
French government orders Uber taxi ban after protests - itg
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33281896
======
hbbio
This situation is ridiculous, both for taxis and the government... and will
only serve Uber in the long term. Let's share my view as a Frenchy frog :)

1\. Taxi drivers began selling each other taxi driver licenses (although they
are obtained for free from the state, on a waiting list). They are angry that
Uber registers in a new category, so they "skip" the entry price. But, it's
only the taxis fault if they bought licenses and thought they had "value".

2\. Violent taxi demonstrations should lead these drivers directly in jail.
But it's France, so you don't go to jail... and if you're a lobby (and they
clearly are), you even don't get arrested.

3\. The government is 100% wrong to side with taxis from day one and punish
Uber for the taxi drivers riots, rewarding people who harassed drivers and
their customers, destroyed cars and burned streets. It's a huge blow for their
popularity which is already very very low. It shows a poor image of the state
to both citizens and visitors.

4\. People will just stop using taxis more and more. Who wants to be driven by
violent guys, and who already are usually bad drivers that even harass people
who are not their clients (saw one cab driver last week yell at a woman who
was wearing a summer dress)?

5\. We're now sure that everybody in France knows about Uber!

(and it's not only about Uber, as there is also a French competitor named
[https://www.chauffeur-prive.com/](https://www.chauffeur-prive.com/) )

~~~
JoshTriplett
> 5\. We're now sure that everybody in France knows about Uber!

I'd be curious how this is being spun by the various local news services in
France. It wouldn't be that hard to spin this to make Uber look bad. Consider
a headline like "Uber spawned another violent outburst today", and similar
spin on the details; it'd be easy to obscure who is actually responsible for
the violence.

~~~
stephengillie
Uber seems to be the type of organization that benefits even from bad news.
I'm cynical enough to believe their heavy-handed method of operating is part
of their marketing strategy.

~~~
thrill
Heavy-handed? Do they block roads and burn things if you don't ride with them?

~~~
stephengillie
Heavy-handed with governments, not with individual users.

------
segmondy
Nothing wrong with their orders. Uber is still operating illegally. This is
causing public disorder and protests, which is putting lives at risk. I saw a
video yesterday where someone dropped a cinder block from a bridge to what
they suspect is an Uber car. It seems easier and cheaper to get Uber to comply
for now than to stop the protests. The government has to take an action, then
have this resolved in the court of law.

~~~
dimino
So the car that got the brick dropped on it is at fault, rather than the guy
dropping the brick?

~~~
logician76
Europeans tend to look at the root cause to fix the issue, not declare war on
the symptoms like Americans.

~~~
LukeB_UK
Taking action on both would be the logical route.

------
BurningFrog
In France, rioting is the fourth branch of government.

~~~
bgilroy26
I'm American, and all but aren't riots/strikes etc examples of how France's
political life enjoys a much higher per-capita rate of material participation
than USAns are accustomed to seeing?

~~~
mcintyre1994
Absolutely serious question - are riots considered part of political life in
the same way protests are? If they are politically motivated, what sets at
least these riots apart from terrorism, defined in Oxford Dictionaries as "use
of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"?

~~~
pmalynin
<sarcasm> Terrorism is reserved for perpetrators with Islamic beliefs.
</sarcasm>

~~~
woah
Not true. Terrorism is only done by those who are opposed to US foreign
policy.

------
mikehawkins
Thanks for sharing! Interesting thing is that until now, Uber has been paying
the drivers' fines for operating illegally while waiting for the court case to
be resolved.

~~~
bopf
way to go France. Instead of punishing the guys who riot and light up cars in
the streets, you punish an innovative disruptor.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Violating labor and transportation laws to drive demand isn't being a
disruptor.

Are we so tone deaf in the HackerNews bubble that we don't realize that labor
rights aren't a four letter word? I'm not for regulator capture with regards
to taxi medallions, but I am supportive of regulations that permit people to
have an acceptable quality of life.

Or do we need to wait for the next bubble to burst and devs on the street with
signs saying "will develop in React for food" to see that? Shall we look down
on them as people look down on these protests? (Note: I DO NOT condone
property damage or violence)

~~~
UK-AL
But you have to remember. This is one group of people(taxi drivers), not
allowing another group of people(Uber drivers) not to earn a living driving
cars.

There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of
people, another group of people loses out.

~~~
claudius
> There is no free lunch. If you introduce regulation to protect a group of
> people, another group of people loses out.

And the correct way to change that in a modern democracy is to lobby for
better laws in parliament and/or found your own party and then win the
population’s votes to fix your issue.

