Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice.
If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law.
Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers.
I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice.
So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that.
And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.
Just to add a little bit more context. In Italy there were already Uber like services before Uber came: they are called "Radio Taxi".
These services are mostly based on traditional call centers but , at least in the last two years in Milan and Rome, you can order and pay a ride also with a mobile app.
And guess what? These are not breaking the Italian law and can operate without any trouble.
It's true for many countries, I understand Uber became useful because it was difficult to get taxi in U.S but they are trying to solve problem ma that don't exist in other countries. The only thing they offer is how to avoid legislation, paying taxes, etc.
The other thing that Uber has offered (in general) is more polite drivers. Likely because of the rating system. Taxi drivers, at least in the US, always acted like you should be grateful they even stopped to let you pay for a ride.
In many places in Europe there are apps to hail legal taxis, with the rating system as well. To make it even funnier, in some of these places the taxis hailed by an app are significantly cheaper than Uber. The only reason anyone would ever use Uber in e.g. Dublin is being unaware of Hailo.
The problem with rating systems for traditional taxi-services is that they are most often without effect. There is no penalty or change if a driver is rated badly.
Actually it's not the case. Not only drivers have to have a good rating to get rides off-peak, the app operator also serves as an effective complaint outlet. I've heard of cases of people complaining to Hailo about a bad ride and getting their money back. I guess the taxi drivers accept to pay back, because it's still better than losing all these future rides.
> always acted like you should be grateful they even stopped to let you pay for a ride.
You have my upvote for saying it.
I usually don't use taxi in Italy because of the inability of the driver to shut the f*ck up when they are driving.
Last time I took one to go back home with my girlfriend and this driver talked to us for half an hour of a conspiracy theory about the Fukushima accident being the result of Japan not allowing some US investment fund to enter their market...
Is your comment saying this is because they are Italian, whereas Uber is not?
If so that comparison isn't apt. Those apps would summon licensed drivers and the payments would be set by the driver based on the meter or the pre-arranged price. Like a card machine.
I think the situation about taxi services in Italy is absolutely peculiar.
Facts:
- Licenses are granted by the government and in theory they could not be sold. There are some loopholes in the legislation that make this possible. No government has never tried to fix this. In fact, a license in a big city like Rome is normally sold at around 200k Euros.
- By acquiring a licence, a driver can easily make in big cities between 3-4k euros net (I know people who own taxi licenses). Average salary in Italy is around 1700 Euros/month.
- Various time (2006, 2012) in the last years governments have tried to increase the number of licences and reform the market. The results was riots in all big cities, traffic paralized for weeks.
- 20000 licenses represents a lot of votes. At time of election, license-holders and their families represent a large amount of votes. In cities like Rome (6k licenses), they can change the results of an election.
All this to say that at the moment, this represent an un-reformable matter and I see no way a country like Italy can be open up to any type of modernization brought by technology.
Uber is trying to work around the laws for their own benefit. But as an Italian (living abroad) I would be very happy to see how city transportation would change with the advent of new players.
Now it is true the judge is only applying the laws. But the matter here is rather if the negotiations between taxi drivers and government of last month should have produced some results like a reasonable reform of the market where I personally see there is room for more then one winner, including users.
Notice that Airbnb, who has also entered the market of house rentals, has found so far much less difficulties: no lobbies to fight against, real-estate generally benefitting from this type of business.
Bla Bla Car. They don't compete against taxis but I think drivers shouldn't be able to get paid without a licence. I might be wrong. Anyway, they compete against trains and flight companies which don't care about Bla Bla Car yet.
Bla Bla Car is actual ride sharing / car pooling at least as far as I can tell. Basically you already know you want to go from A to B and are just asking others to join. At least that's how it works in Germany and how I can travel across half the country for less than 50€, because I'm not paying the driver but rather helping them pay for their gas bill.
but they are violent.
500 hundreds of them are like having a small army of 10.000 soldiers. Most of the more active and noisy are also fascist and act the same way the mob does.
I'm from Rome but also lived for a long time in Milan, and I've seen with my eyes taxi drivers crash the uber app presentation and start firing tear bombs in the crowd (there were kids it was a tech fest in a city park) or read about the physical aggressions towards uber drivers (including women, three taxi drivers one night blocked and threatened a woman driving for uber and destroyed her car).
Recently there's been a taxi driver's strike and those that were against the strike said they disagreed but were not going to work as well because of the threats they received.
this is the real situation: mob and fascists together.
uber model. sucks, gig economy sucks, but Italian taxi drivers suck a lot more.
One thing: technically you don't pay for licenses, they are given for free from the municipality. They have a fixed number, so if you want to get into the system you have to get a license from someone else, hence the payment.
The government made artificial scarcity and now there is a market where you have to pay to get a license. Technically you do pay for licenses, just not the government.
It's a bit sad that things need to end up this way.
Eventually things will change. However, things could have been handled differently, let's say with a proposal to these new companies to offer rides and adapt with the taxi-system in the country. Meaning:
- taxi drivers need to have the highest priority and be sponsored as such (most of them paid for their license, and they MUST exist by law, because it's an essential service)
- all drivers need to pass some screenings and keep it up-to-date (police, etc.)
- all drivers need to pay taxes (because what they are doing right now is simply black-work)
- security on Uber needs really to improve if you want to offer a public service, because as it is now, people can impersonate drivers (there are stories about this)
This is how it's done in Germany. German law has the concept of "rental car with driver". This sounds super fancy but it's essentially a light version of a taxi. You call one, it arrives 5 minutes later, you pay something like €7 for a ride, all good. Drivers need a concession, don't have to follow taxi rules, but also don't get benefits like being allowed to wait for passengers in public places.
Same in Italy. That's a different license than taxi. Those drivers should go back to their base, possibly very far away from the end of the previous drive, and wait for another call. Taxi drivers complain that the ones working for Uber don't but I don't know the details of the fights of the last months. I use car sharing services and getting a taxi here is easier than installing an app (call a phone number, somebody answers), so I never used Uber and I wasn't that interested in this drama. I expect Uber drivers to go on strike and block streets like taxis did weeks ago. Obviously cheaper taxis would be a great outcome.
I'm not sure how exactly it's done in Germany, but in Lithuania "black cars" main difference from "taxi" is "black car" have to agree on price before the ride while "taxi" works out the price after the ride.
Uber is currently enjoying third way there thanks to political support (which may or may not be related to Uber IT operations located in town). But overall it (and it's local competitors) are gravitating towards taxi side of things. Taxi license is dirt cheap though. The only issue is yearly (vs bi-yearly) car inspection and more expensive insurance.
I don't know, that's the job of the tax authorities. They use company cars, they always drive back to their office, it's probably easy to check their books and see if their spendings on fuel match the declared rides.
I once bought a sandwich in Italy, it required 3 lines... one to buy a token for the sandwich, the next line to use that token to order the sandwich, and the 3rd line to pick up the sandwich.
Italy is not a place for innovation or efficiency.
I am not a huge Uber fan, but some of the points here neglect to mention how broken the country of Italy is.
There shouldn't be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice. The Taxi licenses were important when the technology was not there today most of the reasons why a taxi license is requires isn't necessary.
Furthermore uber drivers are freelancers they are the ones who need to pay their taxes by italian law. Italy like many other countries speculate in giving the kind of tax benefits that companies like uber is using. They do so to get jobs which can then be taxed fairly simple through income tax. Ubers model destroy this relationship and politicians who want to score political points have decided to outlaw uber.
There is nothing in what you say which couldn't have been fixed with a better legislation.
Context Denmark went through same exercise recently. Same claims about it being illegal was made.
There are plenty of things to critique about uber, your critique really should be a critique about how your own politicians didn't manage to modernize in proper time. Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot.
Edit: Instead of just down voting me because you disagree try and at least have the courtesy to forumalte an argument against what I am saying that way we all could learn something. I am more than happy in being corrected and correct something if I am wrong, down voting me doesn't help
"There shouldnt be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice."
Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions.
"Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot."
Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber.
You don't have elections about how taxi regulation should be handled. Neither did italian voters vote for the current taxi regulation. So lets stop the sherrade for a moment here shall we?
