Uber: über-failure on the ethics front?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Uber: über-failure on the ethics front?

1 | 2 | 3

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1641210 27-Sep-2016 12:21

shk292:

There's no need to try to manipulate this via regulation or moral outrage

Uber is at least as greedy and amoral as the next corporation, and is more than happy to manipulate the market (both employees and customers).

Under those circumstances, we *need* regulation to impose moral restraint on Uber.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1641216 27-Sep-2016 12:41

frankv:
shk292:

There's no need to try to manipulate this via regulation or moral outrage

Uber is at least as greedy and amoral as the next corporation, and is more than happy to manipulate the market (both employees and customers).

Under those circumstances, we *need* regulation to impose moral restraint on Uber.

But that is saying we need regulation on all companies for moral reasons . The laws about registration are really there for safety and complying, more than anything and has little to do with morals. But if we had better public transport the need for these types of services would be a lot less

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1641225 27-Sep-2016 12:52

frankv:

Uber is at least as greedy and amoral as the next corporation, and is more than happy to manipulate the market (both employees and customers).

Under those circumstances, we *need* regulation to impose moral restraint on Uber.

Why do we need that? As I said above, nobody is forcing anybody to be an Uber customer, or an Uber driver. Other transport modes are available, as are other jobs - I heard a radio advert for Corporate Cabs drivers just yesterday.

What do you propose we regulate against? Success? Making a profit? Breaking a former monopoly? Innovating?

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1641271 27-Sep-2016 13:32

shk292:

What do you propose we regulate against? Success? Making a profit? Breaking a former monopoly? Innovating?

Let's turn it around... Why wouldn't you want to legislate to prevent companies from doing unethical things?

I have no problem with companies making a profit or any of those things. They're all good. By definition, the whole point of a company is to make a profit. But when (as it inevitably does) that turns into "make as much profit as possible within the law", we need the law to limit companies to doing things that are considered reasonable by most of us.

So this is what I would regulate against:

Exploitation of employees. Exploitation of customers. Misleading customers, employees, or investors. Using trusts to avoid/evade tax. Avoiding/evading tax by paying large fees for non-existent services from subsidiaries in tax havens. Paying "consultancy fees" to politicians. Making large contributions to political parties. Providing freebies to politicians and other decision makers. Taking profits overseas. Overseas ownership of land in NZ.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1641275 27-Sep-2016 13:48

frankv:

Let's turn it around... Why wouldn't you want to legislate to prevent companies from doing unethical things?

I have no problem with companies making a profit or any of those things. They're all good. By definition, the whole point of a company is to make a profit. But when (as it inevitably does) that turns into "make as much profit as possible within the law", we need the law to limit companies to doing things that are considered reasonable by most of us.

So this is what I would regulate against:

Exploitation of employees. Exploitation of customers. Misleading customers, employees, or investors. Using trusts to avoid/evade tax. Avoiding/evading tax by paying large fees for non-existent services from subsidiaries in tax havens. Paying "consultancy fees" to politicians. Making large contributions to political parties. Providing freebies to politicians and other decision makers. Taking profits overseas. Overseas ownership of land in NZ.

We already have a raft of legislation that controls that sort of stuff. But companies and indivduals will always see to maximise their gains within the legislation that applies. Trusts are legal and serve a purpose; if the people of NZ think they shouldn't be legal, then legislation needs to be introduced to outlaw them. But you can't say they're legal but can only be used for "ethical" purposes - how do you define "ethical" - and if you can define it satisfactorily, then you can amend the law accordingly. Similarly, there are ample laws about political donations, and corruption.

Workers are protected by employment legisaltion; if they are being exploited then the employer can be prosecuted.

Customers can complain to the commerce commission if they are being exploited or misled. But there is no evidence that Uber is doing any of this

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1641293 27-Sep-2016 14:37

Auckland Counciler Chris Darby today announced that between 26 September to 25 October, journeys that begin or end at designated stations along the Northern Busway will recieve a 20% discount on UBER rides,

Auckland Transport has also been working with UBER to improve it's journey planner, including suggesting Uber to go to/from stations

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/transport/news/article.cfm?c_id=97&objectid=11714841

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

wellygary

8813 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5294

#1641335 27-Sep-2016 16:13

Interesting that AT are prepared to promote Uber,

Whereas both Auckland and Wellington Airport are not prepared to, as they cannot be assured that Uber drivers are operating legally...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81202160/Wellington-Airport-does-u-turn-over-Uber-due-to-NZTA-regulations

