超级军网有关专车uber类打车软件和出租车的冲突
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/30 00:02:39
现在像滴滴专车uber这样的打车软件确实给老百姓出行带来了方便，但是传统出租车行业又受到了冲击，政府利益也牵涉其中，各种钓鱼执法闹的各地鸡飞狗跳，而拼车又是值得鼓励分担交通压力的好办法。
我有个想法， 双方各让一步，政府也别一刀砍死，打车软件对专车业务也做个限制，订个如下规则：行驶证为非营运的车辆在打车软件中每天只有两单或三单的限额，不可累积（每天配额重置），这样拼车的或者闲着玩票的可以偶尔跑几趟分担一些交通压力，发挥闲置运力资源，又不会对营运车辆构成冲击，黑车也无法靠这个平台洗白（一天两单根本不可能靠这个做职业），大家都相安无事了。 现在像滴滴专车uber这样的打车软件确实给老百姓出行带来了方便，但是传统出租车行业又受到了冲击，政府利益也牵涉其中，各种钓鱼执法闹的各地鸡飞狗跳，而拼车又是值得鼓励分担交通压力的好办法。
我有个想法， 双方各让一步，政府也别一刀砍死，打车软件对专车业务也做个限制，订个如下规则：行驶证为非营运的车辆在打车软件中每天只有两单或三单的限额，不可累积（每天配额重置），这样拼车的或者闲着玩票的可以偶尔跑几趟分担一些交通压力，发挥闲置运力资源，又不会对营运车辆构成冲击，黑车也无法靠这个平台洗白（一天两单根本不可能靠这个做职业），大家都相安无事了。
我有个想法， 双方各让一步，政府也别一刀砍死，打车软件对专车业务也做个限制，订个如下规则：行驶证为非营运的车辆在打车软件中每天只有两单或三单的限额，不可累积（每天配额重置），这样拼车的或者闲着玩票的可以偶尔跑几趟分担一些交通压力，发挥闲置运力资源，又不会对营运车辆构成冲击，黑车也无法靠这个平台洗白（一天两单根本不可能靠这个做职业），大家都相安无事了。 现在像滴滴专车uber这样的打车软件确实给老百姓出行带来了方便，但是传统出租车行业又受到了冲击，政府利益也牵涉其中，各种钓鱼执法闹的各地鸡飞狗跳，而拼车又是值得鼓励分担交通压力的好办法。
我有个想法， 双方各让一步，政府也别一刀砍死，打车软件对专车业务也做个限制，订个如下规则：行驶证为非营运的车辆在打车软件中每天只有两单或三单的限额，不可累积（每天配额重置），这样拼车的或者闲着玩票的可以偶尔跑几趟分担一些交通压力，发挥闲置运力资源，又不会对营运车辆构成冲击，黑车也无法靠这个平台洗白（一天两单根本不可能靠这个做职业），大家都相安无事了。
有个更简单的办法，成立第三方公司对专车司机进行培训，资质审核，监督，管理，像管理出租车那样管理专车，或者干错取消传统出租车，以全职专车和兼职专车取代
打车软件的红火更多是靠补贴催生的，烧钱始终都是暂时的，羊毛最终还是要出在羊身上
打车软件的红火更多是靠补贴催生的，烧钱始终都是暂时的，羊毛最终还是要出在羊身上
动了传统出租车行业上下链条的大蛋糕啊，断人财路是生死大仇…
动了传统出租车行业上下链条的大蛋糕啊，断人财路是生死大仇…
现在是专车关系着更大多数而且还在不断膨胀的私家车主的财路。。。
现在是专车关系着更大多数而且还在不断膨胀的私家车主的财路。。。
wjgg 发表于 2015-6-17 22:47
动了传统出租车行业上下链条的大蛋糕啊，断人财路是生死大仇…
很多国家出租车行业都有黑社会背景，所以容易...
动了传统出租车行业上下链条的大蛋糕啊，断人财路是生死大仇…
很多国家出租车行业都有黑社会背景，所以容易...
