First It Was Easy Taxi, Now Uber Doa?!

[Bajo_cero2]

I write for two Uber oriented websites, so know quite a bit about the company as I write upwards of 15 articles per week on Uber.

There really is no right or wrong here as taxi drivers and the industry do not have a divine right to monpolize a market, consumers deserve choice and Uber provides it. That said, the company flies in the face of regulations under the guise that it is a technology company and its drivers are merely freelancers. Fair enough, but this means the company operates illegally in virtually every market it is in, which in turn means uninsured drivers. Seattle's decision to allow Uber drivers to form a union could change a few things for the company, while local governments are slowly finding ways to stop the company's expansion.

That said, if Uber plans to come here, then it will probably thrive as it has everywhere else. I welcome it because it gives more choice, plus I think the taxi drivers in this city are collectively poor at their job (come at me supporters of the industry).

Thanks for your honesty.

You are missing the point (you are not really, because you work for UBER) because there is not a monopoly at all today. There are thousands of taxis licens in this city while UBER looks like unfair competition and sounds like a potential monopoly as soon as its policy sounds like dumping.

First, you need to buy an expensive license to work as a taxi in this city.

For being a taxi driver, you have a higher standard for getting a driver license and the sanctions are higher. For example, you can have until 0.5 ppm of alcohol in blood with a normal driver license and zero being a taxi driver.

In my 40 years living in this city, i had issues only once with a taxi driver.

If you want a better car, you can always call a remise.

Some other cities like Cordoba are different. There the taxi drivers are awkfull.

There are no free lancers in this country, judges call it labor fraud. So, the whole busisness plan of UBER is based on to do not pay the taxi licence, to get the taxi driver' s licence, to avoid to pay his worker' s tax (medical insurance and retirement). And, of course, to do not take any responsability on the accidents because if you have an accident on an illegal taxi (UBER), the insurance is not going to pay. So, the driver is F...d, you are f...d and UBER is not. Nothig like a zero liability busisness.

 

[scotttswan]

Thanks for your honesty.

You are missing the point (you are not really, because you work for UBER) because there is not a monopoly at all today. There are thousands of taxis licens in this city while UBER looks like unfair competition and sounds like a potential monopoly as soon as its policy sounds like dumping.

First, you need to buy an expensive license to work as a taxi in this city.

For being a taxi driver, you have a higher standard for getting a driver license and the sanctions are higher. For example, you can have until 0.5 ppm of alcohol in blood with a normal driver license and zero being a taxi driver.

In my 40 years living in this city, i had issues only once with a taxi driver.

If you want a better car, you can always call a remise.

Some other cities like Cordoba are different. There the taxi drivers are awkfull.

There are no free lancers in this country, judges call it labor fraud. So, the whole busisness plan of UBER is based on to do not pay the taxi licence, to get the taxi driver' s licence, to avoid to pay his worker' s tax (medical insurance and retirement). And, of course, to do not take any responsability on the accidents because if you have an accident on an illegal taxi (UBER), the insurance is not going to pay. So, the driver is F...d, you are f...d and UBER is not. Nothig like a zero liability busisness.

A post i can finally agree with. :lol:

 

[semigoodlookin]

Thanks for your honesty.

You are missing the point (you are not really, because you work for UBER) because there is not a monopoly at all today. There are thousands of taxis licens in this city while UBER looks like unfair competition and sounds like a potential monopoly as soon as its policy sounds like dumping.

First, you need to buy an expensive license to work as a taxi in this city.

For being a taxi driver, you have a higher standard for getting a driver license and the sanctions are higher. For example, you can have until 0.5 ppm of alcohol in blood with a normal driver license and zero being a taxi driver.

In my 40 years living in this city, i had issues only once with a taxi driver.

If you want a better car, you can always call a remise.

Some other cities like Cordoba are different. There the taxi drivers are awkfull.

There are no free lancers in this country, judges call it labor fraud. So, the whole busisness plan of UBER is based on to do not pay the taxi licence, to get the taxi driver' s licence, to avoid to pay his worker' s tax (medical insurance and retirement). And, of course, to do not take any responsability on the accidents because if you have an accident on an illegal taxi (UBER), the insurance is not going to pay. So, the driver is F...d, you are f...d and UBER is not. Nothig like a zero liability busisness.

