
Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service - webhat
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-24/uber-ceo-indicted-in-south-korea-over-its-taxi-service.html
======
debacle
> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish
> drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in
> today’s e-mail.

Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's
not going to work in Seoul.

~~~
gnu8
The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the
drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and
rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back
to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service.

The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them
all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize,
since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber
cuts their rates.

~~~
wozniacki
I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not
just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in
it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is
for another time.

Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the
consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and
sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the
interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the
experience of the consumers.

As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :

Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where
unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely
beneficial to the consumers and patrons?

Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?

I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my
experience as a consumer.

~~~
freehunter
Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their
employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

~~~
ihnorton
That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial
revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.

~~~
freehunter
Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But
back then, the _people_ wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now
when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe
them.

------
cpplinuxdude
> "worries over the safety of consumers"

Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a
different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service
instead?

~~~
noelwelsh
Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like
users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service
than those that provide it.

Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the
most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

~~~
austerity
I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the
quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And
we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp,
Facebook, etc.).

~~~
noelwelsh
You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service.

Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the
quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or
waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone
I know; the doctor was of course struck off).

As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the
licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's
not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-
uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is
that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the
way that government licensing services are.

------
wonjun
The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of
place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is
different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have
different expectations and are wary about different safety issues.

This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire
globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come
up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their
locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same
McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by
operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit
from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in
developing the technology, but not in operations.

Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.

------
Shizka
> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)
> to people who provide information on Uber’s services. "

> "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison
> sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]"

Can anyone clarify this for me?

I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between
two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly
illogical to me if this is the case.

~~~
ceejayoz
There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of
up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly
more money.

------
jastr
"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..."

"The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison
sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..."

So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in
jail!

~~~
colinbartlett
This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine
or 6 months in prison." \- that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.

~~~
juliangregorian
Yup, because if you don't have $500 you're probably one of those homeless
criminal types and should be locked up anyway.

I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount
would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?

------
bello
To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold
individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't
they just ban/fine the company instead?

~~~
PMan74
IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the
directors are shown to have acted outside company law.

Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do
what we want" \- in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on
that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.

