Is the Uber model the future of taxi use?

Unlike most millennials, I’ve never booked an Uber. This might make me seem like a luddite but I’ve had little use for it and little incentive to download the app. However, there’s another reason for my resistance to Uber. It’s their business model that’s caused a few raised eyebrows amongst many onlookers and their competition who feel Uber aren’t operating on a level playing field.

Like other sectors that have experienced a drastic shift in the digital age, the internet and smartphones have transformed the consumer experience of hailing a taxi. There’s no need to rely on the chance of seeing a taxi to hail or even ordering a taxi in advance. No middle man via a controller, just low prices and convenience. Yet that’s left traditional taxi services, historically used to an unchallenged monopoly, with an aggressive breed of competition in Uber and similar services such as Lyft and Grab.

Uber is great for consumers as it offers convenient and efficient transport with incredibly competitive prices. Who could argue against that? Indeed, despite my reluctance, and with some trepidation for the double standards it presents with my own ethics, I will probably eventually succumb to using the service for those very reasons. In exchange for the service provided, consumers give Uber's owners frequent custom and consequent profits.

Like most capitalist ‘success stories’, Uber seemingly leaves the owners and the consumers winning while the drivers get a raw deal (which a demand for drivers provides a distraction to). Uber’s competitors in traditional taxi services are also losing out and some would argue unfairly so. Therefore with what appears to be a controversial business model, and working within a sector where it’s viewed negatively, does the Uber model represent the future of taxi hire? And if so, where does that leave the previously unchallenged players and the drivers who provide the service?

Uber allows a taxi to be ‘hailed’ via its app from a growing network of drivers who drive their personal cars having signed up to the service. Albeit subject to some background checks (which critics have argued don’t go far enough and aren’t as extensive as those traditional taxi drivers are subject to), becoming a driver for Uber is relatively easy. That makes it not only an attractive service for consumers but also potential drivers looking for work. That’s without the rigmarole and effort of say doing ‘the knowledge’ for black cab drivers, the demanding training that requires drivers to learn and recall any route in London without the aid of a sat nav or a map. As a result, drivers have initially flocked to Uber but with varying perceptions of the service.

Uber undoubtedly offers flexible working arrangements insofar as it allows drivers to drive as little or as much as they want. Although with Uber taking a 20% cut of an already low fare, drivers need a lot of rides to make it worth their while as a main and sustainable source of income. Drivers either drive with Uber on a part time or ad hoc basis to supplement their income elsewhere or are forced to make an obscene amount of journeys just to break even.

For the former, it’s probably quite a welcome revenue stream. Nonetheless, if it’s your main source of income, it’s not a great situation to say the least. Furthermore, once factors and overheads such as car depreciation, tax, insurance, fuel and amenities are deducted, Uber’s been criticised for paying less than minimum wage. Not to mention, if drivers need to drive excessively to make a reasonable wage, that raises safety issues for passengers. Amongst other criticisms, Uber is yet to provide any clarity or response to refute either suggestion.

Whenever I’m in a taxi, I often like to ask the driver how they feel about Uber and to date responses go from lukewarm to vitriolic regardless of where in the world it might be. The allure of Uber has seemingly faded since its advent and it’s not gone unnoticed. A new taxi hailing app service, Juno, recently launched in New York with its hopes pinned on the premise of happier drivers leading to happier passengers which in turn increases their customer base and revenue. Juno takes 10% commission from drivers, half of Uber’s commission, and promises to give drivers a stake in the company. Even if Juno is unsuccessful in its attempt to dethrone Uber, it’s surely onto something in ensuring drivers aren’t losing out while only consumers and its owners win.

Competition is healthy for any sector. Particularly in contrast to the prices Uber is able to charge, it could be said that traditional taxi fares have long been too high because of higher overheads and a lack of competition to drive them down. With such low prices, Uber has been able to sway consumers to opt for their service. But that’s brought their service under the spotlight even more and largely for negative reasons.

In 2014, having transferred profits to its sister company in the Netherlands where it's subject to a lower rate of tax, Uber paid £22,134 in corporation tax in the UK. That was despite making an £866,000 profit. Uber isn’t the only company adopting similarly unethical, but legal, practices. Though its intention to aggressively limit the tax it pays in the UK, and the social responsibility that comes with that, definitely doesn’t help the company ingratiate itself with me and many others in tempting us to give them our custom.

In the UK, Uber has also been accused of using its app as a meter akin to traditional metered taxis, something exclusive to black cab drivers. Black cab drivers saw this as an attempt to emulate the latter’s service without being subject to the same regulation and constraints that they are. Uber was successful in the legal action taken against them by Transport for London on behalf of black cab drivers to address this. Relations between the new school and the old school within the taxi sector continue to be acrimonious as the newcomers aren’t deemed to be playing fairly.