All fair enough, I did not know the taxi situation in Argentina. I am not for or against Uber in any market, I believe it has its pros and cons.

For clarification. I do not work for Uber. Unlike people from this country, I am a freelancer. One of my clients happens to be an insurance company (Aviva) that offers policies for Uber and has a dedicated site. if that means I work for Uber, so be it, but then I also work for Euroleague Basketball, Apple, Microsoft, and The Premier League.

 

[GMXam]

If you want a better car, you can always call a remise.

I agree, although I'm curious. How do remis companies operate? Do they utilize a specific license, as well? Are they held to the same standard for alcohol limits as taxis?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I agree, although I'm curious. How do remis companies operate? Do they utilize a specific license, as well? Are they held to the same standard for alcohol limits as taxis?

http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/tramites/alta-de-habilitacion-de-remises

http://www.ciudadyderechos.org.ar/transito/derechosbasicos_l.php?id=23&id2=87&id3=3701

Professional driver license requirements:

http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/areas/obr_publicas/lic_conducir/ampliacion.php

Alcohol and driving:
http://www.leyparatodos.gob.ar/transito-y-transporte/transito-y-consumo-de-alcohol

Here is a good article about UBER and the local regulations they do not want to fullfit:
http://www.clarin.com/ciudades/Polemica-Uber-Ciudad-habilitara-aplicacion_0_1548445647.html

 

[Ceviche]

Thanks Bajo for the awesome post exposing Uber.

 

[Girino]

Uber was strongly opposed also in Italy. I don't know the details because it happened when I already was no longer living there. Taxi requirements are the same described by Bajo_cero - a high entry fee (license), set fare fees, etc.

In a certain sense, I am in favor of the free market per sé, but having seen what has been happening with too much deregulation in other professions, I am not taking side with Uber in big cities, in all fairness.
I am in favor of car pooling and sharing rides for remote areas, where public transport is scarce or taxi are not available or extremely expensive. I am also concerned with safety in a place like Buenos Aires, where tourists have reported being robbed when they took a (fake?) taxi for the airport to their hostel when they first arrived - such as the taxi faked to have issues on the highway, another car approached us to 'fake' help, and the tourist ended up being robbed of his belongings, or the tourist arrive late in the night at Ezeiza, took a taxi, and when he got off in front of his hostel, as soon as the taxi left he was robbed, probably by someone alerted by the taxi driver himself. Not to mention the fake 100 bills exchange, the abusing of drunken riders etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha_soNGADMY

 

[mikic007]

It's funny, how no one mentions the tax of 20% which uber is taking for every transfer. Theoretically one app will earn 20% of world transfer revenue without any investment, any trouble, nothing. And all goes to USA. I will never use such app, as I also try to avoid booking websites...

 

[RodalfoWalsh]

It's funny, how no one mentions the tax of 20% which uber is taking for every transfer. Theoretically one app will earn 20% of world transfer revenue without any investment, any trouble, nothing. And all goes to USA. I will never use such app, as I also try to avoid booking websites...

Maybe because we all know what the word "tax" means?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

It's funny, how no one mentions the tax of 20% which uber is taking for every transfer. Theoretically one app will earn 20% of world transfer revenue without any investment, any trouble, nothing. And all goes to USA. I will never use such app, as I also try to avoid booking websites...

The busisness plan is:
A) they assert to be 30% cheaper;
B ) they get 20% profit;
C) they do not pay the drivers medical insurance and retirement that is about 45%.
D) they do not pay the insurance in case of accident that is a lot more expensive in taxis.

45% tax they do not pay means the 30% cheaper fee and its 20% profit.

So, the whole busisness plan is all about not paying the drivers retirement, medical insurance and accident (car/person) insurance, all of them that protects the driver. Plus there is no insurance for you.

If they also have to pay tax (55%), of course they cannot be the 30% cheaper.

Uber has to be compared with a legit company like Manuel Tienda Leon. They work by the book and they are more expensive than a regular taxi.

I guess you can always can get low prices on everything if slavery is in between. Carpets made by children labor force are cheaper than those made by adults with proper salaries. If you buy stoles spare parts at Warnes, for sure they are cheaper than at the official dealer of Honda.

So, to do not pay taxes was always a good busisness because what the app does is organicibg working under the table.