|
open24hours posted:Now I'm wondering about the ethics of taking short trips from the airport. If you know that the cab driver will lose money on a trip is it ethical to use the law to force them to drive you? On the other hand Taxi drivers have gone as far as to go on strike when airports allow other providers like Uber. Flip it around, why should an airport be treated differently than any other cab rank?
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Cabbies refuse short fares even in the CBD at night, where it makes literally no difference to their pay. I got told to gently caress off over a fare from Smith St to Brunswick last year, was on crutches at the time. This isn't an airport issue, cabbies are dickheads everywhere
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
iajanus posted:They are voluntarily providing an advertised service wherein they will pick you up at the airport and take you to the destination you request. It's completely ethical to expect them to do their job. It's not like you've gotten into a public bus and demanded it drive you to your house. This is a bizarre line of thinking and the only rational reason I can think of for asking along it is to plaay devil's advocate. I'm not playing devil's advocate or trying to convince anyone of anything, I just think it's an interesting question. Catching a cab is completely legal and I wouldn't seriously criticise anyone for taking advantage of the fact that they're obliged to take you wherever you want. I would probably argue that it would be unethical for them to refuse. It does raise lots of questions about what's truly voluntary and what's coerced though. open24hours fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
open24hours posted:I'm not sure it matters for the question. Assume there are no alternative options for transport and it's either a cab or nothing. It's not the cab driver's fault you're stuck at the airport, so is it ethical to make it their problem? The ethics of using an advertised service as advertised isn't on the consumer it's on the employer. I have no control over the wages/pay scales of taxi drivers especially when the taxi companies have a monopoly on the business model and I can't take my business to a more ethical employer. A taxi company is literally my only option for a service ax I'm often in and out of the airport at hours where there are no buses and there is no train to the airport in Perth and I pay for that service as advertised. I'd accept if there was an additional surcharge for short trips from the airport, but there isn't and I don't control that. I also tip the taxi drivers 5-10 bucks when they drop me home because I know it's lovely for them to take short trips. EDIT: I used capitalism, ethics ruined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:On the other hand Taxi drivers have gone as far as to go on strike when airports allow other providers like Uber. They shouldn't be, the same question would apply to any trip where you know that the driver will lose money. hooman posted:The ethics of using an advertised service as advertised isn't on the consumer it's on the employer. Is that a defensible position? Like, if you know that an employer is exploiting their employees don't you have some responsibility to avoid using that particular service? Or at least to try? open24hours fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
How do they lose money by taking a fare? Risk reward is inherent to the job. Take the $30 and drive back to the airport or wherever you think is good to land the $100 job or just get a fare at the destination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Or get hosed I don't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
open24hours posted:They shouldn't be, the same question would apply to any trip where you know that the driver will lose money. The onus in a voluntary business transaction like this is to offer services that you are willing to do so. If the cabbies were unwilling to offer short fares, then that's their right - although they should advertise as such. If they're happy to advertise that they accept all fares irrespective of distance there's no ethical quandary for the customer - they're offering a service and you're taking them up on it. You're not finding an edge case or taking advantage of them in any way, this is exactly the service they advertise and ostensibly are asking to be used for. How is it my responsibility as the customer to know what trips will/won't make money for the driver? Is it reasonable for me to have to make any assumptions about this, when the cabs voluntarily line up in the cab rank for me to use? If the taxi lobby wants to implement some short-distance charges or similar they're well within their rights to do so - they're a powerful lobby group and can do what they like. If their employees and employers don't agree then that's their business, not mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
open24hours posted:They shouldn't be, the same question would apply to any trip where you know that the driver will lose money. Depends on whether you think using any consumer electronics is also unethical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
The rule that says they have to take all fares is a public safety thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
JBP posted:The rule that says they have to take all fares is a public safety thing. EDIT: Also lol what a way to drive people to other alternatives, put them off using taxis and further reduce taxi patronage. It's some real cutting off the nose to spite the face poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Guys it's almost like fared transport should be a public service not a privatised one! Like a miniature bus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
I very rarely take cabs - especially alone - being female and if I do I usually get them to drop me off away from where I'm actually staying so they can't tell where I've gone in. My first time taking a cab alone in Australia was from Adelaide Airport to downtown, and I only had a $50 (the fare was $17) and the cabbie kept telling me that he only had a five in change and couldn't do any more than that so I told him fine, I wasn't paying him, and walked off. Magically a whole wad of cash appeared. Then the last time I took a cab was at like 5am with Mr. Hookshot and my mom to get from the Brisbane CBD to the airport. He probably thought we weren't locals, since he immediately took us over the story bridge and Mr. Hookshot was like "you're loving kidding me either take us in the right direction or we're not paying you for this fare" and the guy tried to mumble an explanation about how getting to the M1 and going back over the Gateway bridge was faster than the airport link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