While traditional taxi services remain at odds with Uber and similar apps, it does need to be questioned how viable of a business model the former actually presents, especially against a backdrop of many taxi hailing apps now being available. Also, regardless of views on the ethics of Uber, it can’t be denied that their service reflects modern society and technology having pervaded all aspects of transportation, primarily in the use of GPS.

With black cab drivers in London continuing to do ‘the knowledge’, it does beg the question “why?” Years spent familiarising yourself with routes that a sat nav could tell you in an instant seems archaic and to some, probably pointless. Drivers should definitely have some knowledge of an area and shouldn’t need to rely wholly on a sat nav. But the cost of time and money against the use of technology bolsters the argument that ‘the knowledge’ is becoming increasingly redundant.

There is a sense of nostalgia and romanticism to the iconic black cabs in London and ‘the knowledge’ probably contributes to that. But like most people, I would rather take a lower fare and a quicker service in place of a nod to London’s history when my priority is completing my journey safety, quickly and at a competitive price. The reluctance of black cabs to modernise has, and will continue to, hinder rather than help in the fight against Uber and similar services. Unless black cabs can reduce their fares and improve their ability to be hailed without relying on chance, I can only see them reducing in their popularity and largely being the choice of tourists and others that cling onto the history of the service.

Other taxi services are heading towards a similar fate in being unable to compete with taxi hailing apps. If I can hail an Uber online for it to potentially arrive in minutes versus calling a taxi that may not be available for even within remotely close to the waiting time a taxi hailing app can provide a car, one can’t be blamed for supporting services like Uber on that basis alone. Uber is unashamedly in-keeping with our expectations and our need for efficiency and lower costs for services that a digital age has afforded. Alas, taxi drivers driving for traditional taxi services know that to make the move to Uber from what might appear a sinking ship, will mean a sharp pay cut and a steep increase in hours just to earn remotely close to what they would have once earned.

The business model of apps like Uber needn’t be unethical and they have modernised a sector that has rejected the use of technology at their peril. These apps surely represent the future of taxi services and it’s not too late for the old guard to adapt and join the party while it can still be partly on their terms. Conversely, Uber et al need to realise that while they might be reaping the benefits of unadulterated capitalism now, history is littered with examples of where workers’ dissatisfaction and negative public opinion has been forced to be addressed for a business to remain viable. Uber needs to be mindful that if they don’t fine-tune the business model to ensure this, someone else surely will.

Why I don’t believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (and why my wife does)

While it might not be a popular opinion amongst married people especially, I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage. In fact, beyond being a largely administrative and social construct, I struggle to see the value of it beyond a formality of what a couple presumably already have before they decide to tie the knot. At face value, my opinions on marriage probably appear to present a dichotomy with my own relationship. But I can assure you they don't. My marriage is just fine, contributed to by that very stance.

Despite my views on marriage, my wife thinks the opposite. Again, this difference of opinion has no adverse effect on our relationship whatsoever. The crux of what constitutes a balanced and healthy relationship is what we do agree on and the entity of marriage is very much secondary to that. Nonetheless, to give a balanced viewpoint, and in a first on iamalaw, this is a co-written article with my wife arguing why she believes in the importance and sanctity of marriage and why I beg to differ. And just like most things we disagree on, it's appropriate that she has the last word.

Why I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage

What is marriage? It’s a representation of a union between two people to signify their commitment to each other. That might sound like a fairly sterile definition akin to a merger between two companies but essentially, that's what marriage is. When you consider the reciprocated love between a couple, marriage didn't bring that about, it existed long before. Hence marriage simply declaring an existing arrangement rather than creating a new one per se. Indeed, the belief that said emotions will appear or develop consequent to getting married is what many short-lived or flawed marriages can be attributed to.

Marriage doesn't unlock a door to relationship utopia. Anyone claiming it does is a liar or in a situation where they need to convince themselves and everyone else that they’re happy. Sadly, there are a lot of people like that. I’ve even been to a wedding where unbeknownst to the poor groom, I knew the bride loved someone else (not me I should add) and it was written all over her face. Alas, she thought marriage might be able to eradicate those thoughts, not to mention she felt she needed to be married so as to not ‘fall behind’ with her already married peers. It therefore serves to support the notion that in some instances, marriage can merely further the antithesis of what society erroneously claims it establishes as the basis of a bona fide, committed relationship.

When I decided to propose to my now wife, I didn't wake up that day with an epiphany that I was suddenly on the brink of total commitment to her. Nor did I feel I was just shy of such sentiments but needed to be married to facilitate those feelings being at 100%. By definition, I was ‘married’ years before I was married in the legal sense. So what's so sacred about something I already had? 

