Tag Archives: Cab service

After years of trying to catch up to competitors Uber and Lyft, lesser-known ride-hailing startup Sidecar is ceasing operations.

Another taxi drama

Another taxi drama

The company will stop offering all rides and deliveries on December 31, 2015 at 2 pm PT. Sidecar founder and CEO Sunil Paul announced the decision in a Medium post on Tuesday.

Sidecar was an early competitor in the ride-hailing app world. Launched in 2012, it raised $35 million in funding from major venture capital firms, including Virgin’s Richard Branson.

It branched out to a number of U.S. cities, but never managed to find the same loyal following, or funding, as Uber and Lyft. Uber has become the most valuable private company in the world.

Sidecar has claimed it invented the concept of ride-sharing, in which a smartphone app is used to connect people with drivers using their personal cars. Though Uber existed first, it only worked with limos at first.

“We are the innovation leader in ridesharing despite a significant capital disadvantage, continually rolling out new products that set the bar for others to follow,” said Paul in the post.

The struggling company was dabbling in other business models to help drum up business. Starting in 2014, Sidecar started doing same day deliveries for e-commerce companies like EAT24. Uber launched its own delivery business in April 2015.

In May, Sidecar announced it was teaming up with medical-marijuana delivery startup Meadow to handle its same-day deliveries in the Bay Area. The drivers needed to be medical marijuana patients themselves and members of the dispensary sending out the packages.

The company is not disappearing completely. The remaining team will “work on strategic alternatives and lay the groundwork for the next big thing,” said Paul.

Seattle is first city in nation to give Uber, other contract drivers ability to unionize


seattle Taxi Vs Uber

seattle Taxi Vs Uber


The Seattle City Council voted unanimously Monday to give taxi, for-hire and Uber drivers the ability to unionize.

Mayor Ed Murray won’t sign the ordinance, but his signature is not needed for the bill to become law, he said.

The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to collective bargaining. But drivers for taxi, for-hire and app-dispatch companies like Uber and Lyft are categorized as independent contractors, rather than employees, so those federal protections don’t apply to them.

Seattle is the first city in the U.S. to establish a framework for contract drivers to organize and to bargain for agreements on issues such as pay and working conditions.

Most Read Stories
nullUpdate: Seahawks running back Thomas Rawls out for season with ankle injury
nullWith Thomas Rawls out, what will Seattle Seahawks do now at running back?
Kam Chancellor is continuing his holdout as the Seahawks open their season Sunday in St. (Jeff Gross / Getty Images)Seahawks’ Kam Chancellor could return next week after suffering tailbone injury
nullRichard Sherman on viral photo of fans mistaking rapper Waka Flocka Flame for Seahawks star: ‘That was pretty funny’
nullAnalyzing the loss of Seahawks running back Thomas Rawls and what it means
Unlimited Digital Access. $1 for 4 weeks.
Backers of the groundbreaking bill, including drivers, broke into applause after the vote in the council’s crowded chambers and chanted, “When we fight, we win!”

Takele Gobena, a 26-year-old Uber driver and a leader among those pushing for unionization, called Monday’s vote a victory. He was temporarily kicked off the app in August just a few hours after taking part in a news conference with Councilmember Mike O’Brien, the bill’s sponsor.

“I’m so excited. I’m so happy,” said Gobena, of SeaTac. “This is a big change for us.”

Uber and Lyft opposed the ordinance and argued O’Brien’s proposal violates federal labor and anti-trust laws, meaning the city likely will be sued.

“Uber is creating new opportunities for many people to earn a better living on their own time and their own terms,” the company said in a statement Monday.

Murray sent council members a letter before their vote expressing reservations about the bill. He’s worried about costs related to managing the bargaining process and defending the ordinance in court, he said.

But O’Brien struck a triumphant note.

“This bill was only introduced out of necessity after witnessing how little power drivers themselves had in working for a living wage,” he said, adding, “I am proud Seattle is continuing to lead the nation in advancing labor standards for our workers.”

Under the ordinance, a taxi, for-hire or app-based vehicle-dispatch company will be required to provide the city with a list of its Seattle drivers. Then a nonprofit organization — most likely a union — will use the list to contact the drivers.

The nonprofit organization will need to gain the support of a majority of a company’s drivers to be designated by the city as their bargaining representative.

