Should Uber be Banned in London?

Should Uber be Banned in capital of the United Kingdom?On September 22nd, 2017,the city of capital of the United Kingdom, England decl atomic number 18d that it pull up stakes non re-issue UberTechnologies Inc.s (Uber or the Company) private- railroad car hiring license that wasset to expire on September 30th, 2017. The months following led toan appeal to have a bun in the oven for capital of the United Kingdom (TFL)by Uber, which become a st anyed and slow process that ultimately could takeyears to move forward. While the appeal could take up to a year to fullyprocess, the commissi unriv eachedr of TFL, MikeBrown, and Uber were adequate to converse in early November over potentialresolutions prior to Ubers hearing in December (Smith, 2017). Although talksbetween the Company and TFL ultimately commence non become deciding factors in the appeal, they are important in creatinga professional dialogue between the two bodies. As the Company has attempt its best to develop a relation ship with the city of capital of the United Kingdom, two Uber employees came into the public eye. Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar, two Uber drivers based in capital of the United Kingdom won a level-headed dispute on behalf of a group of nineteen Uber drivers in early November. The dispute, which involved the category in which Uber drivers were to be placed, ended with upholding regulation to deem all drivers as workers for Uber rather than self-employed. This regulation enforces the Company to pay all of its workers a minimum wage, allow time off, and holiday pay (Rao, 2017). Another defeat in UKs court arrangement has not only vilifyd Ubers reputation in the island nation even more but made the high societys 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 unify Kingdom. Boasting over 3.5 Million users in London alone (Cummins), the giant ride-share service friendship keeps over 40,000 people employed in the city (Rao, 2017). merely put, Ubers status as a licensed taxi or ride-share service is very important to the economy of London and its people. Stakeholders in the companys continued operation in the British capital include local anaesthetic users as well as far-reaching shareholders spanning the globe. It is because of Ubers intumescent role that we need to throw the question, Should Uber be allowed to operate in London with slight restrictive regulation than other taxi services?.Stakeholder(s) StakesTransport for London, governmental organization TFLs stake is the well-being and protection of its citizens from malpractices and the legality of problem trading operations dealing in transportation. Due to their power as the ending sacrificer in regeneration Ubers license in London, they are considered one of the most powerful stakeholders. Uber driversDrivers of Uber are one of the most urgent and legitimate stake holders because of the direct impact the manipulation would make on their jobs and careers. Uber drivers outside of London While not directly impacted by the outcome, Ubers international drivers are affected by the misfortune of other cities following in Londons footsteps of barring Uber. Uber clients in LondonUber is f bearingly popular in London, with 40% of the population having used Uber at one point. Their clients would hold back to find an alternative, such as using unforgiving Cabs, which are generally more expensive. They are directly impacted by the outcome and whence can be considered an urgent stakeholder as well as a legitimate one. Uber Shareholders/Investors As 5% of all of Ubers revenue stream, Londons consumer base for Uber is a considerable market. Losing this market could dissuade potential and current investors and shareholders through lost faith in the company. These investors and shareholders are responsible for Ubers introduction as a company which makes them a very powerful, urgent, and legitimate group of stakeholders. New Car sales companies Since most Uber drivers use their own cars for transportation, and some Uber drivers misdirect and lease cars specifically so they can get potential discounts, the outcome of this decision will materially impact car sales. London Public pilgrimage Commuters If Uber loses its license, there is a good chance that previous Uber clients will opt for public transportation which is a cheap alternative, causing a large inflow of commuters and crowding the already crowded public transportation woofs. London police force Uber is well known to use anti- integrity enforcement lineage tactics. at that place is the distinct potential that if Ubers right to operate is revoked, they may put away operate under-the-radar causing more work for Londons police to make for certain Uber is compliant with their lawfulnesss. Londons pass around qualityLondon is notorious for having one of the worst air q ualities in the EU, and reducing the number of people movement will help improve the air quality situation. This affects all Londoners and tourists. Gas stations Uber contributes to a decent amount of various squander stations revenues, as their moving in is to drive all day which consumes throttle valveoline. Reducing the amount and frequency of which people drive will affect their revenues as well. Black cab companies Black cab companies want the obtain to be upheld, as they will directly benefit from Uber losing their license, as they are (an albeit expensive) substitute for Ubers services. Black cab drivers Similar to the Black Cab company itself, black cab drivers only make money (generally) when they are driving clients. Since they will see an increase in volume, the black cab drivers will make more money. TX4 Hackney Carriage Black Cab manufacturers As the manufacturer of black cabs TX4 has a direct stake in the decision determining