现在是专车关系着更大多数而且还在不断膨胀的私家车主的财路。。。
在权力眼里，私家车主的权益算个* （这里不特指TG）
在权力眼里，私家车主的权益算个* （这里不特指TG）
动了传统出租车行业上下链条的大蛋糕啊，断人财路是生死大仇…
出租车背后有垄断势力，所以反扑会很猛烈的
出租车背后有垄断势力，所以反扑会很猛烈的
其实裁决揭示了一个世界性突出矛盾：科技企业以“轻资产”为名，超高利润，超低社会负担。这种裁决会发酵。
@硅谷猎头TomZhang
#Uber 出大事了#加州劳工委员会裁决：Uber 司机的性质属于公司雇员。这意味着Uber和司机可能面临多项税收包括社会安全税、社会医保税、工伤保险税、失业保险税…… 来源：路透社，CNBC
@硅谷猎头TomZhang
#Uber 出大事了#加州劳工委员会裁决：Uber 司机的性质属于公司雇员。这意味着Uber和司机可能面临多项税收包括社会安全税、社会医保税、工伤保险税、失业保险税…… 来源：路透社，CNBC
其实私家车主热心拉活的最主要原因和愿意打车的人一样，大量的补贴！等补贴一结束，马上就会冷下来，然后才知道东边的老虎吃人，西边的老虎也要吃人，你以为资本是菩萨，哪来那么多钱让所有人都能得到实惠啊？
新生活方式日新月异，阻挡者最后都没好下场。
bloomer 发表于 2015-6-18 09:24
其实私家车主热心拉活的最主要原因和愿意打车的人一样，大量的补贴！等补贴一结束，马上就会冷下来，然后才 ...
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费者一部分，uber是拿走各城市的出租车公司的利益，自己分一部分，给消费者和司机一部分
其实私家车主热心拉活的最主要原因和愿意打车的人一样，大量的补贴！等补贴一结束，马上就会冷下来，然后才 ...
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费者一部分，uber是拿走各城市的出租车公司的利益，自己分一部分，给消费者和司机一部分
bbttssgg 发表于 2015-6-18 09:40
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费 ...
可是出租车公司买牌照是有投入的，而且司机作为员工，养老保险各种税费还是都要交，Uber就是打了个擦边球用合同工的名义做出租车，昨天加州就说了Uber司机应该是员工而不是合同工，要求Uber交钱。
Uber Driver Was Employee, Not Contractor, California Commission Says
Ruling says driver was an employee, potentially paving the way for new costs to the company
ENLARGE
An Uber car near Union Square in San Francisco. PHOTO: REUTERS
By
DOUGLAS MACMILLAN And
LAUREN WEBER
Updated June 17, 2015 2:53 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS
California’s labor commissioner has ruled that a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. should be classified as an employee of the company, a decision that marks the latest setback for the ride-hailing company’s labor model.
The ruling doesn’t set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, but it is one of a growing number of court decisions that may have far-reaching implications for the company. Uber says its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, a designation that means it is not responsible for paying drivers’ insurance or job-related expenses and allows the company to operate and expand at relatively low cost.
Uber has been ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a San Francisco driver for Uber from July to September of last year, more than $4,100 to cover the costs of vehicle mileage and tolls, the commissioner said in a June 3 ruling that was filed in California state court on Tuesday.
The regulator found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation,” from vetting drivers and their vehicles to setting rates for trip fares, and therefore is legally an employer of its drivers. Uber had unsuccessfully argued that because it is just a smartphone service that matches passengers with rides, its drivers should be classified as contractors.
Uber said Wednesday that it is appealing the ruling and pointed to a 2012 labor commission ruling that found one of its drivers should not be classified as an employee. “The number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control,” the company said in a statement.
The labor commission disputed that drivers control all aspects of their work, noting that, among other things, passengers pay Uber for their rides and Uber, in turn, pays drivers “a nonnegotiable service fee.”
Rulings by state agencies like the California Labor Commission don’t set a formal precedent for court cases or other actions, said Reuel Schiller, a law professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费 ...
可是出租车公司买牌照是有投入的，而且司机作为员工，养老保险各种税费还是都要交，Uber就是打了个擦边球用合同工的名义做出租车，昨天加州就说了Uber司机应该是员工而不是合同工，要求Uber交钱。
Uber Driver Was Employee, Not Contractor, California Commission Says
Ruling says driver was an employee, potentially paving the way for new costs to the company
ENLARGE
An Uber car near Union Square in San Francisco. PHOTO: REUTERS
By
DOUGLAS MACMILLAN And
LAUREN WEBER
Updated June 17, 2015 2:53 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS
California’s labor commissioner has ruled that a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. should be classified as an employee of the company, a decision that marks the latest setback for the ride-hailing company’s labor model.
The ruling doesn’t set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, but it is one of a growing number of court decisions that may have far-reaching implications for the company. Uber says its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, a designation that means it is not responsible for paying drivers’ insurance or job-related expenses and allows the company to operate and expand at relatively low cost.
Uber has been ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a San Francisco driver for Uber from July to September of last year, more than $4,100 to cover the costs of vehicle mileage and tolls, the commissioner said in a June 3 ruling that was filed in California state court on Tuesday.
