Marry, Sirrah and Mademoiselle, there are very few facts presented by my interlocutor. THe facts that my interlocutor presents she uses to camouflage her untrue and misleading statements that are born of an ignorance of the taxi and limousine business and its regulations.
Not ALL of Uber's contractors are licenced in the District. Uber sends vehicles licenced in Maryland and Virginia to tranpsort passengers within the District. That is a violation of limousine regulations. The Enforcement arm of the Tasxicab Commission set up a sting and impounded a vehicle licenced in Virginia. The driver of that vehicle had no DCTC licence for himself or his vehicle. When Uber's Management protested to Mary Cheh, she issued the order to the DCTC to leave Uber alone. THe only facts presented here are that Uber contracts with sedan operators and that anyone can view licencing regulations. Not all of its contracting operators are licenced in DC.
The next fact presented is that there are licencing requirements for individual operators. While that is true, it does not refute my assertion that not all Uber drivers have limousine faces ( a 'face' is a licence to operate a taxicab or limousine). That the DCTC caught an unlicenced limousine operator supports my assrtion that not all Uber drivers are properly licenced.
THe statement regarding the Mary Cheh loegislation is misleading. The Lady on Monroe states Uber must 'continue' to contract 'ONLY' (emphasis mine) with 'properly DC licenced; companies and operators. This implies that contracting with legitimate operators and companies has been Uber's practice all along. Vehicles dispatched by Uber that bear registration from the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia contradict the Lady on Monroe's statements. The apprehension of an unlicenced operator by Hack Inspectors further contradict the Lady's statements.
The statement on Uber's paying taxes leaves out an important fat. Tiffany makes several statements regarding 'proper licensure' but leaves out the fact the Uber is NOT properly licenced to do what it does. The DCTC has suspeded licencing of new limousine companies and providers. It has suspended licencing of new taxi companies. Uber is providing limousine service by its sending vehicles to respond to requests. Uber is providing limousine service on a taxi type of rate structure. Uber intends to provide limousine service that undercuts taxi rates. All of this is either illegal or unfair competition. The taxi drivers' rates are regulated, they can not adjust their rates to respond to Uber's competition. The new legislation states that limousines must charge by the hour. Uber does not.
The statement on the DC licenced companies being responsible for their drivers camouflages other misleading statements in that paragraph. By Tiffany's own admission, Uber contracts with individual drivers. Who is responsible for them?
Uber sends them to service requests, but has no responsibility for them. As Uber sends vehicles that hold Virginia and Maryland registrations, DC can not enforce any accountability on their owners or operators and Uber is held to no responsibility for them.
Again, not all of the vehicles that Uber sends have licences from DC. While some may, not all of them do.
Finally, the taxi companies are not employers of the drivers, either, but they must pay fees and are held responsible for their drivers, who are affiliated with the companies by contract. Uber pays no fees for those affiliated with it by contract and is not held responsible for those affiliated with it by contract. Uber is providing a service for which a licence is required in DC. Uber has no such licence.
Other companies of a similar ilk have seen that the DC Gubbamint is going to allow Uber to operate in a mostly unregulated environment. The transcript of the Council debate on Cheh's legislation demonstrates that the Council Members are aware that Uber is unregulated. Uber and others of its ilk should be required to submit to regulations similar to what its competitors must submit.
If there is anything misleading or untrue in any of my statements, perhaps it is my assertion that Uber vehicles and drivers do not pay fees or taxes. Perhaps I should have stated that it is not required that they do so, while this is required of DC licenced limousine and taxi companies or drivers. Uber is sending out of state licenced vehicles and unlicenced drivers to service their requests. Those drivers and the owners of those vehicles pay nothing to the District. THAT is illegal.
--PL on Decatur Street
--- In Brookland@yahoogroups.com, Jason Moore <jmoore0972@...> wrote:
>
> wait, what - facts on the listsrv... no way Jason MI Ave
> From: Tiffany Bridge <tiffany@...>
> All of the preceeding is by turns either utterly untrue or incredibly misleading. Uber, the company, provides a service in which sedan operators may sign in to the Uber application to signal that they are available to take new customers, and in which customers may request the nearest sedan to their location. Â In order to provide this service, Uber contracts with sedan drivers and companies properly licensed to operate in DC. These regulations are plainly viewable for all to see- it's Chapter 31, Section 12 of the DC Municipal Register:Â
http://dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/ChapterHome.aspx?ChapterNumber=31-12 Â Note that in 31-1206, the licensing requirements for the individual drivers are outlined- they are exactly as you have described for cab drivers.ÂAs properly licensed businesses operating in the District, the sedan companies (both companies and independent operators) pay relevant DC taxes on their businesses, including any revenues gained for providing service via Uber. For it's part, Uber, as a business operating in the District, pays relevant taxes on its income, as do its DC employees.Â
CM Cheh's interim legislation passed today specifies, among other things, that in order for Uber to continue to operate, it must continue to contract only with properly DC-licensed sedan operators/companies.The company owning the limousine and employing the driver is responsible for its drivers just like always. Owners of taxicabs must pay registration fees and limousine or taxicab licence fees to the District. Uber vehicles pay no such fees.
The regulators and the courts hold companies responsible for their drivers; Uber has no responsibility for its drivers.
Also untrue, they're still DC-licensed limousine businesses who conform to those regulations. DC Taxi and Limousine companies and drivers labour under unduly burdensome and intrusive rules and regulations and pay excessive fees and fines. Uber has no regulations and pays no fees nor are its drivers subject to fines other than traffic violations.
And again, not true. Uber not paying those fees has to do with Uber not being the employer of the driver; the drivers are still operating under DC limousine regulations.Â
Tiffany on Monroe>
__._,_.___Brookland Rocks !!!!
.
__,_._,___
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment