Should Uber be Banned in London?

Should Uber be Banned in s hearty of the linked Kingdom?On family 22nd, 2017,the metropolis of capital of the United Kingdom, England decl atomic number 18d that it depart non re- bring on UberTechnologies Inc.s (Uber or the corporation) private- cable railway car hiring license that wasset to expire on September 30th, 2017. The months following jam toan apostrophize to Transport for capital of the United Kingdom (TFL)by Uber, which become a stalled and reluctant process that in the long run could takeyears to move forward. While the appeal could take up to a year to fullyprocess, the commissi mavinr of TFL, MikeBrown, and Uber were qualified to converse in early November over voltageresolutions prior to Ubers hearing in December (Smith, 2017). Although talks amongst the smart set and TFL ultimately rescue not become deciding factors in the appeal, they argon in-chief(postnominal) in creatinga professional dialogue between the two bodies. As the Company has tried its r uff to develop a kin with the metropolis of capital of the United Kingdom, two Uber employees came into the popular eye. Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar, two Uber drivers based in capital of the United Kingdom won a legal dispute on behalf of a root of nineteen Uber drivers in early November. The dispute, which involved the category in which Uber drivers were to be placed, ended with upholding regularization to deem all drivers as workers for Uber rather than self-employed. This ruler enforces the Company to pay all of its workers a minimum charter, allow m off, and holiday pay (Rao, 2017). Another defeat in UKs romance system has not only damaged Ubers reputation in the island nation even more exactly made the companionships capital of the United Kingdom division increasingly susceptible to an unfavorable outcome in its upcoming December hearing. Financially, Uber has done very well, especially in the United Kingdom. Boasting over 3.5 Million intakers in capital of the Un ited Kingdom alone (Cummins), the hulk ride-sh atomic number 18 usefulness company keeps over 40,000 community employed in the urban center (Rao, 2017). Simply put, Ubers status as a licensed drudge or ride-sh are service is very important to the economy of capital of the United Kingdom and its plurality. Stakeholders in the companys pass offd surgical operation in the British capital include local anaesthetic users as well as far-reaching shareholders spanning the globe. It is because of Ubers freehanded role that we need to pose the question, Should Uber be allowed to manipulate in capital of the United Kingdom with little restrictive regulation than other revenuei services?.Stakeholder(s) postTransport for capital of the United Kingdom, administrational organization TFLs stake is the well-being and apology of its citizens from malpractices and the legality of condescension operations dealing in transportation. Due to their bureau as the conclusiveness hold bac kr in renewing Ubers license in capital of the United Kingdom, they are considered one of the some powerful stakeholders. Uber driversDrivers of Uber are one of the most urgent and legitimate stakeholders because of the direct impact the decision would fuddle on their clienteles and careers. Uber drivers outside of capital of the United Kingdom While not directly squeeze by the outcome, Ubers international drivers are affected by the supposition of other cities following in capital of the United Kingdoms footsteps of barring Uber. Uber clients in capital of the United KingdomUber is fairly popular in capital of the United Kingdom, with 40% of the population having used Uber at one point. Their clients would ask to find an alternative, such as using abusive hackers, which are generally more expensive. They are directly impacted by the outcome and on that pointfore can be considered an urgent stakeholder as well as a legitimate one. Uber Shareholders/Investors As 5% of all o f Ubers revenue stream, Londons consumer base for Uber is a considerable securities industry. Losing this market could dissuade potential and true investors and shareholders through lost faith in the company. These investors and shareholders are responsible for Ubers existence as a company which makes them a very powerful, urgent, and legitimate group of stakeholders. New Car gross revenue companies Since most Uber drivers use their own cars for transportation, and nigh Uber drivers buy and lease cars specifically so they can get potential discounts, the outcome of this decision leave behind materially impact car sales. London Public Transit Commuters If Uber drift offs its license, thither is a good chance that previous Uber clients pull up stakes opt for public transportation which is a cheap alternative, do a large inflow of commuters and crowding the already crowded public transportation woofs. London guard Uber is well known to use anti-law enforcement telephone line tactics. There is the distinct potential that if Ubers right to operate is revoked, they may still operate under-the-radar causing more work for Londons police to make accredited Uber is compliant with their laws. Londons air qualityLondon is notorious for having one of the mop up air qualities in the EU, and reducing the number of people driving go away help improve the air quality situation. This affects all Londoners and tourists. Gas place Uber contributes to a decent tot up of various gas stations revenues, as their profession is to drive all day which consumes gasoline. Reducing the standard and frequency of which people drive impart affect their revenues as well. stern cab companies colour cab companies want the rule to be upheld, as they provide directly well-being from Uber losing their license, as they are (an albeit expensive) substitute for Ubers services. ignominious cab drivers Similar to the sorry political hack company itself, dimmed cab drivers only make money (generally) when they are driving clients. Since they willing see an increase in volume, the black