The regulator found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation,” from vetting drivers and their vehicles to setting rates for trip fares, and therefore is legally an employer of its drivers. Uber had unsuccessfully argued that because it is just a smartphone service that matches passengers with rides, its drivers should be classified as contractors.
Uber said Wednesday that it is appealing the ruling and pointed to a 2012 labor commission ruling that found one of its drivers should not be classified as an employee. “The number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control,” the company said in a statement.
The labor commission disputed that drivers control all aspects of their work, noting that, among other things, passengers pay Uber for their rides and Uber, in turn, pays drivers “a nonnegotiable service fee.”
Rulings by state agencies like the California Labor Commission don’t set a formal precedent for court cases or other actions, said Reuel Schiller, a law professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.
bbttssgg 发表于 2015-6-18 09:40
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费 ...
可是出租车公司买牌照是有投入的，而且司机作为员工，养老保险各种税费还是都要交，Uber就是打了个擦边球用合同工的名义做出租车，昨天加州就说了Uber司机应该是员工而不是合同工，要求Uber交钱。
Uber Driver Was Employee, Not Contractor, California Commission Says
Ruling says driver was an employee, potentially paving the way for new costs to the company
ENLARGE
An Uber car near Union Square in San Francisco. PHOTO: REUTERS
By
DOUGLAS MACMILLAN And
LAUREN WEBER
Updated June 17, 2015 2:53 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS
California’s labor commissioner has ruled that a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. should be classified as an employee of the company, a decision that marks the latest setback for the ride-hailing company’s labor model.
The ruling doesn’t set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, but it is one of a growing number of court decisions that may have far-reaching implications for the company. Uber says its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, a designation that means it is not responsible for paying drivers’ insurance or job-related expenses and allows the company to operate and expand at relatively low cost.
Uber has been ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a San Francisco driver for Uber from July to September of last year, more than $4,100 to cover the costs of vehicle mileage and tolls, the commissioner said in a June 3 ruling that was filed in California state court on Tuesday.
The regulator found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation,” from vetting drivers and their vehicles to setting rates for trip fares, and therefore is legally an employer of its drivers. Uber had unsuccessfully argued that because it is just a smartphone service that matches passengers with rides, its drivers should be classified as contractors.
Uber said Wednesday that it is appealing the ruling and pointed to a 2012 labor commission ruling that found one of its drivers should not be classified as an employee. “The number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control,” the company said in a statement.
The labor commission disputed that drivers control all aspects of their work, noting that, among other things, passengers pay Uber for their rides and Uber, in turn, pays drivers “a nonnegotiable service fee.”
Rulings by state agencies like the California Labor Commission don’t set a formal precedent for court cases or other actions, said Reuel Schiller, a law professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.
uber的模式就跟淘宝的本质是一样的，淘宝是拿走了中间经销商的利益，把这个利益自己拿了一部分，给了消费 ...
可是出租车公司买牌照是有投入的，而且司机作为员工，养老保险各种税费还是都要交，Uber就是打了个擦边球用合同工的名义做出租车，昨天加州就说了Uber司机应该是员工而不是合同工，要求Uber交钱。
Uber Driver Was Employee, Not Contractor, California Commission Says
Ruling says driver was an employee, potentially paving the way for new costs to the company
ENLARGE
An Uber car near Union Square in San Francisco. PHOTO: REUTERS
By
DOUGLAS MACMILLAN And
LAUREN WEBER
Updated June 17, 2015 2:53 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS
California’s labor commissioner has ruled that a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. should be classified as an employee of the company, a decision that marks the latest setback for the ride-hailing company’s labor model.
The ruling doesn’t set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, but it is one of a growing number of court decisions that may have far-reaching implications for the company. Uber says its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, a designation that means it is not responsible for paying drivers’ insurance or job-related expenses and allows the company to operate and expand at relatively low cost.
Uber has been ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a San Francisco driver for Uber from July to September of last year, more than $4,100 to cover the costs of vehicle mileage and tolls, the commissioner said in a June 3 ruling that was filed in California state court on Tuesday.
The regulator found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation,” from vetting drivers and their vehicles to setting rates for trip fares, and therefore is legally an employer of its drivers. Uber had unsuccessfully argued that because it is just a smartphone service that matches passengers with rides, its drivers should be classified as contractors.
Uber said Wednesday that it is appealing the ruling and pointed to a 2012 labor commission ruling that found one of its drivers should not be classified as an employee. “The number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control,” the company said in a statement.
The labor commission disputed that drivers control all aspects of their work, noting that, among other things, passengers pay Uber for their rides and Uber, in turn, pays drivers “a nonnegotiable service fee.”
Rulings by state agencies like the California Labor Commission don’t set a formal precedent for court cases or other actions, said Reuel Schiller, a law professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.