There are many many areas which are left to politicians to deal with. Not even Switzerland votes on everything.
Italy, Denmark and other countries allow companies to use them as tax loopholes all the time because it creates jobs in their countries and thats one of the most valuable political currencies.
The Uber model destroys that by contracting freelancers instead and subsidizing the rides allowing them to compete with the existing taxi industry with it's existing political powers and lobbied politicians.
There is nothing noble about banning Uber it's purely a political move to ensure a protected industry can continue and thus it's political powers be used and controlled.
My point is that Uber wasn't banned because it was illegal but because it was politically problematic. There are plenty of companies who do exactly like Uber tax-wise but doesn't get banned simply because they create jobs.
Furthermore your claim that it's somehow an expression of the italian voter is simply flat out wrong.
"Italy's taxi associations succeeded in winning the ruling after they brought a lawsuit against Uber to court."
It sounds like it was illegal. Why it was illegal? Because the Italian legislative branch decided so. To who the legislative answer? To the Italian voters.
Is this system a democracy? yes. Could be the system be more democratic? Sure.
No my point is not wrong. You actually prove my point.
The voter has nothing to do with it they didn't vote for or against it.
The Italian legal system decided on it because it was brought up by someone with political and economic interest. The law is made so that it protects the industry through the licenses and thus political in it's essence.
The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal and contrary to your claim this wasn't a product of democracy but of a legal system which favorites existing industries.
"Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions."
It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process.
"Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber."
Do you think Italy's citizens are actually in favor of in maintaining the taxi monopoly?
There are reasonable reasons to require registration when cabs had to find people on the street, but mobile apps have significantly changed how drivers can operate and should result in rethinking the laws rather than blindly supporting the existing special interests.
Allegations of predatory pricing can be investigated separately if that's an actual concern.
Uber is a company and it moves money. I bet the app still works in Italy. Uber could block it or not. What it should not do is keep operating in Italy: not routing requests to drivers is the first important step.
Most likely there wasn't any "democratic" decision to establish a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. It's just bureaucracy. I don't really see the economic argument for them, Uber competition or not.
Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis?
Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?
My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.
"Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?"
I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply.
Are Italians better off?
No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.
My perception is that the Italian society feel that they should have a minimum wage. In other words, that market forces shouldn't be allowed to push the wages below a minimum. As taxis operate as little business and not as standard employees, they can't control that minimum directly, so they control the supply.
Is that the right decision? I have no idea, but, I defend their right to go with it.
But taxis aren't controlling the supply, the government is. Has the government done any analysis into their decision here? How do they know that wages won't rise as a result of cheaper and more frequent trips, for example? What if people who left the taxi industry went on to more productive things? Will the government also ban self-driving vehicles?
Nobody is questioning whether an elected official or government bureaucracy has the "right" to make the decision, it's clear they do. What is being questioned directly is the morality of the decision and whether this is a good decision.
It would be great if you stopped this "I defend their right to do this" commentary because it's not relevant to the conversation and distracts from what we're actually talking about.
How do they arrive to the current number of licenses? Sorry, beyond my knowledge. What are they going to do in the future? The same.
When "I defend their right to do this", I don't mean only in a legal sense, but in a moral one, which, in your own words, is being questioned here.
I think that they have a moral right because they are the expression of aggregate preferences of the Italian society through their democratic institutions. I realize that, probably, you don't share this view.
Is this a good decision? Well, you have to define good first. Good for who? We should assume is good enough for Italians that allow it. As I said before, they are expressing their aggregate preferences.
But I'm not questioning their right to do this, I'm questioning the action itself. These are separate. I'm sorry if I've given you the impression then that I was questioning the right in the Italian democratic society to take this action.
I take issue with the action itself, because I question the motives and the reasoning behind it, in that, it's likely just political and no forethought has gone into the consequences.
Assuming an action is good because it is allowed is a poor assumption.
No they don't. Eastern European drivers drive for the fraction of a cost than western european drivers do because they have less cost where they come from.
So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.
No i am aware of that which is why you keep going back to it being a democratic institution. But thats not whats at question here. You tried to argue that the judges ruling was justified By isolating it to a legality thing, but then a lot of other companies should be shut down in itally. Foreign truckdriver companies from eastern europe, automated cars etc all on the basis that they are based on unfair competition. Its a politically motivated ruling too.
This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here.
Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be.
Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.
We have no taxi licenses only a class P passenger license and local knowledge test is required. There are now way too many taxis in our cities as well as Uber. This may have driven down prices but in reality it has driven down quality as well.
Taxis clog up the carparks because the taxi stands are full and they congest the roads.
I would happily take a restriction if it meant a higher standard of taxi and service.
Local knowledge test is a good example. It's not needed with GPS. Furthermore Uber allow for throwing out the bad drivers and it wont clog up anything as it has a much better ability to cater for demand.
What you find here is that Uber drivers are often also Taxi drivers for the smaller taxi companies, an Uber call comes in and they put their signage in their boot, in between Uber jobs they put the signage back on and sit at a taxi stand.
Local knowledge is important though, roads change more frequently than maps are updated, and here at least a lot of street names and suburbs are not in English - someone who is not from the city would struggle to enter in the names of streets and suburbs and might end up on the other side of town before they know it.
I have never had any problems finding my way around italy with a GPS and I have been there a lot and it's been a while. I can only imagine that the GPS apps are getting even better.
I see a great degree of superficiality in all comments.
Uber has been banned for breaking the italian law, period.
That the law for taxi and similar services might be too much restrictive and could be improved in favour of the market is a completely different matter.
In Italy there are precise rules regarding where and how you can pick up passengers and Uber is violating them.
This is why it was banned. The sentence even states this explicitly: that the duty of the magister is to apply the current law and not the enter in the merits of how it could be improved for the benefit of the market. Did anybody read the sentence before commenting?
Uber has been also banned in Berlin and Amburg and I haven't seen any similar comment here. I would be very curios to understand why.
Uber has been banned in Berlin and Hamburg for operating an illegal taxi service without applying for the required papers. The were breaking the law, simple as that. It's a thing Uber likes to do, it's just not working as well in the EU as in other regions of the world.
as far as i am aware nobody voted for Uber in last elections in Italy to be the one changing the laws
if you wanna do business you must follow to law, if you don't like it then either change law or go back to US where are people apparently more relaxed about breaking law, but Stilton is not do business while breaking law
Your argument - "accept an unjust law or leave" -
applies equally well to all sorts of laws.
Of course it doesn't. I don't doubt you are well aware a law you consider unjust because it causes human beings to be grossly mistreated is entirely different from a law you consider unjust because it makes it hard for companies to enter a specific national market and are just making a disingenuous, trollish, argument. Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both.
And if you really are not aware of such differences, then you're an asshole and for the sake of society and those around I hope you learn about the difference.
If you want to argue that taxi protectionist laws are just, make that argument. "It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not that argument.
Morality is not black and white and two things you consider 'unjust' are not comparable merely because you can find a single word that you believe describes them both.
They are directly comparable in the sense that they satisfy the preconditions of Markoff's argument. My point is that if Markoff's argument were valid, then this crazy conclusion would also be true.
On the flip side, if that crazy conclusion is false then Markoff's argument must also be invalid.
"It's the law and you can leave" is, unfortunately, not
that argument.
I agree this argument comes down to arguing an is implies an ought, which is usually invalid and is certainly invalid when the ought is the thing under discussion.
But your gross exaggeration intended to refute it does not work as a useful counterargument. You assert it is directly comparable, I explained why I believe it isn't. You could have guessed people would not consider them directly comparable and the net result is that your counterargument is not convincing. Maybe after further discussion you could convince others they are comparable, but that's an unnecessary distraction.
It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference.
Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law.
If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law.
Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law?
That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money.
Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.
> And in fact they have not been banned: they have been given 10 days to adjust to the italian regulations ELSE they will be banned.
Can you share the source for this information? I've been having trouble finding out any details about why they were banned, and the articles I've read just say they were banned, not that they have 10 days to comply.
The primary English source seems to be a brief Reuters article with no details.
It is a reasonable assumption. I would hope that if Uber complies with whatever laws they were found to be violating, that they could continue operating.
