I reject your reality
and substitute my own
Uber is an American online company, which offers taxi
services through the internet in the United States and far beyond. Their
services are (partially) based on the deployment
of amateur taxi-drivers, who bring their own car and are willing to transport
passengers against a certain fee, but don’t have an official taxi license.
A worldwide deployed app, called UberPop, is used to bring
demand and supply for taxi-services together: initially in the United States
and now all over the world, including EU countries like The Netherlands and
Spain. For every taxi-trip, arranged by Uber(Pop), Uber gets a slice of the
pie: a fee of 20% per trip, in order to cover its expenses and make a profit
for the organization.
If you have to believe the internet community, Uber is ‘about
the biggest thing since the invention of sliced, white bread’…, or something
like that. The bold concept behind this organization, which liberates the official
taxi market and arranges taxi-trips all over the world for millions and
millions of travelers, as well as the impressive fees per trip, deliver unspoken
promises of vast revenues and profits in years to come. Therefore the value of this
company has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars and Uber seems well
on its way to conquer the earth… and far beyond.
There is only one problem: in many countries – including The
Netherlands and Spain – it is explicitely prohibited to offer taxi-trips, when
these are executed by amateur taxi-drivers without a proper license and/or
proper insurances. Taxi licenses have traditionally been a cash cow for many
cities and communities, resulting in the fact that many taxi-drivers in The
Netherlands have paid a small fortune to acquire such a license.
When a third party like Uber actively spurs drivers without
a taxi license to deploy taxi services with their privately owned car in The
Netherlands, this leads to an illegal activity called ‘snorren’ (roughly
translated: purring (of a cat)).
‘Snorren’ can be penalized with a large fine of €1500 per
offence. On top of that: especially in large cities like Amsterdam and
Rotterdam, the legal taxi drivers have their own ways to deal with illegal
taxi-drivers in their city…
The official penalties are for both illegal and uninsured person’s
transport (most insurance companies have an explicit exclusion clause for
illegal taxi-driving) and for spoiling the market for legal taxi-drivers, who often
paid a massive amount for their license.
That is the law in The Netherlands and Spain and probably
many other countries. And people and companies have to stick to the law. Except
for… Uber!
Uber does not care that its actions and taxi-services –
especially the usage of the UberPop application– are not allowed in many
countries! “Well, who gives a rat’s
behind about the opinion of those local, hillbilly judges?! We don’t!”
Ten days ago, a Dutch justice presented his verdict, with
respect to the challenged legality of Uber and especially the UberPop app in
The Netherlands. The verdict was crystal clear: Uber offered illegal taxi-trips to Dutch
customers via its UberPop application, while using illegal taxi-drivers without
a proper license and insurance in the process. For future offences against the
Dutch law, Uber had to pay a penalty per offence to a maximum amount of
€100,000.
A clear and unambiguous verdict, I would say…
Still, Uber had a totally different view on this verdict, in
one of the most flabbergasting interviews ever, between a reporter of BNR News
Radio in The Netherlands and a representative of Uber’s European headquarters
in Amsterdam, Niek van Leeuwen.
Because of the shocking ignorance and arrogance of Uber with
respect to the Dutch law, I print this
interview nearly integrally:
Voice-over of radio station: Uber stated that it would continue offering taxi-services in The
Netherlands via UberPop, executed by taxi-drivers without a legal license. By
doing so, the American company is violating a verdict of a Dutch justice of the
Court of Appeal for Businesses. The service that Uber offers is violating the
Dutch law, but the company accepts the fact that it is penalized for these
violations with a fine of maximally €100,000. Uber will just continue offering
taxi services in The Netherlands, by taxi-drivers without a proper license.
Laurens Boven, reporter of BNR: I am speaking from the European headquarters of Uber in
Amsterdam. Niek van Leeuwen of Uber: Am I standing on the floor of a
criminal organization?
Niek van Leeuwen, spokesperson of Uber: By no means. You are standing in the building of an organization, which
tries to improve public transport, by making it better, cheaper and easier.
Laurens Boven: The justice of the Court of Appeal for
Businesses had a different view about that. Let’s listen to him:
Justice: Taxi-drivers
without a taxi license, who transport passengers via UberPop while receiving
payments, are violating the People’s Transport Law. As Uber earns money with
these transports, the company itself is violating this law.
Van Leeuwen: Today’s verdict says something
about the penalty decree. However, the verdict does not say anything about the legal
treatment with respect to the foundation of Uber and whether Uber is a legal
transport option or not.
Boven: In my opinion the
justice states very clearly that Uber, as well as its chauffeurs, have been violating
the law, by offering taxi transport without a taxi license.