However Auckland Airport quickly warned that New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) regulations were preventing it from reaching a deal with Uber and Wellington Airport confirmed on Friday that it had reached the same conclusion.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1641354 27-Sep-2016 16:47

shk292:

frankv

Exploitation of employees. Exploitation of customers. Misleading customers, employees, or investors. Using trusts to avoid/evade tax. Avoiding/evading tax by paying large fees for non-existent services from subsidiaries in tax havens. Paying "consultancy fees" to politicians. Making large contributions to political parties. Providing freebies to politicians and other decision makers. Taking profits overseas. Overseas ownership of land in NZ.

We already have a raft of legislation that controls that sort of stuff. But companies and indivduals will always see to maximise their gains within the legislation that applies.

I disagree... ethical individuals will maximise their gains within the bounds of their own ethics rather than within the bounds of legislation. Companies are not constrained in any way by ethics, so they have to be restrained by legislation.

Trusts are legal and serve a purpose; if the people of NZ think they shouldn't be legal, then legislation needs to be introduced to outlaw them. But you can't say they're legal but can only be used for "ethical" purposes - how do you define "ethical" - and if you can define it satisfactorily, then you can amend the law accordingly. Similarly, there are ample laws about political donations, and corruption.

Oh I agree about trusts, and I agree that it's a legislative process to change the law. The whole *point* of the law is that it should include everything "ethical" as legal, and outlaw what is "unethical". And I agree that defining "ethical" is difficult/impossible. So the law is an approximation to what the general populace thinks is ethical. As such, it is also always needing changes to cover new situations.

But you *did* ask my opinion: "What do you propose we regulate against?" So I've given a raft of stuff where IMHO the law currently allows unethical things to be done. I'm not saying that Uber is doing *all* those things.

E.g. The laws that we have to prevent tax avoidance/evasion via trusts clearly don't work properly. Or at least didn't work properly due to inadequate disclosure requirements, so they allow companies like Apple to do unethical things.

And I disagree that there are ample laws to contain political corruption... they used to be ample, but they're not any more.

Workers are protected by employment legisaltion; if they are being exploited then the employer can be prosecuted.

Customers can complain to the commerce commission if they are being exploited or misled. But there is no evidence that Uber is doing any of this

Worker & consumer protection legislation is always a step or two behind reality... Until March 10, it was perfectly legal to exploit workers with zero-hour contracts. Similarly, the CGA didn't apply to online businesses until recently, allowing (until then) businesses to act unethically and evade their responsibilities.

Uber, for example, jacks up it's prices when there's a natural disaster. IMHO that's profiteering and immoral; my ethics say we should help someone in trouble, NOT add to their misery by extorting extra money from them just because we can. It appears that this isn't illegal, however. So, IMHO, the law should be changed.

Uber's tactics of reducing fares to improve utilisation to maximise profit is at the expense of the drivers. Yes, the drivers can leave (I guess). But many have made financial commitments to (e.g.) buy a car based on an expected income. To turn around and change the rules at the expense of your employees is unethical. In my view, whoever makes a change should bear the cost of that change, not offload it onto their employees.

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1641356 27-Sep-2016 16:52

frankv:

Uber, for example, jacks up it's prices when there's a natural disaster. IMHO that's profiteering and immoral; my ethics say we should help someone in trouble, NOT add to their misery by extorting extra money from them just because we can. It appears that this isn't illegal, however. So, IMHO, the law should be changed.

You do know how surge pricing works right? It's an automated system to balance demand with supply.

They didn't just say, oh theres a disaster, lets put the prices up.

The system detected that lots more people were trying to request rides than there were drivers on the roads, and therefore increases the prices to encourage more drivers to come out.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1641449 27-Sep-2016 20:07

Yabanize:
frankv:

Uber, for example, jacks up it's prices when there's a natural disaster. IMHO that's profiteering and immoral; my ethics say we should help someone in trouble, NOT add to their misery by extorting extra money from them just because we can. It appears that this isn't illegal, however. So, IMHO, the law should be changed.

You do know how surge pricing works right? It's an automated system to balance demand with supply.

They didn't just say, oh theres a disaster, lets put the prices up.

