And neither is Rahm. I wish them good luck in court, the taxi lobby can eat dirt.

I mentioned Thom Hartmann because, if he did a little research before courting their business, he wouldn't have them as a sponsor. Instead, he's removed my thread and blocked me.

Uber's CEO is an Ayn Randian devotee and a petulant brat prone to tantrums.

Unlike Uber, who's out to replace the taxi industry with their race-to-the bottom model, the taxi industry is seeking a level playing field. Why Uber throws a hissy fit when cities try to impose a modicum of regulation gets very interesting.

More on that later.

No progressive should go off half cocked without all the facts.

The OP disproves your claim. A cab driver's chauffeur's license would be taken until (s)he settled up with the city. No deadbeats! No freeloaders!

Capisce?

sought universal because they attract predator drivers. Atlanta just announced fingerprinting this week.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/27/americas-busiest-airports-may-demand-tougher-screening-for-uber-drivers/


It's like you're just commenting.

that?

I've covered everything that pops in your head.

do! Jesus, Steve, you are really going freeloader/Randian on us.

everything about the businessmen and their libertarian businesd models you are eager to defend, I have a vendetta against. A Progressive wouldn't view these vendetta's as strange at all.

Uber, Wal-Mart, Amazon. It's all in here.

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 11:24 PM - Edit history (2)

These business models are killing the middle class. Read Steve! Yes, my odd vendetta goes beyond Uber! As a Progressive, I fight for middle class wages, workers rights, fair competition, Social Security, and paying for the commons. I am an AFSCME Union member. Steve! Have you been paying attention? If so, you'll be able to answer these questions. What do you think the Ubers and Wal-Marts think about:
1. Workers rights?
2. A stable middle class?
3. Fair, not "Free," competition?
4. Social security?
5. Paying income taxes?
6. Paying for the commons?

Yeah, you're right: "How can we AVOID all of this and let someone else pay the tab?!" Does that sound like billionaires begging for subsidies to you, too?

Steve, it's like "lights out" at your house. Wake up, man!

crosses your mind, either.

Now stop thinking about Steve Leser for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of a woman, alone, hitch hiking with a man, a complete stranger. Do you think she might like to know whether her driver has a history of assault or rape? Women think about these things, Steve, wake up! But you Randians are selfish, so it's all about Steve. Steve feels safe, he could care less about everyone else, even while convicted rapists are raping women tonight!

Well done, Steve!

Steve, I was at a city council hearing and, well, you've got to hear this. The spokeswoman for individuals with physical disabilities testified that Uber discriminates against the disabled. They refuse to take people in wheel chairs and, per policy, can refuse the blind, as well. That's bad, isn't it, Steve? But hold on to yourself, buddy, it gets far worse! She said if you call Uber and ask for wheel chair service, for a fee of $2, they will refer you to a cab company!

Cha ching!


Admit it. This isn't exactly going as well for you as debating Fox News himbos, now is it?

competition?"

Regular taxis are not a stealth libertarian scheme to undercut and eliminate a licensed and regulated system where most of the workers are union members.

I didn't know this so some may not either
http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/ari-emanuels-billion-dollar-uber-payday-and-what-it-means-for-rahm-24532/

The DLC Democrats. David Plouffe is their attack dog.

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 07:25 AM - Edit history (1)

sob story that the taxi industry is trying to kill Uber. I know that's the basis of their tantrums every time a city tries to level the playing field to create fair competition. In reality, cities are asking for very little: finger prints, drug test, criminal background check. That's all. Google Uber + sexual assault, + rape, + ****FAKE**** Uber drivers, + kidnapping and you'll quickly understand why you want to know whose car you, your daughter, or your wife is getting into. All cab drivers must pass these safety regulations (there's that word the Libertaians hate so much: regulations) and the taxi industry is asking that Uber drivers do the same.




