As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the inside out?
As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic psychological bias (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding it back?
Huh? This has nothing to do with unions. DC does not have a particularly strong or notable union in the taxi industry. The lobbyists fighting Uber are almost certainly paid for directly by the small number of large cab corporations operating in DC--not a labor union.
I guess we can debate the merits of unions, but it has nothing to do with the fight over Uber in DC. The guy mentioned elsewhere in these comments who was arrested for trying to outright bribe the taxi commission? He wasn't a union boss, he was trying to buy favors for his own business.
The issue with Taxis, in particular, is that they need to be regulated in some way. When hiring a taxi consists of standing on the curb with arm extended, while someone ducks out of traffic to pick you up, there is very little negotiation that can be done. It makes sense that, within a city, the economics of a taxi transaction be defined in advance.
That said, I fully believe Uber should be allow to do its thing. A transaction initiated by Smartphone App allows the passenger sufficient ability to consent to whatever deviation from "standard" terms the driver may provide.
And you don't think corporations themselves lobby government entities? It is a little silly to generalize this down to unions. The problem is government influence, not who did the influencing.
There are legitimate reasons for the taxi regulations and the taxi monopoly.
Why does every article about some regulatory body/union overstepping have to turn into a platform for some aspie libertarian rant about regulation/unions in general?
This is why we can't have nice things. In Europe, people can complain about one bad union or one bad regulation without people turning it into a screed about unions or regulations in general.
In libertarianism, presumably labour unions are free to flourish and do what they like as organisations in a market free of government intervention.
Remember also that the history of labour unions predates their acceptance by government by a long margin. Trying to banish them or remove government support, or even as Adam Smith noted, making forming one a crime punishable by execution, does not seem to have stopped the formation of unions throughout history. So I don't think their existence is down to government, except in the reactive sense.
Reminds me of the gang theory of politics, that the definition of the government is whoever are the current most dominant gangsters. I find this is not necessarily a good general model, but for certain specific circumstances it can be pretty accurate.
As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night.
Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome.
By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them.
It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon that doesn't end up working out in their favor.
So Uber should pass out flyers to all competitors before it moves into a town?
As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem arbitrary and downright anti-competitive.
What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them."
I might understand if the Taxi drivers were fighting back using better business practices-cheaper prices, better marketing, actually being able to guarantee taxis, an iphone app of their own, etc.
In some places, such as Manhattan, taxis actually are better than Uber. Because the traffic in Manhattan is so high that it usually takes less time to hail a taxi than to wait for your Uber to arrive.
But in DC they're not. They're fighting back purely by trying to pass legislation to prevent better companies from offering a superior service. In those cases, the old, unreliable, inconvenient taxi industry 100% deserves to fall.
Isn't that what a disruptive business is all about? You can't replace an old business model with entrenched interests by asking "please" as far as I know...
It's not the fact that they are competing with Uber, it's how. If your way of dealing with a competing business is to pass laws that shut that business down to preserve a monopolistic system, instead of competing on price and quality of service, you are going to "look like the bad guys" no matter what. How would what the city and taxi drivers are doing look any better if they had done it a year ago? How could they have competed in a more reasonable way if they have started sooner?
Non-driver here, so I use taxis and private car services almost exclusively in northern California (My many thousands of trips over 10 years have probably moved from the class of "anecdote" into "data").
I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but fantastic for those who can afford it.
Uber is better than taxi's in many ways:
o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until they accept the trip.
o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are in the vehicle.
o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in 30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they are traveling.
o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on average
o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated.
o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles professional Sedans.
o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept it. Uber charges are identified before you book your trip.
o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10% surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your Smart Phone.
I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the vehicle is arriving.
On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand), which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get.
I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...) they are going to demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken.
My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions and the resistance to Uber in any particular market.
What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services.
The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .
Already had a taxi assuring me the trip from the airport to my place was well under $20, as I had only a $20 bill and no active credit card. I asked him before hand if he was absolutely sure and that I wouldn't be able to pay more. I had 30Kg of luggage so I figured it was a good idea.
When we reached $20 at 70% of the way, he said "so ill bring you to the nearest ATM and you'll pay the diff ok?". I said no. He opened the door. I walked home. With my 30Kg. Yay.
I'd certainly take a non-taxi company whenever I wanna be sure. Sorry for honest taxi drivers.
Excellent post. Perfect example of why government should have nothing to do picking winners and losers as they are doing with Uber. They are trying to protect the mediocre at best. I used to think that the US was about excellence. That striving to be the best at something was actually rewarded. This is one example of how government can interfere to the benefit of the incompetent rather than promoting progress.
As an aside, many of these things you describe licensed cabs doing (refusing to pick people up or drop them off certain locations) is illegal in DC. Perhaps the Taxi Commission would be better off enforcing the rules against its own cabs than trying to keep out competitors.
This is great run down of uber. Here in NYC, where cabs are much more common-place I still use uber from time to time. The thing is it's not meant to replace taxis, it's more of a luxury item than anything. When I can't find a cab or just would feel better hopping in a nicer car, I'll use uber to get somewhere. Not to mention that the drivers are more than happy to wait while I run in to a store to grab some beer or whatnot, whereas a cabby would never be ok with that. I'm very happy that they've been licensed in NYC, as it means they will be around for a while.