Van Leeuwen: That is a
preliminary verdict. Now a legal procedure will follow with respect to the
foundation of Uber. However, what is much more important for us, is the
discussion in the Second Chamber of Dutch parliament. The MP’s there should recognize
that Uber is working according to one of the pillars of the Dutch taxi law:
more market-like circumstances, better quality and lower prices. That makes it
so important that more modern legislation is introduced overhere.
Boven: That is a political story. In the meantime,
the justice has spoken with respect to the current taxi law and he has decided that
Uber violates this law.
Van
Leeuwen: The justice has decided that the inspection service can deploy a
penalty decree. The justice did not judge about the foundation of Uber and
whether it is an illegal transport solution or not.
Boven: You have to pay a penalty. You already
stated that you will continue with UberPop. Are you going to pay this penalty?
Van Leeuwen: When this non-compliance penalty
is set for Uber, we will pay it. Eventually, the legal treatment regarding the
foundations of Uber will point out, whether Uber is a legal transport solution
or not. When it is indeed legal, the penalty money can be returned to us. Until
then we persevere in our service delivery.
Boven: You want a
political discussion in parliament about taxi services like Uber. How big will
the support in the parliament be, now that a justice has judged that you are actually
violating the Dutch laws?
Van Leeuwen: What we see
is that in every city where we introduce UberPop, this causes both innovation
and resistance. Eventually, all legislators see the advantages. Also in The
Netherlands, the legislators will see that Uber takes care of the pillars of
the taxi law: more market, beter quality and lower prices. Eventually, the
legislation will follow.
Boven: So the legal road ahead is not so important?
Van Leeuwen: We find it
much more important that the legislation, which originates from 2000 in The
Netherlands, wil be modernized and that innovation is not halted, but endorsed.
Especially the answers of Uber’s Niek van Leeuwen, which I
printed in red
and bold, remind me of Mythbuster Adam Savage’s famous oneliner: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
His words sounded like: I
didn’t accept the verdict of the justice and I didn’t want to understand it at
all. Instead, I am spinning his verdict around until it seems that it was just a
simple, non-descript little rejection of a teeny-weeny offense of the taxi law
by Uber and not a rockhard condemnation in response to deliberate violation of
Dutch laws.
The justice did not
say ANYTHING about Uber itself and I do believe that he is in fact a Uber-fan
by heart, who is currently still in the closet, waiting for the right moment to
come out. For his own good, I simply ignore this stupid justice and set my
money on the Dutch MP’s instead, who are more willing to listen to my story.
And so Uber continued in the days after this interview…
The company is going to pay the penalties that its drivers
receive and thus it deliberately takes the risk that its drivers will transport
people uninsured, because of the exclusion clause that most insurance companies
have for illegal, paid transport of
people. And when something goes terribly wrong? Well, sh*t happens!
Also in Spain, where the UberPop app and the Uber way of
working have been explicitely forbidden by the Spanish justices, the company
continues with its actions as if nothing has happened. The following snippets
come from the newspaper Trouw:
Taxi service Uber will
continue to offer its services in Spain, in spite of a prohibition that a
Spanish justice has set on Tuesday, 9 December. The American company announced
this news tonight (December 9 - EL).
The justice in Madrid
prohibited the UberPop app, which brings customers and taxi-drivers together.
The taxi guild of Madrid asked the justice to prohibit Uber in a preliminary
case, until a definitive verdict has been set with respect to the services of
the company. Drivers without a taxi license can get in touch with customers,
through the UberPop app. These customers often pay much less than in a regular
taxi.
According to the
justice, the problem is that these drivers don’t have a taxi license. This is
regarded as false competition of these drivers with authorized, licensed drivers.
And that Uber means business in The Netherlands, became
clear today. Uber is going to lure new drivers through a
€100 starter’s premium for rookies. It also offered to pay all the €1500
penalties that its drivers collect, while violating the Dutch taxi law.
The whole article behind this last link is a clear
demonstration of the ‘f*ck you’-culture that is maintained by Uber in the
European countries and abroad; a blatant testimony of the fact that Uber does
not care about legislation in these countries.
Of course, it is a fact that quite a lot of people have a
couple of (justified) agonies against the official taxi services in the various
Dutch and European cities and that not all taxi drivers maintain the best
service and the best price possible towards their customers.
Nevertheless, these taxidrivers often invested heavily in
their taxi license and in a luxury car (Mercedes or BMW) and they often needed
to buy themselves in in a taxi organization, thus loading a lot of debt on
their shoulders. Further, these taxi-drivers pay quite some taxes on their earnings.
These people don’t deserve a competition that does not play
against the same rules as they do. That would mean that there is no level
playing field for them.
Besides that: although I have some sympathy for the concept behind
Uber and UberPop, I am disgusted by the idea that this company violates the
Dutch and Spanish laws, simply because they can afford to do so.
In answer to the aforementioned question of Laurens Boven, I
would dare to say that Uber indeed operates as a criminal organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment