
Uber drivers in Norway must pay back all earnings and lose their license - sprite
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fe24.no%2Fdigital%2Fuber%2Fuber-sjaafoer-tatt-av-oslo-politiet-maa-betale-920-172-kroner%2F23942153&edit-text=
======
robert_foss
To me this seems like a reasonable response.

Rules have been violated, and in a society with a rule of law there has to be
consequences.

~~~
rebootthesystem
> 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.

Complex subject, isn't it?

~~~
flubert
Any thoughts you'd like to share on:

The Myth of the Rule of Law...

[http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm](http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)

~~~
rebootthesystem
Looks like a very interesting and well-written essay. I'll try to read it
tonight and get back to you with some thoughts. Thanks.

------
ryanmcdonough
Feel like the title needs to start with "12"

------
afinlayson
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.

~~~
chillacy
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.

~~~
afinlayson
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.

~~~
chillacy
I see, as of october last year it looks like Uber got sued in the UK over
this, and lost. It may end up having to employ the drivers.

------
hartator
Google transalte has bacame really good. I didn't notice it was a translation
until looking at the domain.

[Edit] Now, I have re-read looking for mistakes, it's obvious it's a
translation. Still, it can rank as a weird english dialect written in a hurry.

~~~
Y_Y
One could say the same about your post. I think if Google can pass for a non-
native speaker that's pretty good.

------
tyingq
Wow...One of the drivers has to pay back close to 1M kroner. Close to $118k
USD.

------
d33
Could someone from Norway provide a comment on this? How credible is e24.no?

~~~
thatwasunusual
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.

~~~
gtirloni
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.

~~~
blakes
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.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
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.

------
zeveb
How terrible for them — all they did was drive people to their destinations in
return for money: the passengers and the drivers benefitted alike.

And how cruel of the Norwegian Crown.

~~~
myowncrapulence
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.

~~~
astrange
They aren't employees.

~~~
gtirloni
That's the weak argument Uber is trying to make everywhere.

------
dustinmr
Norway considers them independent contractors? You would never require this of
regular employees would you? You would hold the corporation responsible.

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

------
Flammy
If your goal is to deter companies and individuals for taking advantage of
gray markets, this is probably a very logical decision.

~~~
Scarblac
What's gray about it?

~~~
Flammy
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.

~~~
Scarblac
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.

------
trendia
This is like forcing bank tellers to pay back their salary to the government
because the bank management didn't follow the rules.

~~~
lazyasciiart
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.

------
andrenth
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.

------
SadWebDeveloper
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.

~~~
rleigh
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.

~~~
SadWebDeveloper
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.