cab drivers will make more money. TX4 Hackney Carriage nigrify nag shapers As the manufacturer of black cabs TX4 has a direct stake in the decision find out Ubers fate in London. With Uber gone the company can ride out producing the same black cabs that are part of Londons large private taxi service. Rental car companies Uber has a take aimal car program with some rental car companies so not all Uber drivers have to own their car. If Uber were to get pulled out of London, the revenues of London rental car companies would suffer as a direct result. The London Underground transportation service and system The London Underground will similarly profit as the black cab companies due to the relationship of being a substitute to Uber as well. London Banks When people or car sales companies buy cars, they get a loan from a bank. Fewer cars being sold reduces new loan volume. Additionally, Uber drivers relying on their job to pay off the car loan may be squeeze to sell or remit their car to the Bank. London Car commuters A reduced volume of drivers on the road will favor car commuters, reducing traffic and congestion. However, Uber clients who are new or are reversive to driving their own car could pose a risk to current car commuters because of driving inexperience and unfamiliarity. Local wildlife, in and surrounding London. (Hawks, Foxes, Badgers, Ducks, Deer, and Others) measly air quality, light pollution, and noise pollution all affect the local London wildlife. With more Uber drivers, especially those who are new to the London area, comes a greater chance of local wildlife having incidents with motor vehicles. Environmental activists (Love Clean Air, client Earth, EPUK, EEA, LSx, WWF, and Others) Since Londons air quality and wildlife will not blab out for itself, activist groups that represent both of these stakeholder groups will likely pu sh for Uber to suffer its operating license for the reasons that are stated in their respective sections. London Tourists Since Uber is the current combination of the cheapest and most convenient survival of the fittest for tourists, they will have to find alternate forms of transportation which may be either more expensive (cabs) or less convenient (transit). Potential Actions & ImplicationsThere are three clear potential actions that the Transport for London can take to resolve our respectable question, Should Uber be allowed to operate in London with less restrictive regulation than other taxi services? along with doing what is best for the Stakeholders involved on a legal and economic scale. They have the option of continuing to treat Uber as they currently are and apply no extra regulation or restrictions to Ubers operations, create new regulation to specifically address Ubers operations, or decide to let Ubers operation permit expire thusly eliminating Uber from London.For the first option, permit Uber defend its current operations and re-instating its operations permit, Transport for London would continue to complement Uber as ride-share service as opposed to a taxi service. The implications of this are that Transport for London would be encouraging the demise of the Black drudge industry in its current state, forcing either clo undisputable of said companies or a prompting the creation of new business models. In doing so, there could potentially be long-term eudaemonias for the general London community who use ride-share and taxi services as their primary mode of transportation. This is because the Black Cab companies would be now directly competing with their modified business plans against Uber and any ambition between companies is always good for consumers. Other stakeholders, such as car sales companies, other services that compliment car sales, gas stations, Uber drivers, Uber Investors, and London Tourists would similarly benefit from th is decision.If Uber was allowed to continue operations as it currently is, this would have repercussions on stakeholders such as Londons police, The London Underground, the Black Cab companies and associated stakeholders, Transport for London as a governmental body, Londons air quality, Londons local wildlife, and the local London activist groups for the environment and wildlife such as detailed in the stakeholder hold over above. Uber is well known for its practicesregarding law enforcement evasion through its Greyball program, which itssole affair is to identify and blacklist any law enforcement personnel fromusing Ubers services which is both a short-term issue and if it persists, can move around into a long-term issue. It can turn into a long-term issue because as wellwhen trying to make sure Uber is compliant with government regulations, as itwill be difficult to get an unbiased audited account of Ubers operations that are conducted by a law enforcement agency.The Black Cab c ompanies andassociated stakeholders along with the London Underground will continue to loseprofits and employees unless they change their business models. This can makeor ruin the Black Cab industry, as these Black Cab companies are close as oldas London itself and have not changed their business model since then.The environment and wildlife in andsurrounding London will continue to have a deteriorating quality-of-life,because of the stated reasons in the Stakeholder table. These will have somemeasurable immediate impact, but the long-term effects are the most worrisomewhere pollution reaches a point of no return and is incurable. Because thesedetriments hand the benefits that would be provided by letting Uber retaintheir operations license, this is not a inspireed answer to our question.For the second option, letting Ubercontinue operations but with redundant regulations, the Transport for Londonbody would invoke regulations regarding Uber similar to those that apply to theBlac k Cab industry. Contrasting with the first option, this would potentiallyallow the Black Cab industry to survive under its current business model,albeit with a solecism in pricing to efficiently compete with Uber. This