However, whether that's a plausible outcome depends on the reason why they're banned. If the Italian court determined that the "ease of hailing rides through a smartphone app" was the reason why competition was "unfair" (just to make something up - I haven't been able to discover the actual reason), then there's no real way for them to come into compliance.
Laws get _applied_ by judges, they're not always black and white.
There are many, many sentences that apply a law in a different way given a specific case, that create a precedent that can then be used in the future to regulate something. You don't need a new law.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure judges weren't allowed to choose to do that in this case.
It isn't a common law country, but there is the concept of precedent, and the majority of sentences will actually not override a previous sentence given the same kind of issue.
I was actually talking about this with a lawyer because of a problem I was having, and that's what he told me. You can pretty safely use precedents to guide you on what you want to do. The difference is that laws tend to of course carry less uncertainty than precedents, and you can't get punished if you were following a law (unless it gets changed retroactively). In case of a trial (in my case, at least), you would admit that you haven't followed the law, but cite the precedents and most likely win.
So, precedents are not binding, but in practice they're close to it.
I think a number of commenters here probably don't understand the culture outside of the US. I'm not judging or saying any one country is better than another, but some places don't place as much credence on the free market and businesses regulating themselves.
In Roman Law, legal precendents are one of the sources of the law system. If there is no explicit regulation about a matter, It is recommended that Judges apply other Judges' decisions. If two Judges at the same level decides differently, the matter is solved in higher courts.
I see a great degree of superficiality in all comments. These seismologists [1] were convicted for breaking the Italian law, period. That the law that allows to jail seismologists for not predicting earthquakes could be improved is a completely different matter. In Italy there are precise rules regarding how to warn people of earthquakes and these scientists have violated them. This is why they're in prison. The sentence even states this explicitly: that the duty of the magister is to apply the current law and not the enter in the merits of how it could be improved for the benefit of the people. Did anybody read the sentence before commenting?
Scientists have also been put to prison in Russia and North Korea, and I haven't seen any similar comments here. I would be very curious to understand why.
Again, let me reiterate that BBC and in general British press are often biased against Italy.
These are the facts: all the scientists have been absolved.
The only person convicted has been the vice-president of the civil protection for declaring in public ( and in TV ) at the beginning of the earthquake that there were "absolutely no risks" associated to the initial earthquake waves. He has been found guilty of providing superficial, generic and inaccurate informations in relation to the role and responsabilities he was covering.
Instead of merely reporting acritically what you read in newspapers from other countries , if you want to be objective try also to read italian newspapers:
Right now you are just showing your bias as many others have done before you. These are just personal attacks against a country and are not based on any fact. Can we start to downvote these kind of posts??
Oh god, spare me this bullshit. I'm not British, or American, I just put up the first source that's considered reasonably reliable (nobody's gonna complain about BBC, right? Or so I thought!) And yet here you are, because god forbid somebody paints Italian justice system in less than positive light. You might have noticed that I even insulted my own country (Russia) in my post, so you can't say I'm biased or anything. And it's not like there's lack of examples I could've chosen. Berlusconi, Amanda Knox, the list goes on and on.
> In Italy there are precise rules regarding where and how you can pick up passengers and Uber is violating them.
Do those rules make any sense? If they broke a nonsense law, then it's not as simple as "broke the law, period". Maybe there should be outrage against the people that put the law into place. But that's only an 'if'.
I could claim the same about medicine. Why can't you sell medicine? Why do you need to have a license for that?
If there is a law, you can't simply break it and claim that the country is too old and full of lobbies (both may be true, still you are not entitled to enter a country and break the rules just because you are "cool" and "the new"). This is not how this world works.
Define "entitled". Legally entitled? No, but that's irrelevant, since by definition you are never legally entitled to break the law. Ethically entitled? That's arguable. Personally, I have no problem with people and companies openly breaking laws in ways that only harm people in the long run. And I have no problem with the authorities punishing them for it. It's a kind of stress test of the political system. Lots of bad laws remain due to complacency and inertia, so there's value in forcing a decision when conditions change.
Oh that's relevant. I don't understand why Netflix has to deal with Warner & co. to buy rights for streaming, while Uber is above the law. All this just because it's "the new".
It's easy to become rich and powerful when you play with different rules.
Because I think this is how this world works. There are laws, and some of them are old, yet, they are there for a reason.
All companies have to adapt, you (the company owner) find the way out and then complain a country is "behind".
You see this as a stress test, and while I agree with you because as I wrote above things could have been done differently, it's also true that there are many companies innovating without breaking laws (see the iphone, etc), meaning that you don't necessarily have to break the law to do something good. There are other more peaceful ways to propose your ideas, but the reality is that they wouldn't bring innovation "right now, the way I want it". At least, that's my opinion. Sometimes things take time. We are talking about a whole category of people that you want to replace just because you think they are out of date.
Do you really think Netflix wants to pay warner? Do you think that they want to set geographical limitations?
Sure, I agree with all that. And if the authorities believe that the laws shouldn't be changed right now, then can and should punish companies for it - like Italy is doing.
But the test, the confrontation itself is still valuable, and I think Uber is ethically entitled to try.
It doesn't matter. That's something that should be brought up and discussed in parliament and then either changed or accepted as it is. The people enforcing the laws have to follow the legislation as it stands.
Are you saying that the people should never discuss laws, only parliament should?
Let me try stating my point again: in "they broke the law, period" I am fine with "they broke the law", but I object to ", period". ", period" is an explicit discussion-ender. We should not be ending the discussion immediately without considering the pros and cons of that law.
There is a thing called discretion. Perhaps France should jail a few million women for wearing pants?
Just because something is "law" doesn't mean you have an obligation to follow it.
Uber offers services far superior to uncompetitive, entitled taxi drivers that should've been put out of business years ago. I hope Uber will continue operations in Italy.
Uncompetitive? Uber has spent billions subsidising taxi rides. That is the very definition of uncompetitive!
If they charged the amount to of money needed to actually turn a profit/breakeven then suddenly all those regular taxi companies would be competitive at worst and cheaper in many situations.
How is it uncompetitive to sell at a loss to provide cheaper services to customers? How is that a bad thing for customers? It looks like it's only a bad thing for taxi companies (a tiny percentage of the population) while it's a good thing for the majority of Italians, this law protects and favors corporations instead of the people, this is the textbook definition of Fascism.
Edit: About price dumping, this is a myth. When has this ever happened and tell me how could Uber remain a monopoly if its prices are too high? Competitors will show up because there will be good money to be made. The only monopolies that can last despite being overpriced are the ones protected by state violence and state laws that make competition illegal, a good example here would be, I don't know, Italian taxi companies?
and protecting against that practice is NOT the texbook definition of fascism at all, quite the opposite; also keep in mind there are no taxi corporations here, as the taxi license must be owned by the individual driving it (with some small and irrelevant exception).
That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with Uber selling its services as long as they abide by the law, they and their drivers pay the taxes and they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
It's uncompetitive because the only purpose of doing so is to ensure other less VC-backed companies are driven out of business, creating a monopoly. Which needless to say, isn't good as in the long term for its customer base as nice VC-subsidised rides are in the short term. It's not a charitable endeavour, and they're not subsidising rides out of an intention to extract less profit from the public in the long term.
Calling the banning of a company which has pointedly ignored every law that gets in its way "fascism" is just childish, and when it's referring to a country that actually suffered the results of having a Fascist government, it's offensive childishness.
Which corporations are being protected in Italy? As outlined multiple times in this thread all the taxi licenses are owned by individuals. Uber will fail precisely for the reason you pointed out, they will never be able to keep a monopoly. In the mean time though it is not in the interests of society to favour short term gains for the individual in the form of cheap loss leading fares (price dumping... not a myth and widely documented.. how else could Uber be haemorrhaging $1B plus a quarter?) at the expense of mass unemployment and the associated reduced tax receipts that benefit society as a whole. Arguing otherwise is extremely short sighted.
Italians taxi drivers are independents and therefor are single person corporations. Same thing. They offer horrible service and use the law to keep higher quality and lower price competition away.