And why wouldn't Uber want to assure their drivers aren't ex-cons and rapists? In fact, they don't want to know. And they :crying: they will be put out of business if their drivers are required to be finger printed, etc. They are an over-melodramatic lot.

paying for hitch-hiking. People who prefer Uber have their reasons. Uber is run by slick, Ayn Randians who want world domination, like Amazon. They don't want to give customers choice. They want to take it away.

doesn't want to give the public "choice." They seek world domination, much like Amazon.com. They want to take "choice" away.

"Uber's ruthless and controversial CEO Travis Kalanick is said to be a big fan of libertarianism's favorite author, Ayn Rand — which isn't too surprising, given his seemingly laissez-faire beliefs and hatred of government meddling. Rand and her writings even played a huge part in the shaping of Kalanick's own public persona:

Kalanick responded to Uber's new, controversial status by amping things up. He'd attended President Obama’s first inauguration — and to this day is an avowed supporter of ObamaCare — but to support Uber's growth, he took up the mantle of libertarian firebrand. He changed his Twitter avatar to the cover of Rand's The Fountainhead. In a Washington Post article he not only called The Fountainhead "one of my favorite books," but he also brought up Atlas Shrugged, suggesting that the regulatory hellscape conjured by Rand bore an "uncanny resemblance" to what Uber faced.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/576046/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-backpedals-ayn-rand-fandom

They can't stop Uber drivers from picking people up at the airport, all they can do is stop Uber drivers from having dedicated space to wait to pick people up from the airport.

spewing misinformation to gain public sympathy. Uber is allowed to pick up. Prior to getting approval, they were policed and ticketed if they picked up. The fine was a sufficient deterrent, and people knew the airports weren't open to Uber. Whatever you want to believe isn't important, the airports have the data. During their first full month at O'Hare, January 2016, airport pickups by taxis dropped by 44,000, 42%, versus the prior year; 148,000 pickups in January 2015 down to 104,000 pickups in January 2016. The situation at Midway is similar.

To get his provision past the city council, Rahm pitched that opening the airports to Uber would generate $50 million dollars annually, and the departure tax was part of the Uber "magical numbers." Alderman Beale's new ordinance will place modest regulations on the two deadbeat, illegal taxi companies that will allow the city to go after the $15 million, and he has the numbers to get it passed, 30 alderman to be exact.

That you find people losing their livelihoods and middle class professions to part-time, job killing scabs stupid is very ironic considering your username!

Unless I make a big deal about it being Uber, no one will know except for me and the driver.

If taxis in many areas didn't suck so badly, Uber wouldn't be doing the business it's doing.

preferences. Like I said, people who take cabs don't think Uber is safe. While Uber is pounding their chests like Atila the Hun, they want the whole market handed to them on a silver platter. Let's level the playing field, fairer competition, not a distortion of competition. And believe me, what the taxi industry is asking for, safety regulations, doesn't come close to leveling the playing field.

I should be free to ride with whomever I choose, including an unregulate Uber driver. And at least with Uber, I can see drivers' ratings, whereas it's a crapshoot with the ripoff cabs.

Choice, competition. You're so sick of the 1% Companies like Uber and Amozon don't become behemoths because they are concerned about choice and competition. They want to eliminate both.

... brought this on themselves with the ridiculous fees a normal taxi (medallions, right) has to pay to operate. Uber is simply taking advantage of that market distortion.

If cities didn't stick their taxation beak where it didn't belong Uber would not exist.

They don't care about their drivers having argued that they aren't employers and practicing predatory pricing, lower driver's earnings and forcing them to drive more hours. Further, Uber is racing to introduce self-driving cars.

They don't care about cities, they operate as an illegal taxi company so as to avoid municipal taxes.

They don't care about Social Security, operating as "just an app" allows them to avoid payroll taxes.

They don't care about customer; this year they've paid out $38 million in fines for charging customers for fake background checks.

They don't care about safety, car maintence, driver under insurance, criminal background checks, finger printing.

They don't care about paying their fair share, hiding their profits in offshore tax shelters in the Netherlands and Bahamas.

Mayors, I can speak to 2, Emanuel and Bloomberg. Though Emanuel claims no conflict of interest, his brother's agency could make $1 billion off his investment in Uber. After opening Uber to New York City, Bloomberg's entities poured millions into Uber. Likewise for Jeff Bezos. No better way for billionaires to avoid paying their fair share.