Our wedding was great and an opportunity to celebrate our relationship with the people that matter to us while publicly formalising our relationship. Along with knowing the significance marriage has for my wife (which while not wholly in agreement with my own views, has no adverse or compromising impact on me), deciding to get married was exactly for those reasons. Nevertheless, a wedding isn't a marriage. And a marriage is something we already had before exchanging vows in front of our friends and family. 

Once I was married (in the legal sense), nothing changed in our interaction or anything whatsoever. We already lived together (which was non-negotiable before marriage for both of us) so what was going to change when we went back home the following day after our wedding? And if anything had changed, or if we had expected or hoped it to, our marriage would’ve delusionally been based on the wrong reasons and our relationship upon a very shaky and flawed foundation.

When the pomp of even modest weddings is considered and juxtaposed with the supposed meaning of marriage, it's hard to argue that there isn't another driver behind the desire of many to get married. Do they really want to celebrate what is already a union with each other or is it an opportunity for the pantomime that many weddings are? Particularly in cultures where the status of being married is bizarrely celebrated as the pinnacle of one's existence and a meaningless measure of success within a society that often laments being single, the value of marriage as an entity surely needs to be questioned. I’ve also noticed that it’s often a case of the bigger the celebration, the more the couple are trying to convince and distract themselves and others that their marriage is a good idea.

We all have free will to determine if we want to establish and remain in a relationship with someone. Being married doesn't keep me with my wife, it's my free will and desire to coexist with her that does. Marriage has nothing to do with it. If a married couple decide to go their separate ways, the acceptance of their marriage having broken down often occurs later than it should have because of the status of being married being clung to, and the unwarranted stigma of being divorced or separated, that can delay the relationship ending. In those situations, marriage can actually constrain one’s free will with consequences that can’t be good for the well-being and mental health of the couple or even any children. 

From my perspective, marriage doesn't even rank at the top of manifestations of commitment between a couple and certainly not above having a child/children together or jointly owning a home. Rather than embody, marriage illustrates that commitment and articulates it in a religious, legal or cultural context. It certainly doesn't facilitate it as it should have already existed in the relationship.

Contrary to what the above might suggest, I’m not anti-marriage. I just don't think it embodies the sanctity of the commitment it’s claimed to epitomise. Some of the most committed relationships and solid couples I’ve seen are unmarried and many of the flawed relationships I’ve seen are within marriages. Marriage doesn't maketh a relationship. It's merely a label society has foisted upon us in trying to demonstrate commitment between two people via a romanticised social construct.

Why I believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (even though my husband doesn't)

Marriage has always been important to me. I didn't chase getting married like some of my peers but deep down, I probably always wanted to get married and I’ve always believed in the sanctity of it. I’ve never really questioned why but I’ve always seen it like that. When I got married, nothing changed. However, it still remains important to me.

Getting married shows commitment between a couple. There are other ways that commitment can be displayed and I understand that actions like buying a property together or having children show that. But the commitment in those instances are usually secondary factors to actually wanting those things. People don't say “we’re committed to each other so let's buy a house together and have children”. People usually want a house and/or children and their commitment to each other can increase on the basis of that.

With marriage, it's a public celebration of your relationship but one that the couple make for themselves and with each other. It’s not because of any reasons or circumstances that are really about something else like having both names on a mortgage.

Especially as someone who hasn't changed their surname in marriage, I think marriage creates a unit for the couple, and children, that doesn't need to be defined by a shared name. That isn't to say that I think you need to be married to have children. Although personally, being married represents a unit that you can say is yours and that you feel a belonging to.

I can admit that marriage has messed up a lot of people. Within my community especially, people chase it as if they’d be incomplete without it and I’ve seen many people get married for the wrong reasons and to the wrong people in relationships without real love. Even in the current generation, marriage is the done thing; it's not something people would necessarily do or see as important without that cultural influence or push. But the importance I feel marriage has outweighs any of that negativity. 

Marriage brings security as the couple make a conscious decision to declare their commitment to each other. When they have problems within their marriage, they therefore feel like they want to work harder to fix it because they took a step toward that position of being married in the first place. Marriage isn't just a throwaway commitment that a couple are less likely to want to hold onto.

Culturally, a wedding, and especially a daughter's wedding, is a big deal in my community and I feel the same way. Families want to celebrate marriages and that's a valid and happy reason to celebrate. I know that can make for a bit of a show but it's culturally important to us and that's something I can't really explain beyond it being of importance to my identity.

Marriage means something that can't always be put into words and I know it isn't for everyone. It doesn't make a relationship but it represents the union of two people in a way that shows just how important their relationship is to each other. It puts that on display for everyone else to witness and gives something ‘official’ to what a couple admittedly already had together.