Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

This ruling is another example of how the courts and regulators are struggling to make sense of the phenomenon known as the gig economy.

Since Uber was first launched less than a decade ago, it has repeatedly fallen foul of regulators in different countries - and has frequently been forced to change its business model as a result.

This ruling sets out clearly that Uber is, in legal terms at least, a transport company. Uber itself insists that there won't be a huge immediate impact on its business, but it could still affect how it operates in future and how it liaises with national governments.

Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

Also:

On a wider basis, it could have implications for other gig economy businesses that try to portray themselves as little more than an app on a phone, connecting providers with customers; it appears the courts, so far, are taking a different view.

I have been taking an interest in the gig economy lately, in fact, that is how I make my money - I tutor online through a website called Wyzant using video conferencing. I do not work for the website, I work for myself, and the website acts as a way to hook me up with clients, for a (rather large) take of my check.

There is also a website called fiverr, where people offer all kinds of services for five dollars. In reality, each person sets three tiers of prices for their services, which can go as high as the market allows.

I like the gig economy because I could see it turning into a phenomenon that replaces corporations and allows people to offer their services to those who need them without having to work for someone else. It lets you set your own hours, and you could even seamlessly switch between career paths or dabble in multiple jobs.

I have even heard of some start-ups that allow people to work as delivery drivers, delivering food or groceries to customers all over their city on their own time.

There are some problems, such as the fact that companies such as Uber don't have to pay for health insurance for their workers. In addition, it would probably be prudent to update outdated regulations so that they don't hinder the progress of the gig economy and also so that they ensure the quality of service and give workers the appropriate amount of rights. For example, some are concerned that people in the gig economy are not required to be paid minimum wage or get holiday pay.

Any business that doesn't impede the life and liberty of a person is a good business in my book. I say bring on the gig economy. It will drive prices down

Sorry, but I've got a problem right off the bat:

This ruling is another example of how the courts and regulators are struggling to make sense of the phenomenon known as the gig economy.

The only struggle I see is that Uber seems to think the rules only apply to other companies. Uber is a taxi service; that is plainly obvious. The fact that it uses a "gig economy" model, with unlicensed part-timers using their personal vehicles, has no bearing on what Uber's basic service is.

Uber is trying to place itself in a special class of it's own making because in many major cities taxi services are heavily regulated and have expensive licensing requirements. You can argue the pros & cons of this, but there is really no reason to give Uber a free pass on regulations any other company would be expected to comply with.

They are a transportation service. To think that Uber is an information service is laughable.

Gig economy? Well I will just have to adapt. Not like I have any choice in the matter on how the economy flows with technologies.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

The only things that will come down are the traditional and historic businesses, you know the ones that pay pay roll taxes. The same that pay licenseing fees and property tax in communities they operate in.

They leave all those cost including medical to the other business in the community while making the same use of infrastructure and community services without paying a fair share.

I like the concept but still think these types of operations should be held to the same standards as a historic businesses otherwise they hold unfair advantage and cost communities revenues

If it was simply a match making service for people giving rides and people wanting rides who negotiated prices and paid on their own then maybe this would have flown. But since you pay through the app and sign agreements and such, it's definitely a taxi co.

Good.
Make them follow the regulations other cab companies have to follow.

a reply to: darkbake

Gig economy = no steady work, no benefits, low pay economy.

originally posted by: darkbake

This ruling is another example of how the courts and regulators are struggling to make sense of the phenomenon known as the gig economy.

Since Uber was first launched less than a decade ago, it has repeatedly fallen foul of regulators in different countries - and has frequently been forced to change its business model as a result.

This ruling sets out clearly that Uber is, in legal terms at least, a transport company. Uber itself insists that there won't be a huge immediate impact on its business, but it could still affect how it operates in future and how it liaises with national governments.

Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

Also:

On a wider basis, it could have implications for other gig economy businesses that try to portray themselves as little more than an app on a phone, connecting providers with customers; it appears the courts, so far, are taking a different view.

I have been taking an interest in the gig economy lately, in fact, that is how I make my money - I tutor online through a website called Wyzant using video conferencing. I do not work for the website, I work for myself, and the website acts as a way to hook me up with clients, for a (rather large) take of my check.

There is also a website called fiverr, where people offer all kinds of services for five dollars. In reality, each person sets three tiers of prices for their services, which can go as high as the market allows.