The taxi industry raises tens of millions of dollars for cities and has safety standards. There's nothing wrong with that.

... then there is only one reason any business exists.

Get used to this model, it's not going away.

pushing back. Cities and states are now recognizing Uber is operating as an illegal taxi company. Because Uber controls their drivers activities to a greater extent than they claim, the "not an employer" claim is coming to an end. A California lawsuit will blow their business model to pieces in June. Many see Uber is running out the clock. Eventually, they'll be a regulated taxi company and putting their claim, "superior service" on the line.

It's very simple. If your the one standing between two sane consenting adults who are transacting on a car ride, your the asshole.

Uber and the sharing/gig company are symptoms of everything that's wrong in America. Democrats are supposed to fight for middle class jobs, living wages, ending tax avoidance, and all the Libertarian race-to-the bottom practices. In other words, Linertairian Progressives (oxymoron) are voting with their wallets against their best interest.

I love Uber for the same reason I love the fact there are 5 different vendors of milk in my local store. For the same reason I like the fact I have 15 different types of deodorant I can buy. For the same reason I have about a zillion different places I can choose to go eat at around here.

Again, if your standing in the way of sane adults transacting for general goods and services... trying to dictate what choices they should make or what prices they should pay, your just a petty authoritarian busybody.

Last edited Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

cities are trying to put Uber out of business. That's an effective tactic, because their customers are freaking out, but it couldn't be further from the truth. The taxi industry is fighting to put an end to Uber's free ride. Again, a Libertarian concept. The taxi industry is saying: let's compete! But fair competition requires a level playing field. Progressives know that "Free Trade" is a Libertairan profit driven, race-to-the-bottom mantra (which is why I'm calling out Thom Hartmann.)

There are 2 distinct classes of customers but Uber wants you to believe there is only one because, like Amazon, they seek world domination. Any cab driver will tell you that 5 out of 10 customers want their opinion on Uber. Any cab driver will also tell you that their passengers say they think Uber is paying for hitch hiking. They think it's not safe to get in a complete strangers car. Any cab driver will tell you that when their passengers learn that Uber has not only lied about background checks for years, they've charged customers for fake background checks, their passengers are appalled. Any cab driver will tell you that their passengers think it's bullshit that Uber is subsidized and unregulated.

Then there's the Uber class of customer. They like Uber and couldn't care less about fair competition and middle class jobs and what not.

The the crux of the matter is, Uber has convinced it's customers that fair competition means no more Uber. Let me translate that for you, fair competition means one thing: fair competition cuts into their bottom line. Of course Uber is screaming bloody murder. They're run by petulant, entitled, libertarian billionaire brats who demand they get everything they want, including subsidies.

Oh and do tell me why it isn't a level playing field and who made it tilted? Taxi companies pay politicians to push medallion systems and other barriers to entry, then someone finds a way around it and you scream "Its not fair!"? So sad... Whoever can sell the best service at the lowest costs wins. Your crony capitalism is on its way out - at least in this field.

Mayors are no longer protecting the taxi industry. Allowing an illegal, unregulated taxi company in to decimate the legal taxi industry. No banks are lending to purchase medallions. Hundreds have been foreclosed on and are sitting at city hall. Medallions can't be transfer because they're worthless. And the law suits are coming from all sides: taxi industry, Uber drivers, Uber customers, and Feds (antitrust). Ayn Rand's charade is coming to an end.

Uber propaganda is intended to misinform. You're out of touch.

"Allowing an illegal, unregulated taxi company in to decimate the legal taxi industry." - You mean no longer protecting one group over another... picking winners and losers. It isn't some politician's job to tell me who I can purchase a ride from or not. Again, keep protecting those insiders who line their pockets with your increased fare. Keep paying all that dirty money into the system.

Or, you could just purchase the best product at the best price you want and quit trying to game the system with politics...

