any conviction because of pressure from cab unions to outlaw the service altogether, which is completely rediculous. They seem to be defaulting to a policy of passive prescribed comments to satisfy the cab companies, while allowing uber to continue by minimal enforcement of bylaws. Why? Because they know public opinion heavily sides with uber.
Ride-share is here to stay. The rhetoric used by the cab Union in my city is nothing short of appalling - completely fabricated lies with no sources or facts cited. The local CBC station has no longer been giving their president any airtime because of this. They need to improve their service to win back customers instead of blaming technology.
But Donna, do cab drivers receive benefits beyond their regular pay? I'll take an educated guess that they do not. As much as possible, apples need to be compared to apples on this kind of debate.
I'll use this opportunity to take a free shot - that is Canucks are fortunate to have universal health care, so that is less of a concern here. Again that is the same for uber and cab drivers. The idea of benefits in the U.S. seems to be a very bizarre idea though, and I've never really understood those attitudes toward it to be totally honest. But that's an entirely separate debate that goes way beyond the cab/uber microcosm. It does raise the question, however - this specific article is focusing on literal riots by cabbies in France, which does have a fantastic social assistance net, well above that in the vast majority of other countries in the world...
I will say that it seems like the majority of uber drivers I've taken are not permanently uber drivers doing this as a career, but rather college students, etc, looking for an easy way to make some extra cash, primarily on weekend nights when cabs are notoriously scarce.
As a kid I remember a period in NY when cab drivers were being robbed and killed weekly. It was a really dangerous job. The cab industry was not this clean organization that took care of its workers. It was and still is a dirty and dangerous business. Uber seems to be less dangerous for a number of reasons...Mainly, they dont carry cash...and they are less visable which reduces the chance of being a tatget. Still, it is probably not the safest business, but that is the nature of it.... we are comparing it to the taxi business not the basket weaving business.
But, it is the taxi business - same with other "disruptive" businesses like airbnb - they've just figured out a way to avoid regulation, unions, rental laws, etc. Someone pays - it might not be the consumer, unless you get injured or sickened, but - somebody's paying for it, through lower wages, higher rents (as landlords skirt short-term rental laws and there are fewer available units), etc.
its much easier for a municipality and government to say NO than to go through the time consuming process of changing laws to adapt to a very fast changing market. when the agencies realize no amount of governance will help accumulate the necessary taxes for various programs they will find another way to tax. if the tax does not get approved then programs will be cut. and when programs get cut people will begin to notice and only then will the necessary regulations be not only voted in but also desired and enforced. so whatever.....we are in transition.
and courtney love....that CD landed in my car the other day...in my head - well i went to school,....., well I went to school in Olympia!
olympia....rockin' cabs to flames to this...word Nicholas...now some of the lyrics....
When I went to school in Olympia
Everyones the same
What do you do with a revolution?
When I went to school in Olympia
And everyones the same
We look the same, we talk the same
Well
You have people willing to drive, and you have people willing to pay to ride with them. Nobody is coercing anyone in this voluntary transaction.
EKE, You have people willing to drive because they don't have better options for employment. I'm linking to a Washington Post article that paints a pretty grim picture - $62,500 in fares becomes $27,000 after taxes, expenses, and Uber's cut. And, no benefits or sick days. Get a serious illness, and there's no safety net.
Uber is well known for being run by assholes. We need to be looking out for working people, not congratulating whiz-kids for their ability to create companies that skirt their civic duties - providing decent jobs and paying taxes (another thing that Uber is pretty good at avoiding.)
+++ anonitect
Uber is the WalMart of taxi services.
uber drivers are not working peoplle?
Kozumelle, I'm pretty sure capitalism is predicated on private property rights. Rioting, looting cabbies is not a natural consequence of capitalism.
anonitect, where do you go around making these blanket pronouncements that uber drivers can't find any other jobs? Do you have data or can you even flesh out some conjecture in support of that claim? And while we're at it, why are depictions of sexy female drivers somehow misogynist or assholish, as you seem to think?
Alternative - Would you accept work that payed you $27,000 a year and offered no benefits or job security? Would you feel comfortable posting pictures of your body online to get work?
this could just be a loosly regulated transition to driverless cars, then everyone will be out of work unless of course some hipster manages to make the craft of cab driving trendy.........in the future you will be able to choose between a google car or some bearded guy in suspenders driving a 70's Chevy Malibu that runs on grease oil or something. maybe you can get a shave while in the cab....
27k a year with no benefits is well above min wage in the us.
actually, its about double min wage...which is the real problem...
walmart of taxi services? some explanation is necessary i think.