I'm sorry but you don't understand what price dumping is, there is nothing wrong with offering lower prices at a loss, most companies do so to bootstrap or try to get into a market. What you are accusing them is to dump prices and then in the future higher their prices once there is no more competition and then keep a monopoly forever. This part is the myth that _never_ happens, if Uber kills competition and then hikes its prices, competition will come back because there will be a good business opportunity. Again, read this to see how "price dumping" accusations are always about protectionism against better competition and innovation, most economists agree with this, it's one of the oldest tricks of protectionism and mercantilism. Accuse new entrant offering something better at a lower price of just wanting to kill your business and then up their prices, by this logic we would never ever see any price lowering if anyone offering better service and innovation at lower prices was accused of "price dumping". This is what's wrong with Italy (and France), so sad to see so many people falling for these myths that only serve a few corrupt lobbies that are against innovation and competition https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
Favoring a tiny minority against the majority of the people is corporatism/fascism. It doesn't matter what the size of the corporation is, ever heard of corporatism? You're the one scraping the barrel here.
The literal definition of fascism is a totalitarian nationalist state which disavows all the principles of liberal democracy and established freedoms, and seeks to compel the public to unwaveringly support its ideology by manipulating public sentiment against dissenters and minority groups portrayed as the enemy. A court ruling that long-established taxi regulations devised by elected officials should be enforceable is not fascism even under the the most tortuous application of the definition.
Competitors won't show up if Uber's biggest VC raise in history throws more money at subsidising rides until the competitors go away which is their purpose for doing it (along with other such consumer-hostile strategies as mass hailing and cancellation of competitors' rides). Their entire business strategy is based around ride-hailing being a winner-takes all business; just because it may not succeed doesn't mean that this isn't their objective. Do you honestly believe their VCs are subsidising rides out of the kindness of their hearts?
Who is paying taxes here? Isn't this a loss for citizens?
Taxi-drivers willing or not have to pay taxes. They definitely do also "black" money, but at the end of the month they'll have to declare X euros in / Y euros out.
Do you have to do the same if you are a driver for Uber?
They may cause great havoc on their way down. Some jurisdictions are anticipating this and banning Uber preemptively.
This is rational. Let Uber prove that it's viable on someone else's turf. If it does so, then great, the laws can be changed and Uber can be admitted into the market later. If it turns out to be a total disaster then these jurisdictions have saved themselves a lot of trouble.
Alas, due to the chronic miss allocation of capital Uber's bonfire of VC money will take down lots of productive businesses and sole traders (existing minicab operators and taxi firms) before it goes.
If they jack up prices, many competitors will spring up because there will be good money to be made. How is that a problem exactly? Also, price dumping is a myth always use for protectionism ends, see https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Uber is a special case. I very much doubt that if Uber begins to jack up prices another multi-billion $ funded startup will come along and re apply the Uber playbook against Uber. And even if it did, the turmoil this would cause would be against the best interests of the general public.
Are you kidding me? Multi-billion dollars companies losing customers because their prices are too high and resulting in more competition happens _all_ the time. Just one example, linux (redhat) on the server vs Microsoft Windows Server. Low cost airlines vs regular airlines etc. When a company starts pricing their products too high, competitors will appear (unless you make specific laws like this one in Italy making competition illegal) simply because they are attracted by the money that can still be made with lower prices. That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics?
> That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics?
I'm a high school IT teacher, so I don't pretend to know much about economics :)
You may be right that the market will work itself out. I don't think free markets are a solution to every problem though. Some industries are highly regulated with state sanctioned monopolies because the free market can't be relied upon to provide a reasonable solution. Look to US healthcare as an example of free market economics gone awry.
The SV mantra of "move fast and break things" works well if you're building some new dating app, not so much if you're potentially disrupting something that's actually important. If Uber strong arms its way into a market and then subsequently shits the bed, then what? How do local economies deal with the resulting vacuum? Maybe the vacuum get's filled, and if it doesn't? Then what?
There are other industries where such disruption is not tolerated. Can you imagine if power, sanitation or road maintenance was completely deregulated and some foreign entrant was allowed to come in like a wrecking ball to experiment with "innovative" new models? The potential downsides far outweigh the possible upsides.
Maybe taxis don't fit into the critical infrastructure jigsaw puzzle. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I can see how Uber's tactics can have a net negative impact on the communities it enters. We'll see how it all plays out in good time. There are enough markets that are allowing Uber to operate that eventually it will shake out one way or another.
Exactly! Instead of strikes and whining, the taxi drivers should have a hard look at themselves why people like Uber better besides money. Because those entitled drivers are not providing quality of service compared to Uber and they should be out of business. I hope Uber continues as even legally (aka more expensive) they would beat regular cabs easily.
What kind of "superior" quality? It's easy when you don't need to buy a license whose cost can go up to 200'000 euros and you need 15-20 years to pay it off, and when you have no rules to follow.
Seems like they should complain to whoever charges such extortionate licenses.
Except of course they won't, because they like those licenses, as they reinforce their monopoly. So complaining that Uber doesn't pay them is just like any cartel complaining that the newcomer doesn't play by their rules.
Well if you remove the newer cars and better rates, both which I do not care much about and also can understand it might be(not sure) unfair, you still have cleaner cars, friendly, english speaking, non rude and non scamming drivers.
Taxi drivers in all countries, even with me having Google maps, will try to take longer routes. They are often rude because complacent: why not, you cannot pick your driver anyway right? Spanish, Italian, HK, Shanghai taxi drivers generally speak no English: their Uber counterparts do. Might not be good but they try because ratings.
I travel a lot and everywhere and take taxis anywhere (do not like subways) and regular taxi standards universally awful; we miss Uber instantly.
My friend from Portugal always jokes about how rude the drivers are in his country when we get in/out a cab with him; he imitates them etc but then says 'what can you do?'.
I'm sorry, but you're coming across as a parody of an awful America tourist.
I don't think the majority of Italians are going to be all beat up about the fact that taxi drivers in their country speak (gasp!) Italian and not English.
Although, stalking you via your HN profile, I note that you may not in fact be American. That just means you have no excuse!
But wait: I actually understand Italian. The point is not that they do not speak English, the point is; it is another point of service. He asked what superior service; multi lang is better than unilang right?
And they do their best to accomodate you even as a foreigner.
And maybe it is different in Italy, but in NL (where I am from) not too many people like the rude regular cab drivers: it is not only tourists :) That has changed a bit since Uber but not a lot so still not a lot of incentive to take the regular ones.
It's not something that I would personally worry about when taking a taxi. As long as you can say the name of your destination, or write it down, you'll be ok. I doubt it's more than a very small minority of people in Italy who will miss Uber for this reason.
Still not what I meant or implied. Maybe my dutch-english brain is off today as I do not know how to say it differently; I was not singling out language; it is an advantage. An advantage; not the top one, not the most important by any means. But wow, everyone is touchy about that. As native Dutch I would not mind the rest of my life speaking English or Spanish or German or Mandarin and never Dutch but I see others really fly off the handle. I am a person who goes to countries prepared and I speak my languages; I said it is an extra feature for drivers, not a must.
Sometimes the law sucks but there is a democratic process in order for it to change. A US company knowingly breaking the law repeatedly cannot get a pass because the local law "doesn't make any sense to them". Uber had no problem breaking laws everywhere it operates in Europe, until the justice catches up.
Uber is free to pick up passengers anywhere they like in Italy - as long as they do it on their own property. Public roads, public rules. It's really as simple as that.
I see a lot of these comments whenever Uber or other taxi based app's law violation are highlighted.
In my country, taxis have always been a cumbersome and painful existences. Trying to catch an early morning international flight meant - either trusting an unreliable operator to send you a taxi or paying way above the market rates to reach the airport on time.
What the apps have achieved is this: for me, as a customer, hailing a taxi is as simple as pressing a button. for a driver, they allow customer acquisitions to be super easy and not depend on unreliable operators. I am really grateful to the apps for this and happily pay the apps the middleman/operator fee.
But, the same apps routinely break laws in various countries and that too knowingly. It doesn't matter if the law makes sense to the multi-national company or not. They are supposed to follow the rule of the land. If every other MNC thought itself to be above the law of the land, I can't imagine what the world might look like. Like say for example - no Chrome or other browsers because MS could (did?) think that the EU anti-competition law was nonsense. They could continue shipping Windows with IE and asking people to outrage against the nonsense law which made it difficult for people (without a technical know how) to get a browser and get on the internet.