It's fun to argue with Uber people. It's picking low hanging fruit. David Plouffe's propaganda campaign is effective because it's appeals to the inner Fox News viewer in Democrats.

The one that is trying to get his personal pick of companies to win via back room deals or the one that lets people choose voluntarily between all the options. All you want to do is limit everyone's choice. Corporate crapitalism at its best.

You do understand what you sound like when you say that leaving companies to compete is picking winners and losers right? Any 3rd grader can tell you that if your taking active action for one side and not the other, your the hack picking who's going to win.

So sick of friggen brownshirts trying to dictate my choices...

my expectations for you were very low and met.

I can understand the GOP bowing to corporate back room deals, that's expected. You sure you don't belong over at Free Republic?

public employees at over 1.3 million members nationwide. Union YES! Libertarian Kryptonite. Anyone with remedial reading comprehensive skills would recognize I'm pro-LABOR after reading one or two posts. What they'd also recognize is you don't know what you're talking about. And that your defending the indefensible policies of a Libertarian company. Travis Kalanick is your (Uber people) L. Ron Hubbard and he has washed your brains. You can't see it, of course, but anyone who bothers to read your posts can.

Who do you think the Freepers are? Kalanick, Bezos, Emanuel, Bloomberg, Plouffe or AFSCME? Hillary and Bernie are actively seek union support. AFSCME endorsed Hillary (personally, I endorse Bernie). 32 unions have now endorsed Hillary. Several others have endorsed Bernie; I don't know the number but it's irrelevant. No unions have endorsed your Freeper Libertarians.

You are a ridiculous person. Everyone knows that, now.

Anyone can just make up stuff on the internet. I'm more concerned about your plan to use government corruption and support paying off of politicians for favors than what you say you are. I could care less if your the Prince of Sheeba. First rule of detecting a small person is when they start shouting how important they are.

The only questions I care about.

1. Are you wanting all transport companies paying crooked politicians or just some of them, or none?
2. You do understand yelling out "libertarian!" isn't an argument don't you? I've voted democrat in every for the last 15 years, so feel free to bite me where the sun don't shine.
3. You do realize the more you support certain companies getting favors over others, that after it while it starts to look pretty fascist.

So... I use Uber all the time, I will continue to use it, I will continue to recommend it to my friends (and I have many that love it and use it regularly), and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Your impotent over that little section of the universe. Go play tin pot dictator where someone might listen to you.

Get over it. People are going to freely interact and purchase Uber if they feel like it. Absolutely nothing you can do about it, although maybe banging on a keyboard for a while might help you feel better.

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (7)

with the Teamsters. Uber drivers demand they be treated with respect and dignity by their EMPLOYER. Oh yes, that "were just an app" bullshit is going down in June in a court in California.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/uber-drivers-team-up-with-teamsters-union-5040562

They really hate regulation. This is pretty much the basis of their ideology, in fact. Pure profit, unregulated. Do you think that helps us, the 99 percenters?

Earlier this week, I saw David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager and current "Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy" (i.e., head of the PR misinformation blitzkrieg), on MSNBC stating he's a Clinton backer, and became curious as to how Clinton will deal with the sharing economy once she is in office.

Progressives recognize that Uber is built on the shoulders of all the Libertaian business models that preceded it.



In August, Bernie was asked about Uber and the sharing economy and, not surprisingly, he trashed it. And Hillary made it clear she's not a fan of the industry, either. Ever careful to leave herself wiggle room, in this instance, she went so far as to accuse companies like Uber of committing "wage theft."



That's quite a limb for Hillary to climb out on, considering the DLC company she keeps, namely Plouffe and Mayor Uber Rahm Emanuel, who before becoming Toxic Rahm following the release of the Laquan McDonald video tape, some speculated she'd tap him as her running mate. Hillary didn't leave herself any wiggle room here. It's going to take a full flop to reverse herself.

around 20 min. Echoes me; in essence, "it's not that they're so damn nifty, it's that they circumvent the rules."