Wilfully ignoring existing laws implies a fundamental lack of respect for
society and democracy.

~~~
asift
Why should people respect a system that doesn't respect them? Disrespect for
immoral laws is valuable for the continued evolution of liberal societies.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Labor laws aren't (EDIT: intended to be) immoral.

~~~
asift
A sweeping statement such as this is almost certainly false. Of course, _some_
labor laws are perfectly moral, but some are immoral as well.

In general terms, labor laws such as wage prohibitions and occupational
licensing tend to give relatively economically advantaged workers artificial
advantages over lower skilled workers. In this respect, they serve as upwards
redistribution of wealth and opportunity. At the same time, they restrict
consumer sovereignty and the ability for people to freely engage in commerce.
Of course, there are counter arguments to these as well. My intent here is not
to make any overly simplistic sweeping claims, but to point out that there are
some thoughtful and powerful lines of reasoning that call into question the
morality of many existing labor regulations.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> My intent here is not to make any overly simplistic sweeping claims, but to
> point out that there are some thoughtful and powerful lines of reasoning
> that call into question the morality of many existing labor regulations.

I don't believe we disagree on this. Labor laws are a balance between the
right of a citizen to earn a living wage and the right of a consumer to engage
in commerce permitted by the State.

With that said, I believe that consumer sovereignty should _never_ take
precedence over labor rights.

~~~
asift
>With that said, I believe that consumer sovereignty should never take
precedence over labor rights.

Because the buggymaker's job is more important than the consumer's right to
buy an automobile?

~~~
toomuchtodo
You don't have a right to someone's labor below a minimum rate set by the
government. We call that slavery.

~~~
cromwellian
Slavery is non-consensual labor. Uber drivers aren't slaves, have you talked
to any? I engage in conversation with Uber drivers almost every time, many of
them are ex-Taxi drivers, and many of them like Uber far more. Here are some
of the usual comments I am told:

1\. Can work on my own schedule. "When I was a Taxi driver, I had to show up
at the dispatcher to pick up a car on their schedule." 2\. Driving someone
else's car. "Sometimes I sit 2 hours waiting for a car to be returned to begin
my shift, often it is dirty and I am required to clean it before taking it
out." 3\. Freedom to engage in a side business. "My wife makes jewelry, I
display it on the back seat and sell it to tourists who are interested." 4\.
Higher pay. Yes, there are studies that try to debunk this by citing higher
costs or higher variability, but the arguments are unpersuasive. They count
the cost of a driver maintaining his Uber car, while treating the medallion
company's maintenance as a benefit, but an UberX driver and a Taxi Cab driver
who owns a personal vehicle both pay car maintenance costs, albeit there's
more wear and tear on the UberX car. Likewise, while variability is higher in
salary, so is freedom in work hours and Uber drivers consistently rate this as
the most loved feature of being an Uber driver.

This isn't really about labor laws, this is about regulatory capture. The
French government has created an artificial shortage of supply, assigned
special rights to a Guild, which simultaneously jacks up prices and provides
more inconvenience to the customer, while establishing a monopoly in which bad
drivers with bad attitudes can't be contested.

It then lets this group which has performed regulatory capture, essentially
engage in mass property damage, terror (smashing cars with people in them),
actions which are inherently dangerous and could lead to people getting killed
on the roads, all without arresting them, or making them criminally or civilly
liable.

What will France do if the entire world moves to self-driving vehicles? Will
they ban them to protect French Taxi cab drivers? Will you claim the Robots
are Slaves? What would they do if public transport threatened Taxi Cab driver
salaries if some new public transport system made cabs less needed?

The French government has allowed itself to be captured by a minority
industry. This isn't about broad labor rights, it's about a small guild trying
to protect its monopoly by holding the government / citizenry hostage with
violent protests.

------
Fiahil
If I read the news right yesterday, the ban only apply to Uber Pop and not
Uber as a whole.

Anyway, there is no place for such regulation and it's on its way to be
terminated soon by some european order, if I recall correctly.

------
yummyfajitas
It's weird watching how the media chooses words. Consider the situation of a
bunch of people engaging in violence against third parties in order to advance
their political agenda.

If the people are Arabs doing it for Islam, it's called "terrorism". If the
people are white and doing it for greed masquerading as left wing causes, it's
called "protests".

Weird how that works.

~~~
lfuller
I think the primary difference is the level of escalation. Protests typically
involve destruction of property with violent interpersonal encounters as
collateral, while terrorism usually involves torture or mass killings.

------
cms07
A good but unfortunately temporary decision for the working people of France.
Good on them.

------
CodeSheikh
Learn how to use a smartphone and download the app. Problems solved. I am sure
they pay a certain % to w/e Frenchy cab companies anyway akin to infamous
Yello-cab in NYC.