The state apologists who think that 'the law' is some kind of holy bible, when there clearly are far better outcomes from sidestepping overly burdenous regulations is appalling but not surprising. It's no surprise that the US consistently outperforms the EU in GDP growth and innovation.
The best approach to burdenous regulation is to grow fast enough to challenge it.
I assume that by "state apologists" you mean law-abiding citizens and by "sidestepping overly burdenous regulations" you mean "breaking the law"?
The law is not a "holy Bible" but in order for society to function people need to obey the law, and if they disagree with it, they need to use the democratic process to change it.
yeah, because US is so superior students have to pay student loans for years and people must have funding campaigns to have enough money for simple medical procedures covered by healthcare in Europe
hope you are enjoying that superior GDP in your wallet and daily life
Innovation almost always sidestep regulations, by definition. It offer a better way than the current way which is regulated according to its current specificities, and to offer this better way to do thing is to sidestep regulations to show how much better it is. Forcing innovators to "respect the law" squarely is basically killing innovation and why we see so little of it in the EU compared to the US. Note that regulations are also growing in the US and it keeps getting worse too sadly.
The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how 'cool' you are considered to be.
If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.
But these laws (same as in Spain where I live) are there for protectionism and that is, very visibly in these two countries, not a good thing for 'the people'.
I think we should let "the people" decide what is good for them, and not us doing it for them. Italy is a democratic country with a government and legal system that is upholding the laws. The court ruling appears to be in line with those laws, so i don't see a problem here.
Keep in mind, this is Europe and not the US. The argument "more car-based transportation at lower prices is good for everyone" is not necessarily something that the majority of the population in Italy or elsewhere in Europe is necessarily aspiring to. So if the government - at state and local level - is keeping the number of taxis in check by high taxes/fees while subsidizing green or mass transit, thats OK too. And the government of Italy has every right to do that. just my two cents.
Is anyone advocating for invading Italy to change its laws? All the talk about Italy having the right to do what it wants is a strawman, nobody argues they don't have that right.
But that's exactly one of the problems: for example, the fact that current taxi drivers paid money for their license, is not written in any law: licenses are limited and the only way to become a driver is to buy one from somebody else who is retiring. Unions are lobbying very hard, soliciting drivers to evade taxes and taking a cut.
The solution to that is to allow more licences, and maybe to use those new licences to compensate current drivers for the loss of value of the licence they bought.
Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else is respecting them is a completely different story.
Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate outside of the law.
> If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same.
I understand what you are saying, and agree in principle, though a big part of me worries the outcome is stagnation.
i.e. nothing will ever improve or change because the laws are such that everything must be done strictly to the letter.
It would appear that taxis are extremely expensive and many people around the world find them inconvenient. Uber is trying to change this. I'm not saying they should be allowed to "get away" with breaking the existing rules, but surely as a society we should allow things to be attempted/trailed if there is a chance something will get better.
your comment is too rational and not in favor of American corporation but law abiding businesses, so I don't think it will be very popular with Americans here which are defending American corporation no matter what
I'm Italian and I oppose the horrible, horrible taxi lobby, as well as the equally horrible, extremely expensive service taxi drivers provide.
Luckily there's car sharing were I live, but I have no sympathy for taxi drivers (and it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love in other comments), or anyone who's in business solely because there are laws to protect their category, rather than offering a good service than people want to pay for.
Why is it fair that taxi drivers can provide a crappy service and get protected by laws, while other categories actually have do provide good service because they have competition and they would close down? Why not protect local restaurants from McDonald's, then?
If McDonald's provided cheap food by ignoring the labor laws, would that be fair? Or any safety regulation on how food is preserved, etc. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
I share your sentiment towards our taxi drivers, but I'd rather ask our laws to change to be fairer than to advocate Uber's right to just break the law.
> Why not protect local restaurants from McDonald's, then?
Since when McDonalds doesn't follow the Italian laws and regulations? can you show me an example of McDonalds breaking Italian laws or food safety and regulations? Can you show me a McDonalds operating as an illegal restaurant?
That's not what I meant with that sentence, you might have missed the point I was trying to make.
The sentence you quoted means: why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet?
What's so special about taxi drivers?
Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS?
I would love to hear any valid enough answer that would make me change my mind.
These may be worthwhile points to pursue, but it's not the jobs of the magisters to legislate from the bench. When you ask "why not create a law", this is a question to direct to the politicians you elect, not the magisters who apply the law.
It's not their job per se, but they don't blindly follow the law, they apply it.
There are many, many cases where a judge will go against a law and create a precedent, which most of the times will be followed in following trials if the situation is the same or very similar.
You missed the GP's point. Their question was why are taxi drivers protected from competition but restaurant owners aren't? Why is there competition in serving food (a profession that also requires adherence to regulations, in this case food safety etc) but not in driving people around?
McDonald's does business in accordance with local laws,i have no problem with any foreign corporation which follow local laws same as their competitors
you don't have in Italy taxi apps with ratings, choice of cars and pretty much everything same as in Uber just legal? strange...
Signing a document at a notary can cost 1,000 and for no reason. In the States the same thing gets done for 50 by a notary (I can talk about that).
These are imposed monopolies. They must end. You will damage a few hundred thousand people for a few years, but 60 million (in case of Italy) would gain immensely, as well as future generations.
I'm not an American and I completely support Uber. They did a great thing to break up the taxi cartel. Most of these laws are results of regulatory capture. They lead to an inefficient market and price gouging.
Also just because a law is in the law book doesn't make it sacrosanct. Think about the Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights movement.
While I understand and support that Uber must comply with local laws and that it is unfair to taxi drivers who paid 200k or whatever for a license (which is the case in most EU countries), I do would like to see Uber push for modernization because that will not happen with those local cab drivers. In countries where Uber is allowed, I can pick between a nice, clean car with a friendly driver or an old crappy vehicle with a grumpy, smelly driver. In Hong Kong UberX are mostly new Teslas driven by people who speak some English, while the local cabs are so old and decrapped I do not understand how they even are allowed on the road. And those are not exceptions. In Spain, where Uber is no more, I get in to cars, the drivers swear in Spanish (they do not speak English mostly) that the drive is too short, burps and then drives off. Again no exception: it happens only to us already a lot and we are polite people (maybe we should not be?).
After that experience you have no recoarse to complain: with Uber you tap in the app and even get some or all money back. And drivers under a certain score drop off. With regular taxis it is fuck you very much for your money.
So banning Uber is nice and all and logical but then the gov should at least demand of taxis to offer the same level: hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances, so even if we do not mention that all the rest should be at the same level. I know they cannot and that is why Uber breaking the law is needed; that is a sad thing. The client is king and that has been lost by traditional cabbies in Europe a long time ago.
> hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances
I mean, that's kind of the point. If customers want to be picked up in shiny Teslas that's ok. But it's only fair that they pay the actual cost of the ride. At present, Uber riders are being subsidised to the tune of $2bn per year [0]: that's a deeply anti-competitive business practice.
Yes, that is why I say besides. If Ubers were more expensive than normal cabs I would still use Uber. However then I agree Uber would die as most people use it probably for the cheap prices.
Also, if taxis were to ratchet luxury up to uber levels, their prices would need to rise a lot as well, making the exercise rather useless. Laws over here demand certain safety, inspection and insurance standards. Stuff that is important. Demanding luxury would be very stupid.
Sorry, I say that somewhere else in this discussion. I am, personally, not concerned with pricing but I know that most people are. And I do find that unfair; they should not benefit from loopholes and shortcuts, however I do find the pressure on licenses good; those shouldn't really exist anymore.
> Stuff that is important. Demanding luxury would be very stupid.
You think it is for safety or just paper pushing? Because I'm sure in most countries it is sold as safety but it is really a bureaucratic exercise nothing to do with safety. If it is for safety, of course that comes first. I highly doubt it is (seeing that normal cabbies drive like maniacs in cars where the seatbelts do not actually work a lot of the time while they still have the official license) or that you know for sure that it is or even attributes to safety at all.