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/03/21/democratic-socialism-bernie-sanders-2016-election

LOL

And by "a lot," I'm referring to jobs. Wal-Mart, Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, all of these companies are symptoms of an odious cancer to the middle class, one brought to us by a Democratic Party that puts profit over people. We should have learned that lesson from subsidizing these race to the bottom companies for the past 20 decades. When Democrats align with Randians, Thomas Frank has a point: the Party lost its way and abandoned "We the People." DUers, en mass, aren't there, yet. They're at, "It's working for me." There are obvious exception, of course. They're the ones fighting, saying that's not good enough. Giving companies more power vis-a-vis the government and labor is a sign of the Democratic Party's abject failure and has given rise to income inequality.

It was obvious to many of us in 2009. We just followed the money.

Price fixing charges. They'll settle for nothing less than regulation free world domination.

(U.S. District Court Judge) Rakoff said the plaintiffs "plausibly alleged a conspiracy" to fix prices in this manner, and could also pursue claims that Kalanick's actions drove out rivals such as Sidecar, enabling Uber to command 80 percent of mobile-app generated ride shares."


http://www.businessinsider.com/r-uber-ceo-must-face-price-fixing-lawsuit-by-passengers-us-court-rules-2016-3

"Scott Solombrino, spokesman for a coalition of taxi and livery industry members, said in an e-mail, “We applaud the court’s decision today in recognizing what we have known all along — that the city of Boston has the authority to regulate Uber and Lyft and should be taking action to level the playing field between these companies and the law abiding taxi and livery industries.”"

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/31/boston-ordered-revise-regulations-taxis-ride-hailing-services/YtU60Y01l8TiEGbQu82qsL/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Those pesky regulations to level the playing field. All Uber drivers are being asked to doing is jump through SOME of the hoops cab drivers must jump through.

1. Safety. Interestingly, it happens to be the most aggressively fought by Uber. That means criminal background checks, finger printing, a drug test, a physical exam, and mandated maintenance. (Please explain why Uber customers would oppose safety regulations. Thanks in advance.)



2. No poaching. Other than drop-offs, it's illegal for cabs to operate outside of city limits. The cab industry isn't asking Uber to be restricted similarly. The cab industry is asking Uber drivers who live in a city or state to register their car in that city and state and get a state drivers license. In Chicago, Uber drivers come from everywhere. Plates from Indiana, California, Ontario (Canada), Florida. Just register in Illionois and get an IL drivers license.



3. Don't be a deadbeat, pay your tickets, child support, and municipal bills. Chicagoland Uber and Lyft drivers own the municipalities in excess of $15 million dollars.



4. Use the roads, your passengers use the commons, pay for them. In Chicago, cab drivers MUST collect a $4 tax from airport pickups from passengers. The "McPier" tax pays for events and salaries at Navy Pier and the McCorrmick convention center. Uber has not reimbursed McPier and McPier has to sue Uber to collect what is owed them. That's how Uber rolls. Subsidies and "sue us, we'll settle for less after years of appeals."



Beginning to understand those wretched government regulations are aimed at putting an end to Ayn Randians who rely on subsidies and circumvent paying for the commons?



The commons! Thom's mantra. This is just one reason it's infuriating to listen to him pimp for these middle class job killing (that's another reason), race-to-the-bottom (yet another), libertarian freeloaders. Can't get his attention. I'm spoon feeding to reduce the amount of research he has to do, but he's chosen stick his head in the sand. Louise has even gone so far as to delete my threads and account. I joined the message board in 2007 but as you can see, I'm a new member and these are my first posts. gumball is correct, there have been threads about Uber here. In fact, no doubt he and I sparred in the two I created before they were discovered and deleted along with my account.

all his research and knowledge is a bit tainted by his refusal to consider this and be so willing to tout something like Uber on his show. sad.

Uber Says It's Not Liable for Drivers' Misdeeds
By MARIA DINZEO

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A lawyer for Uber told a federal judge Friday that the ride-hailing company isn't responsible for the actions of two of its drivers, whom two women claim raped them on separate occasions.

"The job being performed has nothing to do with the act," Uber attorney Josh Cohen said, arguing that the sexual assaults alleged by two Jane Does occurred for the "personal gratification" of the drivers and were in no way connected to their jobs.

