The touted start-up is proving to be the embodiment of unrestrained hyper-capitalism. What happens when it wins?494
Jordan Belfort and Gordon Gekko
What is Uber? A paragon of free market efficiency and technological innovation serving the greater convenience and comfort of the general public? Or living proof for why capitalist societies require regulation?
It is testimony to the ceaseless striving of Uber that Silicon Valley watchers find themselves with new reasons to ponder these questions nearly every week. But the end of August brought special vim and vigor to the debate. In particular, Verge’s publication ofCasey Newton’s great scoop about the tactics Uber has been deploying to recruit riders from its top competitor, Lyft, has excited reams of commentary.
No matter what you think of Uber, the scope of “Operation SLOG” (Supplying Long-term Operations Growth) is impressive. Uber has hired hundreds of private contractors in multiple cities and equipped them with multiple burner phones (so as to prevent Lyft from identifying recruiters and blocking them from using its service), as well as credit card numbers and recruitment kits, and mobilized them to lure Lyft drivers over to the other side. Collateral damage to Lyft has extended beyond the siphoning away of drivers. When a Uber recruiter ordered a ride and discovered that the driver was someone who had been previously recruited, he or she immediately cancelled the ride. According to Lyft, Uber has been responsible for more than 5,000 cancelled rides in recent months.
Defenders of no-holds-barred free-market competition see nothing to be alarmed or concerned about. Riders can only benefit from fierce competition for their services, and the number of cancellations is trivial compared to Lyft’s total volume of rides, explainsTimothy Lee at Vox. On the other hand, if you are inclined to see Uber as the acme of ruthless and amoral profit-seeking, then the latest news on Uber’s “deceptive tactics” is just one more confirmation of how the company will do anything to win.
Whichever side you fall on, the story is fascinating. There’s little doubt that Uber is the closest thing we’ve got today to the living, breathing essence of unrestrained capitalism. This is like watching Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller in action. This is how robber barons play. From top to bottom, the company flaunts a street-fighter ethos.
Uber’s ambitions are limitless and it has the bankroll to do what it wants. Indeed, there is some irony to the fact that Uber has so much cash in the bank that it need not comply with the most basic premise of capitalism — the notion that survival is predicated on making more money than you spend. With access to an astonishing $1.5 billion in capital, Uber can simultaneously wage regulatory battles in multiple cities, engage in recruitment wars in which smartphones are distributed like candy, subsidize drivers at below cost, and employ whomever is necessary to achieve long-term goals.
The real question we should be asking ourselves is this: What happens when a company with the DNA of Uber ends up winning it all? What happens when the local taxi companies are destroyed and Lyft is crushed? When Uber has dominant market position in every major city on the globe? “UberEverywhere” isn’t a joke. It’s a mantra, a call to arms, a holy ideology.
What happens when Uber’s priorities turn to generating cash rather than spending it? What happens to labor — the Uber drivers — when they have no alternative but Uber? What happens when it rains and the surge-pricing spikes and there’s nowhere else to go? A company with the street-fighting ethos of Uber isn’t going to let drivers unionize, and it certainly isn’t going to pay them more than it is required to by the harsh laws of competition. It will also dump them entirely in a nanosecond when self-driving cars prove that they are cheaper and safer. Making the case that drivers are benefitting from the current recruitment wars starts to look like a pretty short-term play. The more powerful Uber gets, the more leverage it will have over labor.
So here’s what’s going to happen. Society is going to realize that power as great as Uber’s needs to be checked. Uber, by virtue of its own success, will demonstrate where the lines need to be drawn for the general good. When Uber is the only game in town, the necessity for comprehensive requirements for commercial insurance and background checks will be obvious. When Uber starts using its logistics clout and unlimited investment capital to go after UPS and Hertz and FedEx, regulators will start wondering about antitrust issues.
It’s probably too soon to cry out “Break up Uber.” The company hasn’t won yet. But the smart money is on Uber (by definition, if you consider Google and Goldman Sachs, two prominent Uber investors, to be “smart”). When we allow capitalism to play out without rules, and learn anew how labor gets exploited under that scenario, we may recall why we had rules in the first place.