wouldbenefit the Black Cab industry to an extent, Uber and Black Cab users, carsales companies and associated services, gas stations, Uber investors, and Uberdrivers.However, this decision would haverepercussions on other stakeholders as well. Similar to the first option, theLondon police, The London Underground, Transport for London as a governmentalbody, Londons air quality, Londons local wildlife, and the local Londonactivist groups for the environment and wildlife would also be controvertlyimpacted by this course of action.Letting Uber continue operations butbeing curb by additional regulations is a better solution than the first optionbecause it benefits more stakeholders. However, it is still not our recommendedsolution. The negative impact that stems from le tting Uber operate in London istoo great a cost compared to letting their operations license expire.The third solution is to let Ubers operation license expire. This recommendation is the complete opposite of the first solution and as a result, would imply Transport for London is condemning Uber. This would have rearward benefits and drawbacks as the first solution as well, meaning it would benefit Londons police, The London Underground, the Black Cab companies and associated stakeholders, Transport for London as a governmental body, Londons air quality, Londons local wildlife, and the local London activist groups for the environment and wildlife.Since Uber would no lifelong be able to operate in London, it would be a long win for the Black Cab industry as a self-colored and would help London preserve its age-old transportation of choice. Additionally, the surrounding wildlife and aviation would benefit from the reduction of cars on the road and new drivers to the area. Londons police would no longer have to conduct wild-goose chases to make sure Uber is compliant with Transport for Londons regulations. boilersuit, it would be a benefit to the local London community. This would imply that Transport for London has Londons best interests at heart.Like with all decisions, there are be associated with making said decisions. Uber moving out of London would be unfavourable for Uber as a company, its employees, its investors, gasoline companies, and car sales and associated stakeholders. Most of these stakeholders are not from London, nor are residents in the UK. However, they are having a large negative impact on London as a whole, compared to the benefits they bring. This is our recommended solution.Recommendation & apostrophize of ImplementationAs chair of Transport for London, I, Sadiq Khan, believe that the most ethical and overall best way to proceed with Uber in London is to recommend that they remain ineligible to renew their license and that no chang e be made to their status. With their current disregard for minimum wage and basic benefit packages for their employees, they violate Londons idea of operating under business practices deemed, fine and proper. By doing so I believe that we will be upholding the quality that Londoners have come to expect out of familiar businesses while also doing what we at TFL believe is best for our historic city. This will, in turn, mitigate possible blowback by the community for allowing Uber to continue operations that financially damage Londons public transportation and Black Cabs. There is a multitude of costs associated with this option, many of which must be estimated due to Ubers financial records being strictly private between the company and perhaps investors (non-public corporation). As a company, which has over 40 kB employees in London (as stated prior), it is fairly obvious that many people who work full time as ride share drivers will be negatively affected by this decision. Since Uber has been deemed a taxi service in early November and thus must pay minimum wage (9.15 an hour) to employees in the United Kingdom, there is a possibility of a people losing upwards of 380,640,000 (Assuming only half of all drivers in London are full time) each year and more, should they apply for unemployment due to the decision. This is, of course, an estimate and not a real working number of pounds lost by employees but while an estimate, it is not a figure that we at TFL take lightly. Since belongings this decision would essentially be changing nothing in basis of a recommendation, financial costs by the city of London, and Transport for London would be minimal to non-existent. That being said some businesses would suffer somewhat, such as car companies and automobile dealers in our city who have deals with Uber to rent and sell cars for the sole purpose of being used by the Companys drivers. To add, there could be a small loss in terms of sales by gas stations, though it would possibly be partially offset by the increased use of Black Cabs and personalised vehicles by the general public.Finally, a cost in terms of tax lostby Ubers exile from operating in London would go unnoticed except for in thecase of employees taxes, beholding as the company does not pay a large amount intaxes. In 2015, Ubers London division only give 411,000 in taxes while making over 23Million (Bowers 2016). Its safe to say a city such as ours, will not miss whatlittle Uber had to offer both London and its people. Overall the costs of implementing a solution that is already in effect lodge no change in current costs. Since finding Uber to be an unethical business dealing in unfair and otherwise unregulated business practices since this decision, we know that the Company is not one that we as a city can stand.ReferencesSmith, Rebecca. TFL Boss Plans Fresh Talks With UbersChief decision maker Officer Over Loss of London License City AM (November 6, 2017) Rao,Prashant. Uber Hit With New Blow in London as jury says Drivers Arent Self-Employed The New YorkTimes (November 10, 2017) Cummins, Chip. Uber Is Losing Its Car-Hire License in London. What Happened? The beleaguer Street Journal (2017). .Bowers, Simon. Ubers Main UK Business Paid whole 411,000 in Tax Last Year The Guardian(October 10, 2016)