Government Clampdown on Taxi-Apps Causing Unemployment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-30/uber-clampdown-in-spain-hurts-refuge-for-long-term-unemployed

Uber, Lyft, and other car-hailing apps have been growing tremendously since their start in 2009 threatening to wipe out the need for their main competitor- taxi companies.  The Socialist government of Spain has historically tried to help “middle-aged workers out of work for a long time”.  However, the government seems to be doing the complete opposite when it comes to dealing with the dispute between taxi companies and hailing-apps by instituting rules and regulations that are taking away jobs.

Government officials have been trying to ease tensions between hailing-app drivers and taxi drivers by creating operating rules that put them on the same playing field in metropolitan areas.  The main issue here is that taxi companies feel threatened by the growth of individual drivers using these apps.  However, the government giving into the demands made by taxi companies is in return hurting individual drivers who are struggling to reenter the workforce.

Car hailing-apps provide a “unique” and crucial opportunity for long-term unemployed people to make a living.  However, both services provide jobs and a livelihood to people in the lower class.  There is a huge issue to be faced with this new innovation due to the fact that putting regulations on them causes unemployment for individual drivers, while not doing anything could put taxi companies out of business.  Only time will tell if both types of transportation services can survive in harmony with one another.

6 thoughts on “Government Clampdown on Taxi-Apps Causing Unemployment

  1. The conflict between ride-hailing apps like Uber and taxi industry is a controversial topic. In South Korea, which I came from, Uber is prohibited because using private vehicles for commercial purposes without permission is considered illegal. There is a reason behind it: Korea’s taxi industry dissuaded lawmakers and officers from making any amendments in current act. Instead of Uber, Koreans use application called “Kakao-taxi”, which works on the same principle of Uber, but with authorized taxis only. In this way, taxi industry in Korea protected their industry without being interrupted by car-sharing apps like Uber or Lyft.
    I used Uber several times after I came to USA, and it was pretty convenient and well-fared. But to be honest, using Kakao-taxi in Korea made me feel safer than using Uber in other countries, because Uber drivers are technically unidentified. Even though there are few chances of me being kidnapped or involved in serious crimes, I was a little worried when I am using Uber. In addition, since in Kakao-taxi I can give mark to the driver after using that taxi, taxi drivers became much more hospitable after the introduction of Kakao-taxi. Especially considering that almost every taxi drivers are making their living only from driving the taxi, regulation of Uber in Korea is understandable.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/uber-south-korea-law-court.html
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2018/09/726_247655.html

  2. When I went to Singapore, they have a car hailing app called Grab. It is similar to other services but the car you can end up getting could be someone’s daily or an actual taxi cab. The thing about a place like Singapore is that it’s expensive for the average person to own a car. Therefore. a lot of people rely on Grab. By allowing average joe to get their side hustle on and taxi companies to come together in using the service, no one really complains about who’s taking who’s job. The taxi companies can still do on street hails or take it through the app. At this point it seems Uber is losing to Grab.
    https://www.wired.com/story/ubers-grab-on-the-developing-world/

  3. The disruptive innovation of Uber and Lyft has been revolutionary to how people get from place to place. While I understand why the taxicab industry is threatened by these innovations, I feel that Uber and Lyft should be the main forms of transportation if you cannot drive. To be completely honest, I believe taxis are gross. Every time I have been in a taxi it has not been a good experience. When it comes to Uber and Lyft, I always have a pleasant time driving in those vehicles. Although they cannot be at times, Uber and Lyft also feel safer than a cab. The innovation of Uber and Lyft has brought so many jobs to middle-class Americans who were struggling to pay bills. And while it has taken some business away from the taxi industry, it has not killed it completely. Whenever I am in New York, I always take a taxi rather than an Uber. In cities, surge prices can be way too high and taxis seem like the cheaper choice. I just feel that Uber and Lyft have become an essential part of the transportation community and the government should not become more strict now. The argument of “taking jobs away” is not valid here. When they begin to take Uber and Lyft out of cities, then those Americans are losing jobs. Uber and Lyft give convenience and control that taxis cannot offer. I believe that if the government begins to take away hailing-apps such as Uber and Lyft there will be a real problem in how people get from place to place, especially in suburban areas.