Yes. I cannot look up the actual regulations for Italy, since i don't speak italian, but i know that the licenses at least require a written test. I also know that in Germany for example the regulations are extremely strict. I expect the italian ones to fall somewhere between the us and german regulations.
> seeing that normal cabbies drive like maniacs in cars where the seatbelts do not actually work a lot of the time while they still have the official license
> In countries where Uber is allowed, I can pick between a nice, clean car with a friendly driver or an old crappy vehicle with a grumpy, smelly driver
Or a train, or a bus, or a hire-bike (or your own bike). Taxis aren't the only competition for many Uber journeys - pretty much anywhere in London, for example.
Given that governments often invest heavily in trains, buses and bike-hire schemes, which all in their own way contribute to more liveable cities, there is an additional incentive not to let Uber dump on the wider transport market.
> not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English
Because it is embarrasing to have a tourism-based economy and at the same time to be proud of not speaking any English, which is highly likely to be at least one of the common languages you are going to share with the customer.
Disclaimer: I am a native spaniard. If you are going to visit Sevilla for Semana Santa, you better have some Spanish under your belt because it's highly unlikely anyone around you speaks anything else.
I have but they work not at all like the Uber app: the ones I tried, in Spain anyway, are awful and buggy. Which one(s) are you talking about?
>not sure why should taxi driver in Spain speak English
for many reasons I would find obvious (economic etc) but besides that: given the choice between someone with and without multiple languages the better service is multiple, so sure, does not have to but overall it helps.
I speak Spanish, lived there for 10 years. That's again not the point; it is extra service. And most Spanish people I meet agree people need to learn English by the way; you do not? It would not be too weird to ask for a basic grasp of English in a 'united Europe'. Or pick a language; German, French, Spanish, but something we all 'speak'. It would help, but that's another discussion.
As a tourist, I'm prepared to adapt to other countries.
But as a citizen, I expect my countrymen to do better than the bare minimum, and learning English is part of that. I write this as a non-English speaker myself.
Yes, but that is economically probably not a smart thing to do. In Spain where I live I see people who speak English consistently do better. Things are just easier to get. Let alone when someone speaks 'niche' languages like German.
apparently you never heard of taxi apps which provide pretty much same experience as Uber while working with licensed taxi drivers
And how many existed before Uber? That's their value: they give a nice push to a complacent industry used to have a nice little monopoly. After that, it can burn to the ground for all I care.
Italian here, according to the driver of the taxi i'm in right now Uber is unfair because their drivers don't have to buy taxi licenses(over 200k Euros each in major cities). The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.
I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.
That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).
I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.
Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.
I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.
I'd also say that money that doesn't end up taxed and back in the economy and instead magically appears in a tax paradise to be held there as a bargaining chip for exemption from US tax laws should probably anger Americans too. It was utterly frustrating to see both presidential candidates bow down and be ready to give huge tax cuts on the repatriation of multinationals' profits just so they could at least see some of that trickle down into actual projects like infrastructure. Reading about it really felt like global-scale a ransom-situation.
Perhaps if taxes were less punitive and confiscatory people would be less likely to be creative in their avoidance.
Lowering and simplifying taxes would increase revenues (per the Laffer Curve,) however that would result in politicians not being as powerful. Milton Friedman explains this brilliantly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8
> I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.
You do realize that tax dodging is practically national sport in Italy and the Mediterranean in general?
It's a national sport worldwide. The country I live in is a festering pit of corruption, unfortunately that means that I look at politics as a system that mostly exists to serve and protect itself and its own interests, however I acknowledge that if they allow everyone to get away with skirting the laws, there's even less that will ever trickle down to your average person or small business
Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government. Starbucks follows the law. That's what many people here say about Uber "Uber doesn't follow the law -- so they should be banned; don't like the laws, then change them."
Yet Starbucks follows the law -- they have a huge legal and tax team for that purpose. So how can we complain about Uber not following the law and Starbucks following the law and be intellectually consistent at all?
There is no such thing as a loophole. The law either is or it isn't.
> Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government
I can't blame my government for it because the Dutch Sandwich is based on loopholes in several other countries' laws.
I do blame the EU for not cracking down on it more efficiently but the recent injunction against Ireland and Apple is a good start.
It's very difficult to compete on a level playing field when the multinationals don't pay taxes. Google, Apple, Facebook, Ikea, McD, Amazon should all be slapped a proper fine.
But I don't have high hopes as long as Juncker from Luxembourg is running the show.
> I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.
> That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).
> I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.
> Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.
> I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.
I'm no fan of Uber but wouldn't it be better to get rid of the loopholes? What laws do you think those governments care about? Why?
Similar situation in my (another EU) country. Uber does not check and enforce that their drivers are actually licensed cab drivers (perhaps not strictly illegal on the company's part but very questionable) and helps their drivers in illegally avoiding tax on their salary (perhaps not strictly illegal on the company's part but very questionable.) And despite all these shady practices its black market ride is often only slightly cheaper than a real, licensed cab!
Why we have licensed cabs is because the country is very sparsely populated. The taxi license is specific for a certain area and the driver must service mainly that area. This lets the officials haggle with the private taxi companies and thus guarantee taxi service to all areas. Essentially, riding in the city subsidizes riding in the countryside. Whether this system is changed is a local domestic political decision. Until then I wouldn't condemn the licensed taxi operators suing Uber here.
Though Uber has had one positive impact: the taxi unions now advertise how safe the "real taxis" are compared to illegal rides and have tightened the checks on their already strict quality standards on proper customer service, vehicle cleanliness, driver clothing etc.
That sounds like how Ireland used to work, before 2000 when things were deregulated.
We've gone from a shortage of taxis, to an overabundance. When Uber launched, it wasn't interesting as our taxi system (which Uber appears to comply with the laws of) already works.
Same here in Lithuania - there were already two major apps providing the same service when Uber launched, the only difference is Uber is more expensive - I assume the cars are nicer, but most taxis here are pretty well maintained, so it's not really a selling point.
> the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.
I don't know, I find this quite unfair to say to be honest.
Once you make an agreement, as non-sensical as it can be, you should hold your end up. Especially if you are an important institution.
The agreement here concerns the taxi licenses (and the fact that you can sell them).
It's a bit selfish and narrow-minded to scrape off all that was agreed upon (leading people to pay 200k+ euros !) because "modernity" has arrived.
A better solution would be to legalize services like Uber and charge them a royalty fee for a certain number of years. The collected money should serve as a reparation to current owners of taxi licenses.
When I was living in Rome last year I never took taxis, mainly because they were so expensive and as a non-Italian I was concerned they'd just rip me off.
Once I tried to get a taxi from Ciampiano to Garbetella - I asked for the price and the driver said €50. I pointed at the ad on the side of his car saying it's a fixed €30 to the city, but apparently as Garbetella is outside the city walls, even though it was closer, it was more expensive. Guess I should have asked to go to Pyramide and walked a couple of hundred metres :-)
My go to transport was Car2Go and Enjoy, but they didn't cover the airports - which I assume is just because taxi drivers protested against it.
Do you happen to know: do black car services in Italy normally have to buy taxi licenses?
I'm curious because black car services (such as limousines and black towncar services) generally do not need taxi licenses in the US. A taxi license is only needed for hailing rides on the street, not for picking someone up by prior reservation. The Uber service provides a variety of different kinds of cars, some which operate more like limos while others operate like taxis (they even have medallioned taxis in some cities).
Edit: Thanks! Interesting to know how standards and norms vary by country in this area. It will be fascinating to see how transport evolves over the next decade.
The service is called NCC (Noleggio Con Conducente or Rent With Driver), the cars (and drivers) are nonetheless "licensed", since you are probably familiar with the concept of medallion, here is how a NCC car medallion looks:
a Taxi has a meter and follows some time + km official tariff (+ a number of "fixed" supplements in some cases, like going to the airport, etc.) a NCC works by private agreement (usually, taken in writing or verbally) in advance.
a Taxi is a public service, i.e. they cannot refuse the service (unless of course there are serious reasons), whilst the NCC is a private one.
a taxi can be (though rarely it is as since the dawn of time, years before Uber came out, most cities have "RadioTaxi" where you phone a number and they send you the nearest available taxi which is contacted via radio) hailed on the street, the NCC must (in theory) start each and every trip from their (private) garage and end it again at the garage on return, i.e. unlike the taxi in which it is "yours" just for the time you are onboard, the NCC is rented for the whole trip and cannot take other passengers on the way back.
moreover there are territorial limitations (different for each category) on the operations of both taxies and NCC, as an example a taxi licensed by city "A" can bring a customer to city "B" but cannot take another passenger in city "B", a NCC licensed by city "A" must initiate the trip (i.e. pick up the passenger) within city "A".