Ubers fate in London. With Uber gone t he company can continue producing the same black cabs that are part of Londons large private taxi service. Rental car companies Uber has a rental 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 forced 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 returning to driving their ow n 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) Poor air quality, high spirits 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 speak for itself, activist groups that represent both of these stakeholder groups will likely push for Uber to lose 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 option for tourists, they will have to find alternate forms of transportation which may be either more expensive (cabs) or les s convenient (transit). Potential Actions & ImplicationsThere are three clear potential actions that the Transport for London can take to resolve our ethical 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 inveterate to treat Uber as they currently are and apply no extra regulation or restrictions to Ubers operations, create new regulation to specifically salute Ubers operations, or decide to let Ubers operation permit expire thusly eliminating Uber from London.For the first option, let Uber retain its current operations and re-instating its operations permit, Transport for London would continue to support Uber as ride-share service as opposed to a taxi service. The implications of this are that Transport for London would be boost the demise of the Black Cab industry in its current state, forcing either closure of said companies or a prompting the creation of new business pretences. In doing so, there could potentially be long-term benefits 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 competition 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 this 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 a nd wildlife such as detailed in the stakeholder table above. Uber is well known for its practicesregarding law enforcement evasion through its Greyball program, which itssole purpose is to identify and blacklist any law enforcement personnel fromusing Ubers services which is both a short-run issue and if it persists, canturn 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 audit of Ubers operations that are conducted by a law enforcement agency.The Black Cab companies andassociated stakeholders along with the London Underground will continue to loseprofits and employees unless they qualifying their business models. This can makeor chemise the Black Cab industry, as these Black Cab companies are almost as oldas London itself and have not transmuted their business model since then.The environment and wildlife in andsurrounding London will conti nue 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 exceed the benefits that would be provided by letting Uber retaintheir operations license, this is not a recommended answer to our question.For the second option, letting Ubercontinue operations but with additional regulations, the Transport for Londonbody would prove regulations regarding Uber similar to those that apply to theBlack Cab industry. Contrasting with the first option, this would potentiallyallow the Black Cab industry to survive under its current business model,albeit with a shift 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 Uberdri vers.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 negativelyimpacted by this function of action.Letting Uber continue operations butbeing restricted 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 letting Uber operate in London istoo great a cost compared to letting their operations license expire.The 3rd 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 inverse benefits and drawbacks as the first solution as well, m eaning 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 longer be able to operate in London, it would be a huge win for the Black Cab industry as a unharmed and would help London preserve its age-old transportation of choice. Additionally, the surrounding wildlife and atmosphere 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. Overall, 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 costs associated with making said decisions. Uber pathetic out of London would b e bad 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 & Cost of ImplementationAs chair of Transport for London, I, Sadiq Khan, cerebrate 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 change 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 everyday businesses speckle 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 pecuniaryly 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 thousand employees in London (as stated prior), it is somewhat 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 work ing number of pounds lost by employees but while an estimate, it is not a figure that we at TFL take lightly. Since keeping this decision would essentially be changing nothing in terms of a recommendation, financial costs by the city of London, and Transport for London would be nominal 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 personal 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, seeing as the company does not pay a large amount intaxes. In 2015, Ubers London division only gainful 411,000 in taxes while making over 23 Million (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 register 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 Executive Officer Over Loss of London pass City AM (November 6, 2017) Rao,Prashant. Uber Hit With New Blow in London as Panel 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 Wall Street Journal (2017). .Bowers, Simon. Ubers Main UK Business Paid Only 411,000 in Tax Last Year The Guardian(October 10, 2016)