The ordinance will require the company to hammer out an agreement with the representative organization. The city will enforce the ordinance’s requirements through penalties such as fines but not by revoking a company’s license to operate.

The backdrop for the council’s vote is a nationwide conversation about what role governments should play in the country’s growing app-powered gig economy.

Companies like Uber and Lyft for rides, TaskRabbit for odd jobs and GrubHub for food delivery are attracting workers by offering more flexibility than conventional jobs.

But labor activists and others are worried about apps making it easier for companies to contract with independent workers and avoid paying minimum wages and benefits.

Drivers from several cities, including Seattle, are suing Uber for categorizing them as independent contractors, and politicians in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere are talking about whether a new benefits system or new worker category might be needed.

The lawsuits will focus on whether Uber controls drivers by setting fares and deciding who can work or whether drivers are in charge by setting their own schedules.

O’Brien’s proposal grew out of organizing by taxi, Uber and Lyft drivers in Seattle and from advocacy by Teamsters Local 117. Some drivers backing the bill have said that, after expenses, they make far less than the city’s minimum wage driving for Uber and Lyft. Other drivers have said they like the way the industry operates now.

Uber ramped up its engagement in Seattle before Monday’ vote. David Plouffe, a former political strategist for President Obama now serving as Uber’s chief adviser, visited Seattle earlier this month to promote the company and criticize the ordinance.

The company recently chose the city for its launch of devices on some vehicle windshields that light up to help drivers connect with waiting riders. Last week, it began offering a new service in Seattle called UberHop; vehicles pick up riders at set spots along set routes. The company has been advertising heavily in local media, as well.

The council’s finance committee approved the ordinance in October but O’Brien’s delayed the final vote so lawyers for the city could work to make it more legally sound.

Uber has sued King County and Seattle law firm Keller Rohrback in an attempt to block the county from releasing, under a public-records request by the firm, the number of licensed drivers the company has here. In an interview during his visit to the city, Plouffe told The Seattle Times that Uber has more than 10,000 drivers in the city.

Dan Clark, 64, a part-time Uber driver from Auburn, is against O’Brien ordinance because “it just seems wrong to have a union come in and dictate everything,” he said.

Uber and Lyft could raise fares in Seattle. But Gobena, who said he drives 55 hours a week in addition to attending college, said he believes passengers are on his side.

“The riders, they see how much we’re paid … They feel so bad,” the pro-union driver said. “We are just asking Uber to pay us a living wage. Seattleites want that.”

Daniel Beekman: 206-464-2164 or dbeekman@seattletimes.com. Twitter @DBeekman

New York taxi owners are suing the city for letting Uber destroy their business


taxi_vs_uber

taxi_vs_uber


New York City taxi owners and credit unions are suing the city and its Taxi and Limousine Commission for letting Uber expand despite the harm it has caused their business. The lawsuit, filed today in Manhattan federal court, accuses city regulators of easing the pathway for ride-hailing services to operate with fewer burdens, according to a report today from Reuters. The lawsuit could represent one of the last dying gasps of the country’s largest taxi industry, which has moved on from its losing fight against Uber in hopes of extracting damages from the city itself.

The complaint states that medallion prices, which help artificially restrict the supply of city cabs, have fallen 40 percent from an all-time high of more than $1 million between April and June of this year. Meanwhile, the number of cab pickups fell by 3.83 million. Uber rides in Manhattan increased by 3.82 million in the same time period, the complaint says. The complaint also cites Uber as a primary contributor to the July bankruptcy filing of 22 taxi cab companies run by mogul Evgeny Freidman and the state’s seizing of a credit union that specializes in medallion loans back in September.
TAXI MEDALLION PRICES HAVE FALLEN 40 PERCENT
The plaintiffs include the Melrose, Progressive and Lomto Federal credit unions, which have loaned upwards of $2.4 billion for more than 4,600 taxi medallions; individual medallion holders; and the Taxi Medallion Owner Driver Association and League of Mutual Taxi Owners, both of which collectively represent more than 4,000 medallion holders.

“Defendants’ deliberate evisceration of medallion taxicab hail exclusivity, and their ongoing arbitrary, disparate regulatory treatment of the medallion taxicab industry, has and continues to inflict catastrophic harm on this once iconic industry and the tens of thousands of hardworking men and women that depend on it for their livelihood,” the complaint reads. Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.