Overall, the situation is messy and overcomplicated and the (IMHO illegal) costs for the licenses (and their clearly too limited number) do represent problems, but Uber it is (still IMHO) not the solution to them.
Yes but the value of the license of a black car service is much lower than the one of a normal taxi.
Also black car services must wait in their depot and pick up passengers only by appointment. Picking up passengers in the street is reserved only to taxies.
Yes, you see that there is the problem (also in Portugal, and perhaps in other countries in EU). You have a local taxi mafia running a black market operation right there.
Those licences cost less than 150 euros! (not thousand euros, just plain one hundred and fifty euros) when you get them from the city hall, then some taxi mafia gets to buy all those licenses when they are issued (in their, sons/spouse/cousins/uncles/etc name) and then they go around selling them to the people that actually work in the taxis by those absurd prices.
I think Uber must follow the rules, but don't ask me any sympathy for the Taxi drivers and for the mafia behind them.
> The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.
Now, after Uber is banned, many more car owners will lose the opportunity to earn extra income, and many many more people will have to pay more to take a taxi. Which is the better economical choice?
Somewhere in the middle would be ideal. Deregulate he taxi industry and phase out the license fee over the next 5 years (or however long the most recently sold taxi licenses last for). This way current drivers don't get shafted and everyone gets the benefits offered by ride hailing apps. I am a strong advocate for Uber-like services to be provided at close to cost by local governments as a public transport option once self driving cars get introduced.
So harm everyone by reducing competition in order to subsidize people that spend €200k on a license? That doesn't benefit the public, that benefits a tiny special interest at the expense of everyone else.
I spend more money on a taxi, I spend less money at the restaurant. And get less value from my money than I should.
So we 'protect' taxis but what about struggling restaurant owners (or other shops) that lose money because taxis aren't subject to competition? Who cries for them?
Italy's law is quite specific on the matter, to offer transportation as a business you're either a taxi or a rent-with-driver (Noleggio Con Conduncente or NCC in Italian).
Taxi have their own finite licensing problem but NCC are easier to get. You still need a permit from the local Comune[0] and to abide to the rules.
In exchange NCC vehicles can use the same fast lanes taxi can use.
The most contested rule is that NCC are hired only for specific rides (eg form A to B, or for N hours) and they need to go back to the garage between rides.
They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride, and the garage to be in the same Comune that gave the NCC permission.
This clearly doesn't work well for Uber as it doesn't have any garage, nor it's willing to accept the suboptimal usage the go-back-to-garage is going to cause.
Disclaimer: INAL, but I've talked to some Italian lawyers about this.
So Italy's law is basically "be extremely inefficient and don't compete with political insiders".
In the US we had similar rules enforced by armed men - don't compete with the Lucchese in the Bronx, the Genovese in Little Italy, etc. Clearly this system is working well for Italy. Maybe in the US we can end RICO and bring back the old system ruled by the capo di tutti capo. That could help boost our economy to Italian levels.
What they call "unfair competition" is nothing more than not having to pay for a taxi service license that should not be sold that high in the first place because they're assigned from local municipalities after the driver passes an exam to get the appropriate driving license and other stuff. Unfortunately taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge disproportion between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers when retiring sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K. Of course license scarcity and the lack of competition means higher fares for customers and higher profits for drivers.
That is ultimately the only one reason why they acted against Uber like they did against other services such as the NCC (rent with driver) which is a workaround to trick the law and get a taxi service disguised as a car rent.
Unfortunately taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge disproportion between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers when retiring sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K.
That makes it sound like the license acts as a proxy for a pension. If so, $200K is really not absurd at all. That's a very small pension, and Uber's disruption of the market is going to mean a lot of Italian taxi drivers have a horrible time living in poverty in their old age. That's obviously not Uber's fault, but it's understandable that the taxi drivers and the government would be very much against a sudden change to the status quo.
Yes. Also, license costs in Italy sunk in the last 15 years anyways, as more of them were granted. Add to that that the license is individual, and you can surely sell it, but just to another person; corporations can't own them and ask for a daily ransom from taxi drivers.
so Uber should be allow to break the laws to offer lower prices (which is not even true in rush hour), is this what you propose?
why not open restaurant chain recycling leftovers from other customers, storing all ingredients without fridge on floor of kitchen with some rats running around BUT hey I am American corporation bringing you cheap food and don't dare to tell me I am unfair competition compared to those dumb local restaurants meeting local hygiene rules
If people buying the food like the food and know what they're getting, then why should government be involved? Let the people spend their money how they want.
If the Italian taxi industry is anything like the Venician gondoliers association, then this ruling has zero to do with safety and everything to do with protectionism.
That's a good point that I would agree with, however, I don't think it's applicable here. It's not just Uber customers that pay for the company's services - the Uber "taxis" also use infrastructure that Italian taxpayers have paid for(roads, taxi lanes, etc...I'm not familiar with the Italian situation). In that case, the Italian taxpayers would also have a say in the services provided.
But even ignoring that, there is a fundamental contention between state regulation and free markets. It's obvious that Europe in general prefers at least some level of state regulation, and is willing to suffer the market inefficiency for it. Whether that's "good" or "bad" is difficult to determine, but there's certainly a number of arguments that can be made in favor of state-wide rather than piecemeal regulation, e.g. the uneven information relationship between producer and consumer(I'm not really qualified to determine whether the product is safe), the unrealistic time investment for each consumer to verify with an independent agency whether a producer is up to their standards, and so on.
Uber is super convenient for customers. But it indulges in illegal and spurious activities. And most customers will not care about the law of the taxi drivers if something's convenient to them. On the flip side taxi drivers won't improve their service.
how is Uber more convenient than any other taxi app? oh yeah, showing lower misleading price for ride than real (got fine for that in my country already) and peak hour nonsense is very convenient for customer, no thanks, you can keep that stuff in US
It's basic supply and demand and it prevents shortages. If it's peak hour and I must get to a meeting and someone else is just going shopping, I would be willing to pay more so I am not late. I think the shopper is willing to pay less to go on the trip at a different time.
Supply and demand. Impossible to ignore. Either high demand leads to high prices or high demand leads to shortages if prices were constrained.
Since you said "you can keep that stuff in US," I have to ask: does supply and demand work differently in your country? It would seem, based of the state of many European economies (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, as examples,) that perhaps they need more of that free market competition "stuff" and much less government and taxes.
we have fixed prices for taxi, so i know how much i will pay and ride cost much less than Uber with surge pricing which is reason nobody really cares about Uber, you can conveniently order taxi through the app, pay online and leave review, not sure why would i need Uber for this, they are rarely cheaper than legal taxi so no thanks i support law abiding companies
If nobody cares about Uber, why should it be banned? Why are the taxi drivers against it? Nobody will use it, and it'll go away by itself like every unprofitable company.
The argument "Uber has low prices because it pays badly, therefore it should be banned" is good. The argument "Uber is actually not cheaper and nobody cares about it, therefore it should be banned" is not.
I don't have the impression that you're deliberately abusing this site, but you're still violating the rules on a semi-regular basis. We don't want to ban you, so would you please stop?
> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations.
This is going to replay in many other countries. It may look like a clash of the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled capitalism with the European model built on top of cross-subsidies and tighter regulations to support all kinds of safety nets. But it's not. To me it looks like a shift away from capital assets (e.g. annual licenses) toward per-per-use economics. If you think about it, there is nothing that prevents the Italian authorities to levy mileage-based fees on Uber to level the paying field.
Ironically, the only time I was forced to use it was in Italy, because it turned out it was a public holiday, so no public transport (including taxis) were running.
Uber's entrance into the market was a great opportunity to either change another awful law/system that's in place, or create a precedent by ruling to not apply the current law. Of course, they didn't do it.
