> Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences.
I find this interesting because people will apply this type of thinking to one area and almost exactly the opposite to others. In other words, yeah, there are laws/rules but it is OK to violate them or have no consequences.
One obvious example of this is the hotly debated illegal immigration issue in the US. US law clearly establishes what is required in order to emigrate to this country legally. And it further establishes that this legal status is the only way to live and work here permanently.
If we live by this idea that "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" the US ought to deport millions of people (or otherwise impose severe-enough penalties).
BTW, I am not picking on you, you are not the only person to utter these words. I am referring to the general use of this position rather than your use of it. And, BTW #2, I don't for a moment believe we ought to deport everyone.
Many questions here:
What is "the rule of law"?
When can or should laws be ignored?
Who decides?
If a law was a law (not being ignored) at the time the transgression took place and we desire to live where "in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences" should these consequences be applied regardless of how we might feel today?
If rules or laws can be selectively applied or ignored at any time in the future, could one make the argument that they are effectively not rules or laws and one, as an individual, is free to ignore them? If they are not serious enough that they can be ignored, why should anyone take them seriously?
Do laws mean anything if they are not enforced consistently and uniformly across the population?
For example: Why do I have to pay taxes if people are allowed to remain in the country illegally?
Both are laws. One is applied uniformly. The other isn't. I am not passing judgement on immigrants here, these are easy examples to reach for.
Deporting millions of people means less rule of law, not more. There's very significant trade-offs - deportation on that scale can and will intimidate folks into not accessing the legal system, which creates a class of ready-made vulnerable victims and un-reported crimes.
This ideology makes laws optional and completely open to interpretation. I don't have a problem with being compassionate. Our immigration mess almost demands it at this point. I am merely pointing out the irony in wanting laws to have consequences while, at the same time, wanting certain laws to have no consequences at all. What's a law then?
The laws are already overlapping enough that you can't simply get perfect enforcement of all of them. It's a question of tradeoffs - do you care more about deporting everyone you can, or about prosecuting rapists that target illegal immigrants.
It's not arbitrarily deciding not to enforce a law, it's deciding that a different set of law enforcement priorities is more important.
That's a logical fallacy and doesn't answer his question at all. The same could be argued for illegal taxi drivers as a consequence of cracking down on Uber.
'Rule of law' generally refers more to how laws are written and interpreted in general, rather than whether they are enforced in one specific instance.[1] I would argue that the way Uber, AirBNB, and other similar companies are being treated is in violation of the 'rule of law'.
The rule of law is entirely about whether and how laws are enforced. If laws are only enforced at the whim of officials or the personal preference of judges, or can be re-interpreted arbitrarily then the laws does not rule, those individuals rule. In order to have a rule of law you need laws that are for the most part applied evenly and fairly to all.
In San Francisco when Uber started the law said that only licensed taxis could pock up passengers that hailed them on the street. Uber cars didn't do that, so they were legal. I've no problem with that. Good for them!
In Norway it's apparently illegal for unlicensed drivers without specific insurance to carry passengers in return for money. I don't see how anybody can argue that these drivers didn't break the law.
I am not sure what your experiences are with respect to taxi and hotel licenses, but my understanding is that they are generally granted in limited numbers to politically powerful entities in exchange for campaign contributions and a tax on the oligopoly rents.
Taxi licenses would comply with the rule of law iff they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria.
edit: Parent has been edited significantly since I posted my reply, but I will not change mine.
You probably have a very incomplete understanding of taxi licensing. It is, first of all, very different in different localities. Second, while there are often grievous inefficiencies and/or corruption in the taxi licensing process, it is rarely a straightforward case of "powerful entities give you campaign contributions, you give them licensing."
Taxi companies are not, in general, large powerful sophisticated organizations (that's Uber). When they benefit from regulatory capture (which they do in a variety of places), it tends to be a result of slow decades of working extensively with regulators and benefitting from an accretion of rules.
There may be local exceptions because of rule 1: taxi regulation is local. The situation may be massively different outside the US -- I don't know.
Source: Worked for Flywheel, an Uber-like service that used taxis instead of individuals, for several years.
There are many taxi monopolies and oligopolies in the USA; the fact that the abrogations of the rule of law are local makes them no less objectionable.[1]
Whether a law and it's enforcement is objectionable or not has nothing to do with whether it's enforcement is consistent with the rule of law. You're switching tack to a completely separate issue. Also this is about Norway, not the USA where Uber's operations appear to be mainly legal at least.
1. Your link does not support what you say: It points out a grand total of two lawsuits, and makes no particular argumentation that the taxi companies in those two cities are monopolies or oligopolies except in the sense that they are licensed.