The system detected that lots more people were trying to request rides than there were drivers on the roads, and therefore increases the prices to encourage more drivers to come out.

Exactly, because if you do the socialist thing and ignore the laws of supply and demand you get soviet style queues around the block.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1642476 29-Sep-2016 11:21

My brother in the US tells me that Uber will even supply cars and insurance to drivers there on a weekly basis. Students in particular like that as a way of getting ad-hoc work.

Apparently the first 60 rides in a week go to Uber to cover the rental (regardless of length of ride and cost) and the remainder go to the driver on the usual basis.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1651100 14-Oct-2016 14:34

One of the first rules of any business ethics initiative is to comply with the law.

Uber as I understand it are facilitating drivers breaking the law by operating a service without the correct licence endorsement.

Therefore from a business ethics perspective I would say they are unethical.

Something Uber seem to have done is force government to review the legislation. I don't think Uber will like the outcome of that review. But, from a consumer perspective, it will simplify taxi operations and may allow some more cost competitiveness.

Mike

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1651165 14-Oct-2016 16:17

MikeAqua:

One of the first rules of any business ethics initiative is to comply with the law.

Uber as I understand it are facilitating drivers breaking the law by operating a service without the correct licence endorsement.

Therefore from a business ethics perspective I would say they are unethical.

Something Uber seem to have done is force government to review the legislation. I don't think Uber will like the outcome of that review. But, from a consumer perspective, it will simplify taxi operations and may allow some more cost competitiveness.

Uber drivers have a choice. They can follow Uber's official advice (you just need our vetting) or they can follow the official advice of NZTA that says you need a P endorsement. 99% have opted for a P endorsement.

Taxi competitiveness will never happen because they're a legacy operator who's failing to adapt. I'm sure horse & coach drivers complained about automobiles hitting the road as well but instead of adapting they just complained and died.

Yes Uber is evil but they offer me a product that other providers can't. Does that make me a bad person opting to support a new player because the legacy player doesn't want to adapt? I don't think it does.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1651237 14-Oct-2016 18:14

Legacy services are adapting in other markets. In Belgium, the taxi services now operate with the same kind of apps, and are competitively priced. The companies also joined forces to institute a fixed price, very cheap, nighttime ride service. In parts of Canada, some taxi companies are beating Uber by being app-based, faster, and offering better service. The one I use now is only marginally higher in price than Uber but is faster, using an all-electric fleet, has free wifi on board, and has a better app. The drivers are uniformed, courteous, hold taxi licenses, and always, always open doors and offer drinks. They can't quite compete on price but hit the spot by emphasising human services.

So, legacy taxi companies can change and can compete, if they are smart about it. I've had bad experiences with Uber so won't use them again. I'd rather ride with an experienced driver that has passed through police checks and knows the roads.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1651254 14-Oct-2016 18:52

Elpie:

Legacy services are adapting in other markets. In Belgium, the taxi services now operate with the same kind of apps, and are competitively priced. The companies also joined forces to institute a fixed price, very cheap, nighttime ride service. In parts of Canada, some taxi companies are beating Uber by being app-based, faster, and offering better service. The one I use now is only marginally higher in price than Uber but is faster, using an all-electric fleet, has free wifi on board, and has a better app. The drivers are uniformed, courteous, hold taxi licenses, and always, always open doors and offer drinks. They can't quite compete on price but hit the spot by emphasising human services.

So, legacy taxi companies can change and can compete, if they are smart about it. I've had bad experiences with Uber so won't use them again. I'd rather ride with an experienced driver that has passed through police checks and knows the roads.

And these are the sorts of smart things that companies need to do. If you look here in NZ all taxi companies have done is build apps, and all have been dismal failures because they're so poor. They all still insist on charging an inflated fee for electronic payments. They're taking the Trump approach - instead of actually trying to compete you just keep bashing your opponent hoping it'll do some good eventually. In many US markets they're failing to change as well, the SF and LA taxi markets have been gutted.

If I was a taxi driver in Wellington right now I'd be asking serious questions of Wellington airport - taxis have to pay big fees to be there and yet the airport CEO booted Uber out and threatened to personally trespass drivers caught on airport premises. Uber now tell you to walk to Z for a pickup, and my understanding is there are now significant numbers of Uber rides from there into the City (I was told it's 100+ per day but clearly don't have hard numbers). The airport have even put a new crossing in to make the 200m walk safer!

1 | 2 | 3