How is promoting the Uber model better for drivers, if it forces them to pick up customers that are located in places they would rather not drive to and forces them to destinations they would rather not drive to?
As long as Uber is proving a useful service in a lawful manner, not ripping people off, the the city should let the consumers decide whether they should stay in business.
If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.
The problem is that the DC cab industry was so corrupt that they ended up heavily regulated. Now those regulations do not allow them to do things that Uber does. The fix isn't to outlaw Uber, but to allow the taxis to compete in the same way.
Well if you are disrupting old established markets then they will have already coated themselves with political armor, that the livery business goes back several centuries its not surprising that this is so. That said, it would behoove more companies that are attacking such markets (music distribution, and publishing come to mind) have a person who does exactly this, they look at public policy and the way it is being manipulated by the 'competition' and work to counteract that manipulation. John Gage at Sun had the title Chief Science Officer but his day to day duties involved understanding government processes, political movers and shakers, and how those processes worked for, against, or neutral with respect to Sun's goals. He was instrumental in getting me access to the NSA when we wanted to ship strong encryption in an interpreted language.
Well, when you're doing things that violate the spirit of the law (if not the letter), I think it's probably wise to invest in some lawyers and lobbyists.
Taxi drivers are heavily regulated already, including rates, posted information, what they can and can’t do and in at least one case how they can bill/accept money. In Boston a taxi driver told me the city mandates they use a city provided credit card method that charges them 8% and holds the money for week.
I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will appreciate it.
If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a 'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow for more innovation for all.
I'm all for more efficiency, but can these companies who add more efficiency to the economy really suggest they are "creating 1000s of jobs." By definition, if you are making an industry more efficient aren't you taking away people's jobs?
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] confluence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
I guess we can debate the merits of unions, but it has nothing to do with the fight over Uber in DC. The guy mentioned elsewhere in these comments who was arrested for trying to outright bribe the taxi commission? He wasn't a union boss, he was trying to buy favors for his own business.
[+] [-] jowiar|13 years ago|reply
That said, I fully believe Uber should be allow to do its thing. A transaction initiated by Smartphone App allows the passenger sufficient ability to consent to whatever deviation from "standard" terms the driver may provide.
[+] [-] msbarnett|13 years ago|reply
But don't let the facts get in the way of your uninformed rant.
[+] [-] adestefan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alecdibble|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
Why does every article about some regulatory body/union overstepping have to turn into a platform for some aspie libertarian rant about regulation/unions in general?
This is why we can't have nice things. In Europe, people can complain about one bad union or one bad regulation without people turning it into a screed about unions or regulations in general.
[+] [-] chrischen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] molmalo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
Remember also that the history of labour unions predates their acceptance by government by a long margin. Trying to banish them or remove government support, or even as Adam Smith noted, making forming one a crime punishable by execution, does not seem to have stopped the formation of unions throughout history. So I don't think their existence is down to government, except in the reactive sense.
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-taxi-official-t...
I like the imagery of the murderous taxi kingpin driving a gold-painted Mercedes. (page 3)
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sudonim|13 years ago|reply
Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome.
By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them.
It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon that doesn't end up working out in their favor.
[+] [-] alecdibble|13 years ago|reply
As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem arbitrary and downright anti-competitive.
What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them."
[+] [-] SatvikBeri|13 years ago|reply
In some places, such as Manhattan, taxis actually are better than Uber. Because the traffic in Manhattan is so high that it usually takes less time to hail a taxi than to wait for your Uber to arrive.
But in DC they're not. They're fighting back purely by trying to pass legislation to prevent better companies from offering a superior service. In those cases, the old, unreliable, inconvenient taxi industry 100% deserves to fall.
[+] [-] jmvoodoo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathgladiator|13 years ago|reply
Isn't this what we want thou? Why ask for permission when asking for forgiveness is so much better?
As long as the offering is neither unsafe and done with customer obsession in mind, it should be a win.
[+] [-] netfire|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but fantastic for those who can afford it.
Uber is better than taxi's in many ways:
o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until they accept the trip.
o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are in the vehicle.
o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in 30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they are traveling.
o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on average
o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated.
o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles professional Sedans.
o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept it. Uber charges are identified before you book your trip.
o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10% surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your Smart Phone.
I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the vehicle is arriving.
On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand), which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get.
I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...) they are going to demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken.
My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions and the resistance to Uber in any particular market.
What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services.
The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .
[+] [-] zobzu|13 years ago|reply
When we reached $20 at 70% of the way, he said "so ill bring you to the nearest ATM and you'll pay the diff ok?". I said no. He opened the door. I walked home. With my 30Kg. Yay.
I'd certainly take a non-taxi company whenever I wanna be sure. Sorry for honest taxi drivers.
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmeckel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3143|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AustinLin|13 years ago|reply
If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.
[+] [-] adestefan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mh-|13 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/search?q=government+relations+firm
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tylermenezes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|13 years ago|reply
I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will appreciate it.
If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a 'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow for more innovation for all.
[+] [-] azarias|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EricDeb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]