Australian Politics Forum

Quote:

UBER SETTLES DRIVERS’ FARE
BLAIR JACKSON
Uber will pay Australian taxi drivers a $271m settlement in a major class action settled in-principle in court on
Monday.

The class action, which involves more than 8000 taxi and hire car owners, was sparked by what the drivers’
lawyers called Uber’s aggressive move into the Australian market, diminishing the existing drivers’ income and licence values.

The drivers’ law firm, Maurice Blackburn, says the $271.8m agreement is the fifth-largest class action settlement in Australian history.

Parties concerned appeared in the Supreme Court of Victoria before Justice Lisa Nichols for a brief hearing on Monday.

The settlement was reached on Sunday night, avoiding a ten-week trial, the court was told.

A settlement schedule will be presented to the court at an expected directions hearing on April 12.

Outside court, lead claimant and former Melbourne taxi driver Nick Adrianakis said Uber decimated the industry he worked in for 40 years.
“The result today, I’m very pleased with,” he said.
“We suggested Uber acted illegally and they needed to pay. This was a win for small businesses, of mum and dad investors.

“I feel great, it’s been a five-year battle and pretty emotional. The taxi industry was decimated … today we can go down as a winner.”

Mr Adrianakis said he was no longer in the industry, and that Uber’s disruption cost him millions of dollars.

“I lost my passion for work,” he said. “I lost my (taxi) plates that were half a million dollars each.
And I lost my income that provided food on the table for my family.”

Maurice Blackburn principal Michael Donelly said Uber “fought tooth and nail at every point along the way,
every day, for the five years this has been on foot, trying at every turn to deny our group members any form of remedy or compensation for their losses”.

In 2019 when the suit was gaining plaintiffs, it was speculated the drivers could pursue up to a $1bn settlement.

Maurice Blackburn’s $30m-$35m in legal fees was paid for by a third party class action financier.
Outside court, Uber’s lawyer John Sheahan, KC, declined to answer with any detail questions about why the settlement was reached and how.

“The parties reached an agreement, that’s it … you reach an agreement when you agree,” he said.

In a statement, an Uber spokesman said that when Uber started more than a decade ago, “ridesharing regulations did not exist anywhere in the world, let alone Australia”.

“Today is different, and Uber is now regulated in every state and territory across Australia, and governments recognise us as an important part of the nation’s transport mix,” he said.

“The rise of ridesharing has grown Australia’s overall point-to-point transport industry, bringing with it greater choice and improved experiences for consumers, as well as new earnings opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Australian workers.”

Aussie is this a worthwhile outcome or a mere pittance as to what Taxi owners lost?

As for Uber stating that ride share regulations didn't exist a decade ago .... they new that full well and took unfair advantage of it.

Sadly that was allowed to happen by state govts & stupid politicians.

I find it hard to feel sorry for the taxi drivers.

For so many years they ripped us off, so ... a bit of karma perhaps(?).

I use Uber all the time now - haven't caught a taxi for years.

The last time I caught a taxi (at midnight at the airport) the driver told me (lied to me) that his meter wasn't working, and seeing as it was midnight he couldn't get it repaired until the morning.

So, he slugged me a fixed fare.

This happens every single day at Perth airport, and they're allowed to get away with it.

Both services are far from perfect, but I'm sticking with Uber for now.

I am surprised they got the money out of uber rather than the government. It was the government making taxi drivers pay $500,000 for a taxi licence, and then they just didn't bother enforcing the requirement for the licence.

Whatever it was that caused the price of a licence to go up to $500,000, I think it was effectively a conspiracy between the taxi industry and the government to reduce competition. There is no sensible reason for it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 10:59am:

Isn't that what you get from Uber? A fixed fare with surge pricing?

Would an Uber be cheaper than an off-the-meter taxi?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 10:59am:

There was no complaint about competition.

It was all about lack of regulations on Uber ... their ability to come into the arena unfettered by the huge costs imposed on taxi drivers , regarding licenses & vehicle standards.

The worst offenders at ripping people off ethnic taxi drivers who would take people via the scenic route to make more money. They wouldn't take short fares & many could hardly speak English.

At airports they would push in looking for the biggest paying jobs and get in fights with each other.

In 2008 when Beijing hosted the summer Olympics it was said that Beijing had one thing that Sydney didn't have for the 2000 Olympics ....

more taxi drivers that could speak English.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 1:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 10:59am:

Isn't that what you get from Uber? A fixed fare with surge pricing?

Would an Uber be cheaper than an off-the-meter taxi?

An Uber is always cheaper than a taxi.

And, when the taxi drivers turn off their meters (illegally), they don't declare the fixed-fare income they receive.

i.e. it's cash-in-hand. They're not paying tax.

I will always take an Uber over a taxi.

Have you ever caught either LTYC?

Dear FD,
how would you feel if you would have paid $500K for a taxi license
and then some tricky Dicky turned up with an Uber car
and had paid nothing for the same privilege?

I would feel a bit silly.

Why were we requiring taxi drivers to pay $500,000 for the privilege in the first place? My guess is it was basically a government-supported anti-competitive behaviour that the existing taxi drivers were in on.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 11:21am:

Have you ever caught either LTYC?

Never an Uber. I have occasionally driven to airports and a number of times used chauffeured services and taxis so have had no need for Uber.

I have never lived far from a city centre which means taxis are always available.

I normally book taxis ahead of the appointed travel time.

I have had problems on two occasions with the chauffeur service where they didn't turn up and I had to get a taxi instead. In one case it was late and they didn't inform me they were on the way. In another case it was because of a travel delay by an airline of about 6 hours which the chauffeur company should have made themselves aware of. I didn't waste time phoning this company at 11:00 pm because they would have lied that their car was 5 minutes away when it was likely more than 1 hour and immediately sought a taxi.

I have yet to experience FD's preferred travel mode on the shoulders of Zionist's dupes.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:22pm:

I believe the taxi owners were paying for the taxi Registration Plates.
Only so many were ever sold by the Govt. and there was legislation
saying you couldn't drive a taxi without those plates on your car.
Those plates went way up in value as the decades passed
and were being sold not directly by the Govt but between taxi owners
on the free market.

However the Govt. didn't prosecute Uber drivers for
starting up a Taxi business without those plates.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:22pm:

Yes, that is what the government did. But why would they limit the number of taxis?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:33pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:22pm:

Yes, that is what the government did. But why would they limit the number of taxis?

I know -
the Govt. said that they wanted taxi drivers to have a profitable business
and so they did introduce and sell new taxi plates as time went on but
they limited the number so as not to swamp the market.

So it was government endorsed anti-competitive behaviour.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:45pm:

So it was government endorsed anti-competitive behaviour.

yes - and taxi owners were sucked into paying for plates
when Uber basically got normal plates for free and got away with using them.

Aside -
I know a poor guy who used his last money in the world to buy
a new car to use for Uber.
He sold it 6 months later at a large loss as he worked out
he was only making $5 an hour after all expenses were accounted for.
Uber made the money - not him.

At least he didn't pay $500,000 for a taxi licence.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2024 at 1:58pm:

At least he didn't pay $500,000 for a taxi licence.

That was lucky - phew - :o

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> General Board >> Uber will pay Australian taxi drivers http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1710807381 Message started by Gnads on Mar 19^th, 2024 at 10:16am