> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences.
I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences.
One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently.
If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties).
BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone.
Many questions here:
What is "the rule of law"?
When can or should laws be ignored?
Who decides?
If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today?
If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously?
Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population?
For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally?
Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for.
'Rule of law' generally refers more to how laws are written and interpreted in general, rather than whether they are enforced in one specific instance.[1] I would argue that the way Uber, AirBNB, and other similar companies are being treated is in violation of the 'rule of law'.
Why do employees, or contractors face more severe penalties (in proportion) than the company?
Uber hired these people, they should face big fines and losing business license. Hell even if they both are fine equally 100% off income for Uber drivers, and fined 100% income for the company as well.
Illegal immigration wouldn't happen if there were huge penalties against companies and or people hiring them.
Did Uber actually hire these people? My understanding is that Uber drivers do not enter an employee-employer relationship with Uber, at least in the US.
I'm from Norway, and e24 is credible enough in this particular case.
I'd like to shed some background on why the story, though: In Norway, transporting passengers is extremely regulated. As in most other countries, taxi drivers need to have a license, go through certain tests etc., to be allowed to transport passengers.
The problem is that Uber (in Norway) won't cooperate with the government in regards to a number of standards we have; it goes all from how the drivers are paid (taxation) to (more importantly) if the insurance covers any damages other than the car and/or its owner, not the passenger(s). Also, how well do Uber do background checks on their drivers? I guess it's easy to give a negative rating on a driver after you've been raped, or hit in the head with a hammer, but - hey - that could happen to anyone?
I've lived in San Francisco, and used Uber, and I must say that I feel a lot safer in a taxi. I know that their insurance will cover me in case something happens, even though my Norwegian travel insurance is worth more than gold in US hospitals (tried that, different discussion). I know that my taxi driver represents a company more than an Uber driver represents him-/herself.
Said that, I've met some fantastic Uber drivers over the years, and I hope that - over time - Uber (and the likes) and the licensed taxi/cab business can meet in the middle somewhere. The priority shouldn't be price, IMO, but the safety of the passengers AND the drivers.
Norwegian here. I belive that e24.no is highly credible, I have been reading it for a number of years. The news of the harsh penalties for these uber drivers have also been mentioned in the radio news.
Yeah, I understand not wanting Uber in your country and going after the company, but to hit bottom-tier employees is just wrong. Reminds me of the US justice system in the finance sector.
Norway considers them independent contractors? You would never require this of regular employees would you? You would hold the corporation responsible.
> You would never require this of regular employees would you? You would hold the corporation responsible.
Both would be responsible. Consider a truck driver without a driving license (at all), the company would probably be investigated for having a driver without a license, the driver would definitely be charged.
Regardless of contractor/employee status, there are additional requirements for commercial passenger transport besides having a Driver's License. Certainly drivers are responsible for compliance.
No, it's not. It's more like the US practice of charging people with a misdemeanor crime for selling insurance without a license, which can be levied even against someone selling insurance for a company . Zenefits employees, for instance, risked felony charges in some states and if the company had continued to do business that way I think it's plausible some would have been convicted. However Zenefits changed their leadership, publicly said it was wrong of them and that they wouldn't do it again. Uber has doubled down and said "nah mate we're cool what are you going to do about it". Surprise, the Norwegians are calling their bluff.
Except in this analogy the bank would be a rogue operation that deliberately and openly defies local law. And the teller would be someone who knowingly participates in breaking the law. So it's really more akin being a member of the mob.
because the bank management didn't follow the rules
In this analogy,
1. Does the bank teller understand that the rules aren't being followed?
2. Is the teller legally obliged to understand the rules?
If a bar-tender serves someone underage, the bar is liable, but so is the bar-tender. Bar-tenders are required to understand the rules (and ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not following the law).
you make it sound like that is an unfathomable reality to be used an analogy for how ridiculous the Uber scenario is, except that would be reality.
all banks operate under licensing regimes these days. if a legislature also decided to hold bank tellers personally liable because they were operating without a license personally or their organization wasn't, it would be the same. Does the Norwegian government do that? Well I wouldn't have been able to tell you they did that for taxi drivers there 5 minutes ago. The point is that its not actually far fetched.
Person A wants to go from point P1 to point P2. Person B offers to take person A via car ride in exchange for a commonly agreed amount of money. Both see the exchange as advantageous to themselves and the exchange is made.
Bureaucrats see this and become furious that they didn't get their share for doing nothing. Bureaucrats punish Person B.
It baffles me the amount of support in this threads for this totalitarian bullshit... i know we suppose to hate Uber but ultimately charging with criminal charges to the "users" aka "drivers" is huge mistake, it will be the equivalent of the US government asking you to paid all your earnings because ebay wasn't playing by the rules.