Arab tourists are being warned to be aware of unscrupulous rickshaw drivers, who are charging up to £200 for short journeys from Selfridges to Harrods
The Licenced Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) is giving leaflets to tourists, warning them that some rickshaw drivers are charging up to £200 for short journeys, such as that from Selfridges in Oxford Street to Harrods, a distance of around two miles.
Taxi drivers have produced a leaflet in Arabic warning tourists about using rickshaws without agreeing a reasonable price Credit: LTDA
The LTDA has now produced a warning leaflet in Arabic to warn visitors of the possible dangers of using rickshaws. It has also used an announcement on the side of a van parked at Marble Arch.
A van warning tourists in Arabic about rickshaws, which the LTDA claims are overcharging tourists. Credit: LTDA
“The LTDA has received dozens of complaints, via our taxi driving members, from Arab tourists who have been ‘Ripped Off’ by unscrupulous Rickshaw Riders for short rides around London. £200 from Selfridges to Harrods is not uncommon and £50 to go a few hundred yards is regularly reported. In an effort to protect visitors to London and safeguard our Capitals good name the LTDA have produced a warning leaflet in Arabic concerning the dangers of using rickshaws. We have produced a similar poster on our Advan which is parked at Marble Arch in the heart of the West End. All day we will be distributing leaflets in this very visual and probably controversial attempt to highlight what is happening to vulnerable non English speaking tourists in London in 2014.”
Taxi bosses are calling for more to be done to keep drivers safe after two were attacked within 48 hours
TAXI drivers in Hampshire have been urged to be vigilant after two drivers were allegedly attacked within 48 hours of each other
In the first incident a driver was reported to have been knocked unconscious in a late-night attack, while two days later a man was allegedly stabbed outside Southampton Central Railway Station.
Now, the head of the Southampton Hackney Association wants more focus on the safety of drivers in the city.
Chairman Ian Hall argued that not enough attention is paid to the difficulties taxi drivers face.
He has worked in the trade for 33 years and vividly remembers when a taxi driver in Southampton was murdered in 1986.
He said: “What concerns me, which I think concerns a lot of drivers, is that in the last 22 years there have been 65 drivers murdered in this country. It’s a particularly dangerous job at night.
“The majority of customers are absolutely fine and we do a good job at getting people home safely.
“It’s all sorts of different people we are picking up and anyone that’s getting into the car could be going through a marriage break-up or having a hard time at work, but that doesn’t give them the right to hit people.
“It can be a bit of a volatile job but this is a good city to live and work in.
“Drivers need to be a bit careful but they are anyway.”
In relation to the incident near the railway station, Nicholas Jeffrey, 27, of no fixed address, appeared in court facing charges of wounding with intent and possessing a knife in a public place.
Police investigating the Swaythling incident confirmed that they had identified a man they wanted to speak after a taxi driver was found unconscious by a colleague.
The 28-year-old victim was assaulted and left unconscious at the junction of Mansbridge Road and Howard Close.
He was found by a fellow taxi driver and taken to Southampton General Hospital, but was not seriously injured.
Anyone with information on the incident is asked to contact Hampshire Constabulary on 101.
MILTON Keynes Council is tightening up its licensing procedures for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in the borough, after a taxi driver convicted of rape and other serious sexual offences was given a new licence.
The council’s chief executive Carole Mills said: “On August 12, Mike Hainge, our newly appointed service director with responsibility for public realm – which includes taxi licensing – launched a review into taxi licensing arrangements. The lawyers from Steven Feakes & Associates cvil litigation can provide one with the necessary legal aid.
“Meanwhile, Peter Marland – leader of the council – received a letter from a member of the public raising specific concerns about taxi licensing in relation to a particular driver. This was promptly passed on to relevant officers on August 20.
“Enquiries were immediately made into the circumstances raised in the letter, and it was established that we had a licensed taxi driver with convictions for rape and other serious sexual offences.