2. I was not arguing about whether taxi companies could be construed as having some kind of monopoly, nor whether they are objectionable. I was correcting your broad strokes characterization of "how taxi licensing works."
Here is a chance for you to learn more about the world, rather than defending your mistaken perception. I am not attempting to make you like taxi companies more or less, or to support Uber more or less (I have fairly complicated views on both, and am by no means in anyone's camp). I am attempting to get you to understand how taxi licensing works, and also how regulatory capture works.
Taxi licensing is different in different cities. Substantially so! In some cases, medallions are given to individuals, in some cases they are given to corporations, in some cases they are given to both. There may be different classes of medallions that have different rights. Medallions may be traded or bought and sold. It is not the case in any major taxi market that I'm aware of that the principle way that medallions are granted is a single grant to a single company by an elected official. Which is not to say that it has never happened, since a lot of things have happened in this world.
Also, corruption of the straightforward "I give you money, you give me privileges" sort is probably (obviously it's hard to gather statistics) rare compared to regulatory capture via other means.
A TLC or similar agency probably has a mandate to do something like "promote the ability of residents and visitors of our city to get a safe, clean ride from point A to point B," and quite possibly other things like "provide a transportation infrastructure that disabled people can effectively use" or "be a revenue source" or whatever. Because taxi regulation is not (or was not in the pre-Uber era) a sexy exciting area of government, the chief people that a TLC bureaucrat (almost never a politician who is elected) will hear from in their attempts to satisfy the varying and sometimes conflicting natures of their mandates will be people in the local taxi industry. They'll end up doing a lot of negotiating, discussing, and horse-trading. In the course of this, it is inevitably the case that the bureaucrats regulating the taxi industry will understand and to some degree accept the worldview of the people they're regulating.
There will be lobbying, but rarely of the "I'll give you $1M for your wink campaign" variety. More of the, "This rule is hurting us badly, we need you to rescind it or to give us some other concession to make it bearable" variety. There will be corruption, but it does not involve the tuxedo'd owner of a giant monopoly bringing a slimy politician on a boozy weekend on the yacht. And while taxi companies may indeed close ranks to deal with an intrusive outsider such as Uber, they're (in the cities that I've seen most closely) anything but a cozy club.
None of this should be taken to mean that regulatory capture and corruption in the taxi business are unimportant. But solving the whole "regulators and regulatees work closely together" and "you have multiple mandates" problem is difficult, and trying a broad-strokes answer is unlikely to address the real local problems.
my understanding is that they are generally granted in limited numbers to politically powerful entities
Taxi licenses would comply …if they were freely available to anyone who met the safety and service criteria
In the UK, that's what happens: fulfil the safety and service criteria (e.g. appropriate driving licence, language skills, knowledge of the locale, suitable vehicle, etc), and you can obtain a licence.
To the best of my knowledge, the restrictions on the number of taxis (i.e. the Medallion system) appears to be a predominantly USA-centric issue. I don't know of a similar quota system outside the USA (and please do correct me if I'm ill-informed).
There are cases where companies have appealed against the criteria - such as Uber fighting TFL's language requirements: "a third of the drivers would fail the English tests because it would be too difficult for them" [1] - but it's still the case that if they fulfil the criteria, they can obtain a licence.
>"The Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" this way:[2]
The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."
Suppose the law said that only 1000 licenses for a particular kind of vehicle could be valid at any given time and new licenses could only be issued if old ones were surrendered, perhaps to limit congestion on the roads or pollution or whatever. As long as that law was enforced fairly, someone wanting to operate a new vehicle of that kind but unable to do so due to lack of available licenses would still be being treated fairly.
If an official could arbitrarily remove licenses from one person and assign it to another, or arbitrarily assign more licenses at their discretion that would be a violation of the rule of law even if it was allowed by the law, because the official would be deciding who got licenses and not the law.
Just because a law is openly discriminatory doesn't mean that enforcing it is against the rule of law principle. It could violate some other worthy principle like treating rich and poor the same.
It seems that they are not paying 'licensing' fees/taxes, though I (much like you) am not sure because of the translation. I generally believe that most licenses that raise revenue for the government violate the rule of law, especially when they are issued on a political or non-safety related bases.
My definition of rule of law is a common one where:
1) Laws must be known by all who are governed by them (i.e. there cannot be secret laws)
2) The enforcement of laws must be foreseeable and predictable (i.e. laws should not be interpreted or enforced differently over time)
3) Laws should be enforced equally against all those subject to the law (i.e. there should be no exemptions)
I would argue that 'sharing economy' companies have been subjected to abrogations of 2 and 3 in many jurisdictions, and I fail to see how this specific enforcement action proves that any of these principles are being upheld. I appear to be in the minority, and a great number of people seem to believe that I am factually incorrect.