PS: On a side note, i will add Norway to the list of countries you shouldn't do business.
When Uber and its employees and/or contractors are intentionally and knowingly breaking criminal laws, then they are absolutely liable to criminal charges. They don't get to ignore laws they disagree with any more than any other citizen would. It would be unreasonable and unfair to assume otherwise.
[+] [-] robert_foss|9 years ago|reply
Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences.
[+] [-] rebootthesystem|9 years ago|reply
I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences.
One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently.
If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties).
BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone.
Many questions here:
What is "the rule of law"?
When can or should laws be ignored?
Who decides?
If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today?
If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously?
Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population?
For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally?
Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for.
Complex subject, isn't it?
[+] [-] nickff|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
[+] [-] ryanmcdonough|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afinlayson|9 years ago|reply
Illegal immigration wouldn't happen if there were huge penalties against companies and or people hiring them.
[+] [-] chillacy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|9 years ago|reply
[Edit] Now, I have re-read looking for mistakes, it's obvious it's a translation. Still, it can rank as a weird english dialect written in a hurry.
[+] [-] Y_Y|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kqia040|9 years ago|reply
Edit: ironically a typo
[+] [-] tyingq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d33|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatwasunusual|9 years ago|reply
I'd like to shed some background on why the story, though: In Norway, transporting passengers is extremely regulated. As in most other countries, taxi drivers need to have a license, go through certain tests etc., to be allowed to transport passengers.
The problem is that Uber (in Norway) won't cooperate with the government in regards to a number of standards we have; it goes all from how the drivers are paid (taxation) to (more importantly) if the insurance covers any damages other than the car and/or its owner, not the passenger(s). Also, how well do Uber do background checks on their drivers? I guess it's easy to give a negative rating on a driver after you've been raped, or hit in the head with a hammer, but - hey - that could happen to anyone?
I've lived in San Francisco, and used Uber, and I must say that I feel a lot safer in a taxi. I know that their insurance will cover me in case something happens, even though my Norwegian travel insurance is worth more than gold in US hospitals (tried that, different discussion). I know that my taxi driver represents a company more than an Uber driver represents him-/herself.
Said that, I've met some fantastic Uber drivers over the years, and I hope that - over time - Uber (and the likes) and the licensed taxi/cab business can meet in the middle somewhere. The priority shouldn't be price, IMO, but the safety of the passengers AND the drivers.
[+] [-] thomasnno|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abrkn|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
[+] [-] zeveb|9 years ago|reply
And how cruel of the Norwegian Crown.
[+] [-] myowncrapulence|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleepybrett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustinmr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|9 years ago|reply
Both would be responsible. Consider a truck driver without a driving license (at all), the company would probably be investigated for having a driver without a license, the driver would definitely be charged.
[+] [-] mmarx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Flammy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scarblac|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trendia|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyasciiart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] this_user|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vkou|9 years ago|reply
Which is, in fact, exactly how we deal with organized crime. (The kingpins, if caught, will pay too.)
Just because Michael Corleone ordered a hit, generally doesn't mean that you get to keep whatever he paid you.
At least the drivers have legal recourse, in the form of suing Uber.
[+] [-] manarth|9 years ago|reply
1. Does the bank teller understand that the rules aren't being followed?
2. Is the teller legally obliged to understand the rules?
If a bar-tender serves someone underage, the bar is liable, but so is the bar-tender. Bar-tenders are required to understand the rules (and ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not following the law).
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elastic_church|9 years ago|reply
all banks operate under licensing regimes these days. if a legislature also decided to hold bank tellers personally liable because they were operating without a license personally or their organization wasn't, it would be the same. Does the Norwegian government do that? Well I wouldn't have been able to tell you they did that for taxi drivers there 5 minutes ago. The point is that its not actually far fetched.
[+] [-] itstrueok|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] holydude|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andrenth|9 years ago|reply
Bureaucrats see this and become furious that they didn't get their share for doing nothing. Bureaucrats punish Person B.
[+] [-] SadWebDeveloper|9 years ago|reply
PS: On a side note, i will add Norway to the list of countries you shouldn't do business.
[+] [-] manarth|9 years ago|reply
Do the US government ignore people who don't comply with online sales regulations, or do they charge them a penalty? [2]
The words 'eBay', or 'Uber', or 'Airbnb', or any other gig-economy organisation, do not provide a broad licence for legal non-compliance.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11077...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/22/irs-tax-audit-ebay-seller-...
[+] [-] rleigh|9 years ago|reply