Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#41

Post by plantain »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #6
farhanhubble wrote: post #2

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only…

"Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda...

They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#42

Post by resolutebat »

pjd7 wrote: post #35

Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison. A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me. Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too. The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The…

And why are they better "these days"? Because competition from Uber forced them to up their game.

They still suck though, and ripoffs and even sexual assault remain legion.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#43

Post by protocolture »

kevingadd wrote: post #13
NoPicklez wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.

>They could have spent all this money lobbying

So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change?

That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber?

Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#44

Post by TillE »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.

How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.

"Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already.

If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#45

Post by mihaic »

bouncycastle wrote: post #32

they didn't break the law. Otherwise, if your boss asked you to drive their friend to the airport, then that would be illegal.

In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job.

Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#46

Post by protocolture »

zeofig wrote: post #16
joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

>They broke the law.

Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.

>Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices.

And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.

>the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#47

Post by protocolture »

lozenge wrote: post #8
farhanhubble wrote: post #2

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.

An unjust law, which was ignored justly.

You don't have LGBT people paying cops because they committed buggery before it was legalised.

Appealing to unjust laws for your argument is the weakest play in the book.

Uber didnt cause any damage, decades of taxi monopoly caused damage. Uber corrected the injustice.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#48

Post by littlecosmic »

zo1 wrote: post #31
BadHumans wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.

Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act. Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.

In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#49

Post by protocolture »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #6
farhanhubble wrote: post #2

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only…

>this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get.

An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#50

Post by protocolture »

pjd7 wrote: post #35

Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison. A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me. Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too. The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The…

I ordered an uber from one side of the Sydney CBD to the other.

We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip.

Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably in the CBD I found that Uber into the CBD, taxi out of the CBD was the best way forward.

Post reply on HN