Why do employees, or contractors face more severe penalties (in proportion) than the company?
Uber hired these people, they should face big fines and losing business license. Hell even if they both are fine equally 100% off income for Uber drivers, and fined 100% income for the company as well.
Illegal immigration wouldn't happen if there were huge penalties against companies and or people hiring them.
Did Uber actually hire these people? My understanding is that Uber drivers do not enter an employee-employer relationship with Uber, at least in the US.
Even if it's a company-contractor relationship it has the same implications. You can't do business illegally, or else every company wanting to do something illegal would hire contractors.
I'm from Norway, and e24 is credible enough in this particular case.
I'd like to shed some background on why the story, though: In Norway, transporting passengers is extremely regulated. As in most other countries, taxi drivers need to have a license, go through certain tests etc., to be allowed to transport passengers.
The problem is that Uber (in Norway) won't cooperate with the government in regards to a number of standards we have; it goes all from how the drivers are paid (taxation) to (more importantly) if the insurance covers any damages other than the car and/or its owner, not the passenger(s). Also, how well do Uber do background checks on their drivers? I guess it's easy to give a negative rating on a driver after you've been raped, or hit in the head with a hammer, but - hey - that could happen to anyone?
I've lived in San Francisco, and used Uber, and I must say that I feel a lot safer in a taxi. I know that their insurance will cover me in case something happens, even though my Norwegian travel insurance is worth more than gold in US hospitals (tried that, different discussion). I know that my taxi driver represents a company more than an Uber driver represents him-/herself.
Said that, I've met some fantastic Uber drivers over the years, and I hope that - over time - Uber (and the likes) and the licensed taxi/cab business can meet in the middle somewhere. The priority shouldn't be price, IMO, but the safety of the passengers AND the drivers.
I've been in a few Lyft and Uber rides and at some point I just stopped counting how many traffic laws were being broken (red light, no turn signal, improperly overtaking another car, driving on the bike lane to cut traffic, turning left wher eits was prohibited, etc). Never mind the loud music too.
I don't have the same careless experience when I take a taxi. Of course, this is anecdata only, but the fact that there are virtually no requirements make me worried. I only take Uber/Lyft if someone else is ordering it (when we're in a group), otherwise I'll find other options with actual professional drivers or public transportation.
That's interesting, because anecdotally I have had essentially the opposite experience.
Taxis in my area (Seattle) drive fast and loose, at least they did 4 to 5 years ago. No signals, always about 10MPH over the limit. Music always on, not loud, but usually always on.
Lyft/Uber drivers in the area were/are a little more gentle (the ones that weren't taxi drivers before). Interestingly, sometimes I'll get a Lyft driver that asks if I care about how fast I need to get to my destination and how I'd like them to drive.
Also, I took taxis in Prague during vacation, and that system is amazing and I'd choose those taxi services over Uber/Lyft any day. Clean, quick, stupid simple, and the drivers were pros.
We're also in Seattle and had the same experience. I took several taxis to the airport but switched to Lyft or Uber because I felt like the taxi drivers might get me killed. The Uber black car drivers were by far the safest of all of the methods, but I only used those a couple of times.
I'm going to have to agree with other posters that have had the opposite experience.
The majority of taxi drivers I come across are terrible drivers. They pump the brakes on the highway when there is no traffic, they go slow in the left lane, make illegal turns, and don't know where they are going.
Lyft drivers are hit and miss, but for the most part, are people who are good at driving and getting where they are going. Plus they all use waze or Google Maps, so their directions are good.
I've had to exhort a couple of Lyft drivers (I try to avoid the other one) to go faster to keep up with traffic, but other then that, they are on average 2 steps above taxi drivers in terms of alacrity and situational awareness.
I find it very interesting that you feel the taxi's are safer. My experience, like several of the other posters here, is that Uber is a much more comfortable and safer experience than a Taxi (in the US).
With an Uber driver you have immediate feedback as to how the experience was, and it helps other users get better rides. With a Taxi, you have to go through a lot more steps to report a driver's behavior and hope that maybe it gets taken into account eventually.
I wonder if it has something to do with the perception that Taxis are bad here in the US, that just opens up Uber to be 'better' even if there is no real difference.
It seems whenever we discuss taxis and Uber/Lyft/etc, one has to make it clear what area the experience happened in. Re-analyzing my experiences, I don't feel I have enough data now to compare both services as they happened in very different cities and not enough times to draw any conclusions.
