Let’s get this out of the way: I’m no luddite.
A cab company that offers lower-than-average fares and lets me call a cab with a smartphone app and pay with PayPal? My initial reaction is “sign me up!”
As someone who doesn’t own a car, I’m always looking for new, cheap ways to get around town; however, it seems Uber is showing itself to be too unethical to get my business.
Much has been made of the objections of taxi drivers and their union’s objections to Uber. The cynical have painted this opposition as a final gasp of a dying industry unwilling to innovate in the face of competition, but in fact, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Cab drivers who have filed suit against Uber have stated they welcome competition–after all, they face competition from other cab companies all the time and have no problems with it. The difference with Uber, however, is that they are not competing on an even playing field.
Uber uses a dirty loophole in order to outcompete other cab companies: it tries to claim that it is not, in fact, a cab company.
Because they “crowdsource” their drivers, Uber — is a company that employs a fleet of drivers who work on-call to drive customers from point A to point B — claims they should not be held to the same standards as other taxi fleets. Increasingly, this is being shown to be a baldfaced anti-competitive trick.
By every legal definition, they should be considered a cab company, but by evading this definition, Uber is able to outcompete other taxis by refusing to submit to state and federal regulations placed upon taxi companies.
Cost-cutting measures like these allow Uber to charge such low fares, but its hidden cost comes in the form of harm to public safety and unfair competition against taxi drivers.These regulations ensure that cabs are accountable, safe and their drivers are paid a fair wage. Uber is able to get away with not paying insurance for any of their drivers or cabs nor submitting to metropolitan regulations on cab operations.
While this may be less of a problem in Oxford, in large cities like Seattle, it has caused city councils to attempt to ban the service in the interest of protecting consumers and safeguarding the wages of taxi drivers. Already, Uber has refused liability in a San Francisco lawsuit raised by the parents of Sofia Liu, a six-year-old girl killed by an Uber driver.
In addition to their anti-competitive legislation-skirting actions, Uber has shown itself to be determined to sabotage even its fellow ride-sharing competition.
Media website The Verge uncovered an intentional corporate-directed sabotage by Uber of its competition service, Lyft. Calling it “Operation SLOG,” Uber has hired a dedicated team to recruit Lyft drivers by calling in fake rides and attempting to pay them off in order not to fulfill their obligations. The recruiters make even more money if they are able to convince the Lyft drivers to work for Uber. While Lyft uses many of the same anti-competitive practices as Uber and places an outrageously tacky pink mustache on their cars (a damning offense to my aesthetic sensibilities), this is just more proof of Uber’s commitment to cutthroat capitalism.
I won’t begrudge anyone for using Uber. After all, it’s cheaper and some who feel unsafe in normal taxis prefer it. Personally, I will not be using this new service in solidarity with the working class cab drivers throughout the country upon whose livelihood Uber unfairly encroaches. If Uber wants to be allowed to compete, then it must play by the same rules as everyone else.
Robert McAuliffe is a junior international studies major from St. Louis.