The two women sued Uber this past October, claiming they were sexually assaulted by drivers in Boston and South Carolina despite a corporate marketing campaign that promotes Uber as one of the safest options for getting home after a night of drinking.

Does' lawsuit blames Uber's deficient background checks, which have allowed people convicted of murder, kidnapping, assault, robbery, identity theft and sexually exploiting children to pass through Uber's screening process Another lawsuit filed by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles makes similar accusations...


http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/01/uber-says-its-not-liable-for-drivers-misdeeds.htm

Uber driver worked while waiting on trial for 2 rapes

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/04/uber_driver_worked_while_awaiting_trial_on_2_rapes

If I, as a driver, run a red light or get a parking ticket, I'm responsible for paying it - not the company. They're pretty clear about this, so I'm wondering how they determined the companies are responsible there. Unless there's a regulation in Chicago that differs from S.F.

Also wondering why they're having collection problems for the airport fee. There is a fee for SFO that is charged directly to the passenger (I want to say it's $4 here). What's going on in Chicago that this fee collection isn't happening? I have a hard time believing Uber or Lyft here, because they collect that fee from the passenger in S.F. just fine. Someone sounds like they're bs'ing.

That said, I still drive for Lyft sometimes for extra cash. The past few months, I've been doing 8-10 hour shifts on a Friday or Saturday night and pocketing $300-$500 for the shift, depending what's going on. Usually I spend about $10-15 on gas for the entirety of the shift and will put about 60-80 miles on my car. So, really, not a bother for me. I'm going out for a shift tonight and expect to bring in about $400-$450 for the evening. It varies based on incentives, and I don't bother driving unless it's worth my time.

It's just a shitty full-time job. I know people who succeed really well at it - I had a buddy bring in $2350 one week for about 50 hours with Lyft. But, eh, I couldn't imagine doing it or relying on it for everyday income.

is talking about. Suppose you want to become a driver versus a cab driver.

Before you can receive a chauffeur's license, you have to pay all of your municipal debts, tickets, child support, alimony. For Chicagoland Uber drivers, they have more than $15 million in "debts" outstanding to local municipalities. There's nothing requiring Uber drivers to settle their debts before starting.

As for the "McPier" tax, Uber is collecting a fee from passengers but not the additional McPier tax. After repeated attempts to collect the tax, they're forcing McPier to sue. Yes, easy fix, but they refuse to fix and say, "Sue us."

Uber could easily collect the McPier tax. They're full of it. The app and software allow an allocation of fees based on where the rider is picked up or dropped off.

We'll see how the California lawsuit goes. It's really interesting, because Instacart ran afoul of this problem here in a big way. Instacart (which I also do in my spare time - so lucrative!) actually has shifts you're expected to be present for or else there's a penalty. There really wasn't anything independent contractor about the situation for people who were required to be present at a store for a scheduled shift. These people were blatant employees. Instacart backed down and made their store-only workers receive a wage.

The delivery, full-service types, however, are still considered independent contractors, even though we're still required to schedule shifts. I honestly cannot even figure how they parsed the difference. Not that I mind, particularly. The tips are stupid good in S.F. Last Monday, I received $90 in tips for 45 minutes of work.

Sharing economy is goofy. But I think S.F. is really an anomaly here. It's a very small city with a lot of very well-off people. It's easy for Lyft, Uber, and Instacart to claim "You can make up to $40/hr!" And you can! In San Francisco. Once you get to areas that are bigger, more spread out, without the density of a willing customer base, it doesn't hold up as well.

I think they're really just chasing the clock at this point. Can they gain massive market share before the regulators come down on them? A lot of people out there are betting on the fact they can.

Uber driver's lawsuit regarding misclassifying them as subcontractors rather than employees. It's looking good for Uber drivers. Reimbursements and benefits, and the state of California, collecting payroll taxes.