  4. The disruptive innovation of uber with taxis is a very controversial topic. I believe that Uber is creating jobs even though eliminating taxi jobs. People who worked for taxi companies should now just switch over to working for uber. Letting both coexist I believe will only hurt people because then neither can be super successful.

    I personally find Uber’s to be much more convenient because all you need to do is use your phone and the Uber will find your location and pick you up. This is better than taxis because you have to hail down a taxi in New York City for example, and sometimes that takes a while and somebody might take your taxi. I have noticed that in New York City, there are a lot less cabs driving around than their used tone. Whenever you would step foot into the city, you would see a swarm of yellow cars everywhere, but now they are getting harder to spot.

    Spain’s government agreed to new regulations concerning Uber after the six day taxi driver strike. The government agreed to pass a regulation that would “allow the country’s autonomous communities to cap the number of private hire vehicle permits within their cities”. I do not think this will help in the long run because the way people are moving around the world is changing and innovating. Therefore, limiting the number of Uber’s in a city will make people frustrated if there are no Uber’s available and the only other way is a cab. Also if there are less Uber’s that means they are eliminating Uber jobs as well so not really fixing the unemployment problem.
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/02/spanish-anti-uber-taxi-strike-ends-after-government-agrees-new-regulation/

  5. The dispute between Uber and taxi industry could be very controversial thus, there isn’t a best way to address this issue. As an individual who came from a country that Uber is still banned, I believe that from a customer’s prospective, Uber is much more convenient and well fared compared to taxi. First, taxi companies don’t provide smartphone apps to call or communicate with the driver without actually calling them on the phone. It saves so much time and effort to just open the app and pinpoint my location to be on my way. When using a taxi, I have to call the taxi company which a lot of times doesn’t answer, tell where I’m at and wait for the taxi not knowing when they’ll arrive. Also, I have no idea who the driver is if I use a taxi. The fares are pretty much fixed for the taxi company which most of the time isn’t good for the customer and also, they don’t have rewards programs (discounts) like Uber and Lyft provides. We even have no idea how much the fare is going to be. With all these discomforts, why use taxi instead of Uber? However, this was from the customer’s point of view. From the driver’s perspective, the story could get a little different. As stated from the article bellow, lot of taxi drivers from areas wiped by Uber are suffering severely. They have been paying off rents and bills by being a full time taxi drivers for decades and now, they are in risk of losing their jobs. I believe one of the several ways to address this issue at least for now is for the government to make the taxi drivers a full time employee paid hourly by the taxi company and not by what they make a day. The government could fund the taxi company in some extent and then make the taxi companies capable of competing against the self-driving companies like Uber and Lyft. It would be both good for the drivers and the customers since it is inducing a healthy competition within the market. Simply banning Uber wouldn’t fix the issue in the long term and also, is considered only from the driver’s perspective of the industry.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/nyregion/suicides-taxi-drivers-nyc.html

  6. I have lived in New York City my whole life and can remember a time before Uber. Since it’s presence became established within the last couple years I can say that I often take Ubers in times when I used to take yellow cabs. I think the main reason why I and many others chose Uber is because of their feature that allows you to split the fare with the people you’re riding with much easier than you can with city cabs. Other features like Uber pool which allows you to pick up passengers on the way to your destination in order to make your ride cheaper, influence peoples choices even more. I believe major cities have no way or competing with Uber as it is going to continue to get bigger ultimately becoming the go to method of transportation. This is why government action is required because they are losing the battle with Uber which uses the majority of their money for their company rather than the states they are used in.

Leave a Reply