Ford gets into the car-sharing business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/24/buying-a-car-could-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past-and-ford-is-desperate-to-find-whats-next/
As Olaf said, we're in transition. My few experiences with Uber have been good, personally. I'm just asking for a bigger picture view of this topic of transition: What are the pros and cons OVERALL to society to have more and more people be contract workers, not employees? How does it effect our tax structure?
And the reason I think more about it in specifically related to Uber is they honestly have a terrible, terrible corporate image. They've acted liked bullies from the beginning.
Anon - I wouldn't take the job, but that doesn't mean no one else would.
And just because I don't want to post photos of myself on the internet doesn't mean that many, many other's wouldn't jump at the opportunity (you're sounding a little prudish and puritanical).
You still haven't explained why these Uber drivers can't find ANY other jobs.
Donna, the workers are, themselves, taxed as contractors. What are your concerns about tax structure?
I'm also curious about your arguments with respect to liability; virtually all drivers are required to have some type of accident insurance here in the US. Have there actually been documented instances in which an Uber driver has been "judgment proof," such that an injured passenger has been unable to recover for injuries suffered?
The question of health insurance is a bit more prickly, and I hear you on that front, but it's only fair that you acknowledge that not all employers actually need to insure their employees (small businesses, for example), nor do larger employers need to pay entire premia (i.e., employees need to "pay in" as well).
from my experiance, being an employee sucks...and cash money is way more important than benefits when you are scraping by...And, taxi drivers are also not really employees in many/most cases...they too are contractors.
This is a case of professional protectionism...not too different from architecture
Alt.-
I didn't say that Uber drivers couldn't find any other jobs. I said that they didn't have better options. You know that the employment situation for (U.S.) workers without a college degree or a trade is pretty bleak, right?
People will "jump at the opportunity" to burn the insulation off of copper wire to sell for scrap if they don't have any other way to feed their families. You shouldn't be in business if you can't treat your workers decently - maybe being a taxi driver isn't so great, but a "disruptive" business needs to make things better, not worse.
The sexy French Uber driver thing is emblematic of a sick, misogynistic corporate culture - not just my opinion - see the link to Pando I posted above. One word: "Boober."
alternative the drivers do not buy "medallions" that is one type of tax on top of their income....a license or toll considered as a tax. (referening Dinnas comment and mine)
typo...not Dinna but Donna......licensing and tolls etc...are all part of the tax structure. they are avoiding a big part of it.
Alright, anon, so maybe those folks who wish to earn more should get a college degree or learn a trade. I don't understand what's so AWFUL about what Uber is doing, or what the company OWES them. We live in a competitive market, and Uber is providing consumers a service and allowing market participation to a larger segment of drivers. People USE the service because they WANT to use the service; they DRIVE for Uber because they want to make a buck this way instead of working at McDonald's, cleaning homes, what have you.
You say that companies shouldn't be "making things worse." How do you decide whether conditions are "better" or "worse"? I'm unclear how, as a whole, one could conclude that things haven't improved for consumers, at least. Whenever I visit San Francisco, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a yellow cab. Uber and Lyft , among other service providers, offer an alternative to get around.
Olaf - they're avoiding the tax because municipalities have exempted them from the tax. If the municipalities want to enforce it against them, let them (although let it be known that the PUBLIC has been pushing hard for Uber in cities where it was previously banned - food for thought).
The anti-Uber camp in this thread basically repeats these arguments that boil down to: Uber is bad because it bucks the current municipal regulatory scheme (all while presuming that the current regulatory scheme is inherently good or "correct").
Also, do we have data to show that conventional cabbies earn significantly more than their Uber counterparts?
Alt.-
"Maybe those folks should get a college degree" is an obscene argument, you must know that.
"People USE the service because they WANT to use the service"
We need think like citizens, not consumers. Consumers want cheap goods, and don't care where the costs associated with those low prices land - the environment, the children working in sweatshops in poor countries, or in this case, the ability of municipalities to raise the taxes they need to provide basic services (and the ability to regulate businesses) - who cares?
Citizens take responsibility for their actions, and make economic decisions based on what's best for their country and the world, knowing that if they're getting off cheap, someone is probably paying the price.
This is a good piece: Don't buy the 'sharing economy' hype: Airbnb and Uber are facilitating rip-offs
How is it obscene? I'm not trolling, I'm being dead serious—there's absolutely nothing self-evident in that assertion. I also don't think that getting a college degree is a panacea; people can also learn trades (yes, tradesmen these days often make more than white-collar professionals).
With respect to your argument about "citizenship" vs. "consumerism": good citizens are also honest about selfish human tendencies and are skeptical about the government's role in "correcting" those tendencies. To be clear, I'm not libertarian, and I'm not anti-regulation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.