On today's show, Thom discussed the Panama Papers. He said one of two reasons you'd hide your money in the Bahama's is tax avoidance. One of Bernie's mantras is big business and the wealthy must start paying their fair share. Now, listening to Thom's program almost everyday since 2008, I'm inclined to believe he, too, thinks multi-billion dollar companies (Uber is valued at over $80 billion) offshoring their income in tax shelters is a bad thing.

I started this thread because it's clear Thom didn't do his due diligence before becoming a mouthpiece for Uber, one of, if not his biggest sponsor. That being said, I'd love to hear Thom respond to this article.

How Uber plays the tax shell game

http://fortune.com/2015/10/22/uber-tax-shell/

fake background checks and charging customers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-uber-background-checks-settlement-20160407-story.html

The car came in 5 minutes, very friendly driver.

There is nothing equivalent, maybe I could have gotten a taxi within 30 minutes, if I was lucky. The taxi lobby can go pound sand.

Gee, words don't help, let's try an SAT question

Choose the best answer
Satisfaction is to preference as leveling the playing field is to....

a. the number of sunspots
b. who the Titans will pick in the NFL draft
c. this thread
d. when mom calls you up for dinner

Did you tip your driver? If you didn't, there is a very good chance he low rated you and flipped you the bird when you weren't looking.

http://www.uberpeople.net/forums/Complaints/

Always much more frustrating to deal with cabs.

I tip a couple bucks, like I would a cab, it just seems strange to walk out with no money changing hands!

Google, Uber, Lyft join automakers in self-driving car lobby

http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/26/google-uber-lyft-join-automakers-in-self-driving-car-lobby/

I just wish it came together sooner!

The car goes where the government and Uber says you can go, not necessarily where YOU want to go.

It IS going be a pain in the transition. Auto-autos and humans on the road at the same time will probably make it more dangerous at first, but as the A-As take over and human controlled cars are removed, and ultimately outlawed, it will be ultimately safer.

At least until some anti-social nerd figures out how to bring down the huge data system required.

Uber and Lyft drivers in San Francisco will have to register for a business permit if they want to continue earning money from giving and sharing rides. City Treasurer Jose Cisneros has begun sending out letters to 37,018 drivers in the city letting them know of the new requirement, according to SFGate. It's unclear how Cisneros got a hold of their names and why he's suddenly decided to enforce a new rule. But SFGate notes that the city is basically telling the companies that if they refuse to recognize their drivers as employees, then they have to require them to get business permits as contractors. Also, if every driver applies for one, which costs $91 a year for those who make $100,000 or less in gross receipts, then the city will make $3.37 million a year.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/15/uber-lyft-drivers-san-francisco-business-permit/

🏆

I'm a one man wrecking ball.

Super Beats, you're welcome.

WASHINGTON -- Ride-sharing that its drivers are independent contractors -- automotive entrepreneurs running their own businesses who have decided to link their operations with Uber.

Andrew Schmidt, a labor lawyer from Portland, Maine, has brought a new lawsuit on behalf of his client Spencer Meyer that could create a lot of trouble for Uber based on this distinction. Because if Uber's drivers are really independent contractors like the company claims, it could be breaking a whole different set of laws: The antitrust statutes that protect consumers from corporate collusion.

"Uber has a simple but illegal business plan: to fix prices among competitors and take a cut of the profits," the complaint reads.

If all of the company's drivers really are independent contractors, then they aren't allowed to secretly conspire over what to charge their customers, the lawsuit reasons. That would be price fixing, a basic antitrust law violation. Since its technology allows all of these independent contractors to set identical prices, Uber is a price fixing scheme that has to shut down and pay its customers for overcharging them, according to the suit.

"If Uber were to become a transportation company and employ drivers, it would be free to compete with other companies using its pricing algorithm," the complaint reads. "But Uber has refused to become a transportation company. Consequently, drivers using the app are independent firms, competing with each other for riders. They should compete on price … Instead, they have agreed to Kalanick’s scheme to fix prices among direct competitors using Uber’s pricing algorithm. Uber’s price fixing is classic anticompetitive behavior."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/legal-problem-could-crash-uber_us_5718d485e4b0479c59d714f6