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?
Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
21–30 of 147 posts
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence. What about the client's rights?
I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming.
However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#23> "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?
That would require personal responsibility-- we certainly can't promote that. It might lead to a snowball effect where people might demand control over their own lives in other areas, such as substances they choose to consume, education they choose to pursue (or not pursue) or people taking charge of their own health. We certainly can't allow that, the "people" are helpless and if left to their own devices, they might just starve or overdose on Sudafed.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#24> “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.
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand li…
Well Sweden does not regulate taxi pricing at all, they have to display prices but there is no price control.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand li…
On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#27To 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?
Depends heavily on the kind of law, and the kind of company. In the US, the main attraction of being a LLC is that the liability, for the most part, stops at the juridical person level, with natural persons being protected. Doesn't apply to this case, as SK law is probably radically different.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#28> "[...]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…
Presumably it's just about degrees of severity. If the case is decreed minor enough, the punishment is a fine up to $20.000; if it's more severe, the penalty is a prison sentence of some months up to 24 months in the most severe case.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#29> “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.
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.
Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.
I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I?
Correct.