I like the gig economy because I could see it turning into a phenomenon that replaces corporations and allows people to offer their services to those who need them without having to work for someone else. It lets you set your own hours, and you could even seamlessly switch between career paths or dabble in multiple jobs.

I have even heard of some start-ups that allow people to work as delivery drivers, delivering food or groceries to customers all over their city on their own time.

There are some problems, such as the fact that companies such as Uber don't have to pay for health insurance for their workers. In addition, it would probably be prudent to update outdated regulations so that they don't hinder the progress of the gig economy and also so that they ensure the quality of service and give workers the appropriate amount of rights. For example, some are concerned that people in the gig economy are not required to be paid minimum wage or get holiday pay.

Uber completely disrupted the taxi cartel. While I don't have any recent experience in Europe, in the US, regulated taxi cabs are a joke. No one with a straight face can claim the traditional taxi model is better than Uber in the US. Taxi regulations are designed to limit competition and enrich taxi medallion owners.

Uber just brought online the illegal gypsy cab business that has always existed.

Being a taxi company and making them keep to the regulations is nothing. The only and real reason Uber wants jumping on is their cavalier attitude to whoever they employ. A silly fly by background check.
The reason Uber was stalled in London was NOT about vehicle regulations or licensing as they would have you believe but an upsurge of sexual acts committed by Uber drivers because they hardly vet their drivers.
For your information it was an Uber driver that killed the British female diplomat in Lebanon.

originally posted by: crayzeed
For your information it was an Uber driver that killed the British female diplomat in Lebanon.

I was going to bring this up. This is the main argument in favor of licensing: a proper licensing system protects the passengers, providing a minimum level of competence among the drivers, and guarding against psychos who would drive their passengers to some remote place and rob/rape/murder them. This is why most travel guides will advise you to avoid unlicensed cabs.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: crayzeed
For your information it was an Uber driver that killed the British female diplomat in Lebanon.

I was going to bring this up. This is the main argument in favor of licensing: a proper licensing system protects the passengers, providing a minimum level of competence among the drivers, and guarding against psychos who would drive their passengers to some remote place and rob/rape/murder them. This is why most travel guides will advise you to avoid unlicensed cabs.

What data is there to show that licensing would have prevented anything? Are uber or lyft driver's charged with crimes at a higher rate than regular tax drivers? Plenty of psychos can get licensed to do anything. Uber does a background check. Not really sure how much deeper you can go.

a reply to: Edumakated
You obviously don't know how to Google. Just put in "Uber drivers, London and sexual assaults and it will tell you the information you so sorely lack about not vetting etc.

originally posted by: darkbake

I like the gig economy because I could see it turning into a phenomenon that replaces corporations and allows people to offer their services to those who need them without having to work for someone else.

I hope you can see the irony in that statement. Big corp is ALL OVER the gig economy.

Good its about damn time they call it what it is . Now they need to make them follow regulations just like any other taxi company .

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Right, I agree with this, I'm interested in a regulated gig economy. What I like about it is the ability to be your own boss and set your own hours. There could be better vetting, better pay (some websites pay less than minimum wage at times, for example, ones that pay for writing), and stuff like that.

Thanks for all of your opinions.

originally posted by: darkbake

This ruling is another example of how the courts and regulators are struggling to make sense of the phenomenon known as the gig economy.

What´s the doubt? Uber is exactly the same as any other company operating cabs. They get a call, they send a cab, the cab charges the customer on behalf of the boss.

With Uber its even more obvious than that. Uber receives the call, sends the cab, charges the customer and pays the cab driver.

Uber controls the whole process.

Gig economy??! What a joke, here we call it biscate, a biscate is a job you do on your spare time, helping someone fixing something, a biscate is not taxed or declared its something occasional. This is as old as there are work contracts.

There are biscates everywhere, in every country you can think of.

What these Silicone Valley crooks are trying to pull on us is their mantra as usual, they travesty old words with their techno slang, expecting to pull the leg on the fools.

They are just trying to sell you an old thing with a new name and in the process get rich with it.

The problem is that this is destroying decades, many decades of labour rights we achieved as a society. We are an advanced society not because of the Silicone Valley crap bull# and fancy mantras, we are am advanced society because we conquered rights to ourselves and to our children, Thats what makes us advanced.

REJECT THE MANTRA REJECT THE BULL# FROM SILICONE VALLEY