Currently, in order to be a taxi driver you have to pay a license, which costs up to €200,000 (from what I know). Since it would take too long, taxi drivers aren't obliged to give you a receipt. If you ask for one for tax purposes, they give you a piece of paper so that you can write off the expense, but they still don't have to report that to the government. How do they pay taxes? The association itself sets an estimate of how much they're supposed to make each month, that they then pay taxes on. This is many times less than what they actually make. It's a joke, unheard of for any other category (that I know of).
Most importantly, taxis provide a horrible, horrible service. They're super-expensive, to the point of being ridiculous, and known to scam people by overcharging them many times the usual fare (tourists in particular, but not only tourists, I can speak of that).
Public transportation in many cities is inadequate.
Luckily, in many cities (including mine, Florence) they're now offering great car sharing services, where you can select a car near you from the app, and use it for ~€0.25/min. There are 3 different companies doing it, so the market is very healthy. I use it regularly, buses will take me to x in 45' for €1.20, using the car sharing service I can get there in 15' for €4. For comparison, a taxi ride would cost me €15-20.
One thing I don't understand is that in Dublin, I had the impression that most Uber rides were taxi drivers—whom used both the taxi company dispatch system and Uber—and they said they'd make more money with Uber because their share was less than the taxi company's. Although I don't know much about this, I wonder if the same thing would be true in Italy.
If you want to be a taxi driver, Uber would remove having to spend €200,000 to get started (which by the way sounds like a horrible investment to me, since after that you're stuck being a taxi driver). Of course, this isn't fair to those who paid that, but I wouldn't oppose the government buying those back (perhaps with tax credits?) and then change the law. Honestly, I wouldn't oppose those people just losing the money, since they don't seem to refund restaurateurs that close down because they open a McDonald's next door, small shops when a supermarket gets open next door, programmers that make less money because of outsourcing to India, factory workers whose factory closes down and moves to Poland.
Mainly, this situation is not fair. Why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet?
What's so special about taxi drivers?
Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS, as I'm legally required to do?
As usual, politicians kill a cheap, customer-friendly service to save an entrenched monopoly. If the horse cart owners were this smart, we never would have had the automobile revolution.
"advanced" and "largest" are related but not synonymous
I don't want to defend the parents barb any further, so I'll just say this : there's a reason so many highly educated Italians - particular from the south - emigrate. The country suffers from brain drain on an epic scale because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities.
> because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities.
no, it's because the culture is so 50 years behind the rest of the world that I don;t want to sit in a bar were people are still discussing about gay rights or gay marriage or abortion or adapting to an ever changing world or the "euro's faults", like there's really something to argue about it.
I don;t want to live in a country of trained monkeys trying to set the clock 100 years back and talking about how better fascism was.
Yes, it is.
Many will tell you that it is because there's more work outside Italy, but in reality works ethic is a direct consequence of the cultural heritage, not of the country laws or the abundance of job posts.
I don't see myself as a "typical Italian" anymore, quite the opposite, I find it rather offensive.
The common principles that had brought the citizen of this country together after the fascism and the war and made us opponents and not enemies, have collapsed.
If my job and my taxes (quite a lot higher than the average) are paying for the education or the health care of those people that want to ban vaccines or that protect castes and guild of all kinds, when not directly working for the mob, I'm outa here.
> Many will tell you that it is because there's more work outside Italy, but in reality works ethic is a direct consequence of the cultural heritage, not of the country laws or the abundance of job posts.
Interesting. I know quite a few Italian expats (non-software, mostly phds in sciences, mechanical engineers and the like), and they say there's literally nothing in their home regions (Sicily, Puglia) - but that otherwise they'd like to live there despite social issues.
Largest economy is GDP per capita. Public debt is not necessarily related to how the actual economy is doing at the moment. If gov takes a huge loan and uses it to propel business, economy does good. Although there's a debt to pay back far in the future. Which hopefully will be easier to pay thanks to inflation.
7.5 unemployment is OK by europeans terms. Anything bellow 10% is business as usual.
What aspect of the law did they break? I can't find any meaningful details in the articles. They all just say that Uber was banned for "unfair competition". The primary source of the English articles seems to be a Reuters wire with scant details. Anyone know more or have a link? (Including to something in Italian?)
Are Italian court transcripts generally available online? If this was in the US, I'd normally try to find and read the court docket.
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, meaning how people are picked up, drivers certified, security in the cars and so on.
Not following the local laws that everyone else follows, makes it unfair.
My question is, what aspect of the law did they break? I'd like to know the details. The articles in English have few real details about what happened.
i guess you must have taxi license to transport people in car, in my country taxi cars must have also Surfside insurance, Uber cars have none of these so they have unfair advantage which is funny considering they are in peak hour more expensive than taxi with flat rate prices (only difference is day vs night)
Banned for unfair competition!!.So that means taxi operators could not compete for price and may be convenience offered by Uber. isn't that bad for the consumers? May be someone from Italy can comment?
no, that means that taxi companies must pay plenty of fees to meet law requirements which in the end affect price for customer
Uber is ignoring laws and don't pay these fees and taxes and SOMETIMES is able to offer cheaper ride than taxi, while in rush hour it cost more than taxi
i can easily day from comments here who is American without clue about Europe and who is European pissed about some American corporation which is ignoring any laws and pretending they are bringing some progress, like we don't have taxi woods without them, F Uber
Although I no longer ride Uber, I'm shocked that the service is banned from the entire country: on one hand, I'm glad Uber is being reprimanded for constantly side stepping laws, but I'm worried that other services (i.e. Lyft) will be banned too; in this instance, Uber was banned (it appears) due to fear of competition, not for breaking laws.
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, if Über wants to operate in Italy, it just has to follow the local laws like everyone.
it's funny how are Americans here defending Uber breaking laws in Europe, where most people agree with regulating it so they won't break laws and have unfair advantage over taxi, any idiot can drive illegally car and charge less than company which need surcharge taxi insurance, taxi license, car of specific color and standard,etc.
now i am not big fan of taxi (public transport FTW) and still think most of the taxi drivers are thieves if given opportunity, but thanks to taxi apps I don't need to worries about it, not sure where some completely illegal service like Uber fit here
Appalling. Hating on Uber is popular right now for good reasons, but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry (which goes beyond Uber). Is there any information as to whether this affects Lyft?
> after a judge ruled Friday that it created "unfair competition"
And in the linked Reuter's article:
> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations.
Italy's economic troubles should come as no surprise.
> but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry
In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Taxis are therefore mostly a comodity for affluent people : most never use them. Uber is neither important nor a progress in terms of mass transportation.
> In Europe, we actually have working public transportation.
Hard to generalize.
In Italy public trasportation in most cities—even major ones—is absolutely horrible.
In Florence, it takes me 45 minutes to get anywhere by bus instead of 15 by car, some areas are not served at all, and most buses don't run after working hours or 10PM at the most. Buses are often late, overcrowded, and many (most?) without air conditioning with 40C in the summer.
> In Europe, we actually have working public transportation.
Not in Italy, you don't. In no developed nation have I ever found public transportation as unreliable as I have in Italy, and in that I'm including northern Italy.
Not, for example, when they decide to run all of the trains in one direction only, yet neglect to update the schedules displayed on screen in the stations, so anyone looking to head the other direction is stranded for an indeterminate of time. (If the surface transportation was any good, that wouldn't have been such a big problem.)
Milan has as many problems as anywhere else in Italy, and it's not immune from their insane strikes, either.
and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws? there are taxi aggregator apps where you can order really from your phone one of dozen LEGAL taxi services in your city without rush hour bullshit fee and other crap Uber is pulling off
only thing to be thankful to Uber for is making taxi app, which would happen anyway without them, their prices are not that low compared to taxi, they can't compete with European public transport, but they keep breaking law and have unfair advantage
> and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws?
Low prices? Better services? More reliability and accessibility? Which laws are they breaking, except the ones that grant taxis an unfair monopoly?
> they can't compete with European public transport
Then how are they in business and why do they need to be banned? As other commenters have said, Italy's public transportation is among the worst on the continent.
Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice.
If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law.
Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers.
I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice.
So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that.
And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.