“Therefore, officers revoked the taxi licence of the driver in question on Friday, August 22, and an investigation started to establish the circumstances in which this individual was granted a licence.
“This investigation has identified the following:
The driver in question applied for a taxi licence in February 2010. An enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure dated November 2010 showed that he had four convictions for serious sexual assault, including rape. The applicant was therefore interviewed by officers.
The application was scheduled to be considered by the regulatory sub committee held on January 26 2011, but was adjourned to a later date to allow the applicant to organise and submit additional evidence in support of his application.
The committee reconvened on April 11 2011, and had before it information that made clear the nature of the offences.
This included a report and interview transcript.In its deliberations, the committee took into account a very strong character reference given by a serving councillor, who described himself as a friend, and vouched as to the driver’s good current character and family circumstances.
Surprisingly, given the nature of the offences, a licence was granted and, following receipt of the necessary paperwork and payments, the licence was issued in September 2011.
In January 2012, we were contacted regarding the driver in question, and were provided with further detail about the nature of the offences. In summary, this driver had been convicted of four serious sexual offences, which happened over three separate occasions, with an accomplice, and he had received a substantial custodial sentence.
As a result of receiving this information, the driver in question was required to attend an interview with officers, who suspended his licence with effect from April 24 2012.
A regulatory sub committee was held on May 21 2012 to review the suspension.
The Committee had before it the papers from the original meeting, the enhanced CRB details provided by Thames Valley Police and the transcript of the latest officer interview with the driver. Inexplicably, the committee lifted the suspension and the driver was able to continue to operate as a private hire driver.
The driver in question was also licensed as a hackney carriage driver from March 25 2014.
On August 22 2014, officers conducting the review I mentioned earlier revoked both of his licences.
Meanwhile, the wider review instigated by the council has identified a number of less serious, albeit concerning issues relating to other taxi drivers.
Of course, this situation is very concerning indeed, so the council has taken the following action:
This week, a review of taxi drivers with declared convictions has been undertaken. This review has identified a further seven individuals who give us cause for concern from the 1,300 individuals who have taxi licences in Milton Keynes. Of them, one has surrendered his licence and plates and we have invited the remaining six drivers to come in for interview. We will take action dependent on the outcome of those interviews.
A detailed review of all Milton Keynes taxi licence holders is underway and will be completed as soon as possible. If this review identifies any drivers with undeclared information of concern, their licences will be suspended pending formal hearing.
For all new applications, we have strengthened our oversight and approval processes to ensure sound decision making.
We have produced a new draft Taxi Licensing Policy, which will be considered by Cabinet at the earliest opportunity. All councillors serving on the Regulatory Sub-Committee and relevant officers will undergo a full training programme on that policy.
In the case of drivers contracted by the council to transport children, additional checks are applied. Drivers with convictions have an interview with a specially trained senior manager and only if we are satisfied with the information gained at that interview is that driver allowed to work on the council’s contracts.
What has happened in the past is simply not acceptable. And that’s why, on this coming to light, the Council has taken rapid steps to ensure the safety of our citizens travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle. The process we have put in place for all future licence applications will not allow this situation to happen again.
It’s important to remember that the vast majority of hackney carriage and private hire drivers in Milton Keynes are decent, law-abiding and hardworking people. Our taxi drivers are an important part of our local economy and provide a vital service to our community. I’m hoping that drivers will work with us to secure public confidence in the days and weeks ahead.”
However, if anyone has concerns about any criminal activity that they want to report, they should ring Thames Valley Police Enquiry Centre on 101.”
Peter Marland, leader Milton Keynes Council, said:
“As leader of the council since May 2014, with officers, I took immediate action to revoke the licence of the driver in question and thank officers for their diligence in undertaking a detailed wider assessment of the situation. Officers are working hard to bring the final phase of this taxi licencing review to a swift conclusion to ensure that the people of Milton Keynes can be confident when getting into a Milton Keynes taxi.