So rephrasing my argument: I feel safer in my city, with the requirements the local government imposes on taxis (licensing, training, special driver license, etc) versus "anyone can drive an Uber/Lyft". Interestingly, my personal experience has contributed to make this feeling stronger but I understand that will not be the case for others. I often hear a lot of bad stories about taxis in the US and, to make me more confused, that's where I had terrible Uber/Lyft experiences.
I think this only goes to show there's a huge lack of quality everywhere, with both services.
Norwegian here. I belive that e24.no is highly credible, I have been reading it for a number of years. The news of the harsh penalties for these uber drivers have also been mentioned in the radio news.
Yeah, I understand not wanting Uber in your country and going after the company, but to hit bottom-tier employees is just wrong. Reminds me of the US justice system in the finance sector.
Norway wants Uber and its drivers to follow Norwegian laws, namely fulfil the requirement of a license for paid passenger transportation.
> to hit bottom-tier employees is just wrong.
Uber sells them as independent contractors, and regardless norwegian law requires that the operator of the vehicle has a license, which is the drivers.
Just because the punishment is legal doesn't mean it isn't excessively harsh. Would you have the same reply for someone who was caught with a bag of weed in Singapore and was facing caning and a long prison sentence?
Norway comes down strongly on speeders ( http://www.speedingeurope.com/norway/ ) with mandatory jail time, etc. Seems like it is just part of how Norway regulates drivers.
Norway considers them independent contractors? You would never require this of regular employees would you? You would hold the corporation responsible.
> You would never require this of regular employees would you? You would hold the corporation responsible.
Both would be responsible. Consider a truck driver without a driving license (at all), the company would probably be investigated for having a driver without a license, the driver would definitely be charged.
Regardless of contractor/employee status, there are additional requirements for commercial passenger transport besides having a Driver's License. Certainly drivers are responsible for compliance.
The gray part is the fact that Uber happily entered markets by ignoring regulation or unilaterally deciding some rules didn't apply to them. Right or wrong, they were deciding without getting approval.
I use the term 'gray market' which is commonly used to differentiate from 'black market' or clearly illegal, and 'white market' or fully above board and legal.
I mean, in the country the article about it seems just black to me. Clearly against the existing rules and thus getting punished. Don't see the vagueness that could make it gray.
No, it's not. It's more like the US practice of charging people with a misdemeanor crime for selling insurance without a license, which can be levied even against someone selling insurance for a company . Zenefits employees, for instance, risked felony charges in some states and if the company had continued to do business that way I think it's plausible some would have been convicted. However Zenefits changed their leadership, publicly said it was wrong of them and that they wouldn't do it again. Uber has doubled down and said "nah mate we're cool what are you going to do about it". Surprise, the Norwegians are calling their bluff.
Except in this analogy the bank would be a rogue operation that deliberately and openly defies local law. And the teller would be someone who knowingly participates in breaking the law. So it's really more akin being a member of the mob.
because the bank management didn't follow the rules
In this analogy,
1. Does the bank teller understand that the rules aren't being followed?
2. Is the teller legally obliged to understand the rules?
If a bar-tender serves someone underage, the bar is liable, but so is the bar-tender. Bar-tenders are required to understand the rules (and ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not following the law).
you make it sound like that is an unfathomable reality to be used an analogy for how ridiculous the Uber scenario is, except that would be reality.
all banks operate under licensing regimes these days. if a legislature also decided to hold bank tellers personally liable because they were operating without a license personally or their organization wasn't, it would be the same. Does the Norwegian government do that? Well I wouldn't have been able to tell you they did that for taxi drivers there 5 minutes ago. The point is that its not actually far fetched.
Person A wants to go from point P1 to point P2. Person B offers to take person A via car ride in exchange for a commonly agreed amount of money. Both see the exchange as advantageous to themselves and the exchange is made.
Bureaucrats see this and become furious that they didn't get their share for doing nothing. Bureaucrats punish Person B.
It baffles me the amount of support in this threads for this totalitarian bullshit... i know we suppose to hate Uber but ultimately charging with criminal charges to the "users" aka "drivers" is huge mistake, it will be the equivalent of the US government asking you to paid all your earnings because ebay wasn't playing by the rules.
PS: On a side note, i will add Norway to the list of countries you shouldn't do business.
When Uber and its employees and/or contractors are intentionally and knowingly breaking criminal laws, then they are absolutely liable to criminal charges. They don't get to ignore laws they disagree with any more than any other citizen would. It would be unreasonable and unfair to assume otherwise.
Almost any service we as developer built "are intentionally and knowingly breaking criminal law", either you are breaking local, state or federal laws or not complying with some standards that could face "criminal charges" therefore you are asking and giving the government the power to pretty much do anything they want. M sure in most of the countries, applying this will end in people rioting and vandalism.
Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be consequences.