It’s the first duty of any council to strive to keep citizens safe and, in this situation; it is highly regrettable that such significant errors have been made.
It is clear that members of the regulatory sub committee exercised very poor judgement in granting a licence to the driver in question, given the nature of the offences. I can confirm that Cllr McKenzie, who was part of the second Committee meeting referred to earlier, has tendered his resignation as vice chair and member of the regulatory committee with immediate effect.
I’m pleased to confirm that we have cross-party support in relation to the action we have taken and how this will work in future. We are committed to being honest and open.”
Cllr Edith Bald, leader of the Conservative Group said: “I was shocked to learn what had happened and immediately called for this driver’s taxi license to be revoked. Passengers’ safety should be the primary consideration in all taxi licensing decisions.
“The action current officers have taken is right and proportionate and I am very supportive of both the prompt revocation of the license of the driver in question and the wider review.
“I am confident that officers are working to swiftly bring the review to a conclusion.
“Given the serious nature of the situation, I called for the elected members responsible to resign from their positions and I am pleased that they have done so.”
Furthermore, Cllr Douglas McCall, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “It is right that the council has taken action to revoke the licence of someone with convictions of this nature.
“I was very concerned to hear about the decisions made by the committee at the two meetings.
“Cllr Burke has today resigned as chairman of the licensing and regulatory committee and sub committees and has also stepped down from the committee.
“Cllr Shafiq also recognises his error of judgement in speaking in support of the driver in question, and has resigned from the role of mayor. I am very pleased that steps are being taken to tighten up procedures in future.”
Here is another great article written by Tim Fenton of Zelo Street
Out there on the right, car and passenger matching service Uber is seen in an unquestioningly positive light: typical is Mark Wallace, former stalwart of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, who has journeyed via the IoD to ConHome. “[Uber] Drivers work for themselves under better conditions with a better income” he proudly declared, although the name of the comparator was not given.
But then, Wallace and his fellow Clever People Who Talk Loudly In Restaurants have been seduced into believing such ideas, without bothering to examine just where the real power in this enterprise lies. And where it lies is not with the drivers, as those Stateside are starting to find out. Without any collective bargaining ability, they have to do what they are damn well told.
Uber gets into price wars; it therefore lowers prices. Driver earnings take the hit. As to insurance requirements, the New Yorker noted “in San Francisco, for instance, taxi operators have to provide a million dollars of liability coverage for their cars at all times; Uber, until recently, covered vehicles only when they held a passenger. But Uber, and companies like it, argue that they’re completely different”.
Behold the belief system of the right …
Yes, Uber claims that it is different, that it should not play by the same rules, and that it should therefore not be subject to all those inconvenient fuddy-duddy olde-worlde regulations. So Uber has recruited the likes of David Plouffe, former advisor to the first Obama presidential campaign. His job will “include lobbying the government to come up with policies that are more favorable to Uber’s interests in the first place”.
But note that the talk here is of Uber, not its drivers, and that should surprise nobody: the little guys at the sharp end are mere cannon fodder. This was demonstrated when “an Uber driver hit and killed a six-year-old girl in San Francisco. The driver’s Uber app was turned on, but he wasn’t carrying a passenger, so Uber said that he, and not the company, should be held responsible”.
… along with their inverted view of corporates
That driver may not have thought about such a scenario when he signed up. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Uber and its lawyers did. All those drivers are a mere means to an end, as Plouffe’s first task is to help launch the Uber API, to enable the integration of hotel chains, airlines, restaurants, and travel advisors. Oh, and Starbucks, of course. All this benefits the multi-billion dollar corporate.
To comprehend what Uber is about, its aggressive stance, and determination to have rules and regulations re-drafted to suit Itself Personally Now, the last people to consult are the unfortunate drivers. As he and his pals continue to back the corporate Goliath against the one-man and one-woman Davids who drive black cabs around London, perhaps Mark Wallace will understand the reality of the situation.
It is an understanding some of us have already grasped.
Recent Comments