iajanus posted:If the taxi lobby wants to implement some short-distance charges or similar they're well within their rights to do so - they're a powerful lobby group and can do what they like. If their employees and employers don't agree then that's their business, not mine. hooman posted:Depends on whether you think using any consumer electronics is also unethical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Things only become unethical if you think human beings have some intrinsic value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The taxi lobby don't care, the license owners they represent make money whatever happens to the driver. True. Do the drivers have an applicable union? If not, they should probably look into that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
JBP posted:Things only become unethical if you think human beings have some intrinsic value. Does it count if we take as a fact that Australians don't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Then the last time I took a cab was at like 5am with Mr. Hookshot and my mom to get from the Brisbane CBD to the airport. He probably thought we weren't locals, since he immediately took us over the story bridge and Mr. Hookshot was like "you're loving kidding me either take us in the right direction or we're not paying you for this fare" and the guy tried to mumble an explanation about how getting to the M1 and going back over the Gateway bridge was faster than the airport link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The taxi lobby don't care, the license owners they represent make money whatever happens to the driver. The answer you have to console yourself with is "it's irrelevant because there's gently caress all I can do about it". If I could make a better choice I would, but here we are, living our compromised lives in a compromising world. Do the best you can and be satisfied with that and elect people who can take real action to fix these problems. EDIT: I mean seriously, you need to take a longer look at yourself if you think you aren't unethical. Everyone chooses a line to walk where we can live with how unethical our actions are. Eating meat is unethical, I eat meat, I'm fine with that. Everyone just chooses an ethical compromise they can stomach and lives to that. EDIT2: I stomach delicious delicious meat. hooman fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I've heard of this poo poo happening in Brisbane a lot (not sure about other states) and yeah, it's a thing that happens. I knew someone who worked in the Yellow Cabs call centre and they'd get complaints about it all the time. Usually it's tourists or people who've been out for the night. Also lol at that explanation, the Airport link is never near capacity where the M1 is usually packed. Haha yeah, exactly. As soon as the guy realized my husband actually knew what Brisbane was like and we weren't just dumb tourists he went the right way. I guarantee he was hoping we'd get stuck in traffic on the M1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I've heard of this poo poo happening in Brisbane a lot (not sure about other states) and yeah, it's a thing that happens. I knew someone who worked in the Yellow Cabs call centre and they'd get complaints about it all the time. Usually it's tourists or people who've been out for the night. Also lol at that explanation, the Airport link is never near capacity where the M1 is usually packed. I let them do it in Melbourne and when I get to where I'm going I make them give me a price I deem reasonable or I ring the taxi services line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
hooman posted:The answer you have to console yourself with is "it's irrelevant because there's gently caress all I can do about it". Yeah, I agree that's what it ultimately comes down to. I still think it's useful to discuss these things though, particularly as it can help to inform your decision as to who to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Haha yeah, exactly. As soon as the guy realized my husband actually knew what Brisbane was like and we weren't just dumb tourists he went the right way. I guarantee he was hoping we'd get stuck in traffic on the M1. First time I was coming home from the airport when I started this job the taxi driver tried to convince me the fastest way to get from the Airport to Bayside was via the city instead of the Gateway. At 11pm at night. hmmm maybe...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
iajanus posted:First time I was coming home from the airport when I started this job the taxi driver tried to convince me the fastest way to get from the Airport to Bayside was via the city instead of the Gateway. At 11pm at night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JohnBirmingham/status/917565737799000064
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
On...ion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
One Nation spending its party funds wisely
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
open24hours posted:I'm not playing devil's advocate or trying to convince anyone of anything, I just think it's an interesting question. You are such a muppet. -/- Ethics? What about digital downloads? I want to buy season 3 of Better Call Saul and season 5 of House of Cards. Better Call Saul is available for 'pre-order' at Sanity for 29 November. House of Cards doesn't even have a release date. DO they not see that this is nothing but an incentive to illegally download their poo poo and NEVER pay them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Why do things cost money? Why isn't life fair 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:On...ion? Someone please Photoshop this
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
quote:The court is attempting to understand what Walker is arguing in regards to knowledge of foreign citizenship, or not turning your mind to the potential for foreign citizenship. Bret Walker is digging real deep if this is the crux of the argument, the High Court will be very hesitant to draw a line on ignorance of citizenship to be wilful blindness - that would need to be a standard of those who could reasonably anticipated they were other countries citizens but choose never to investigate. First of all that would be undercut by Larissa Waters who they have to defend, while she does not defend, as being born in another country would make it reasonable you'd be a citizen of that nation. Secondly it would rewrite the procedural requirement of background checking political nominees by changing the metric to ignorance being identical to non existent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
JBP posted:Why do things cost money? Why isn't life fair Gee, I dunno, mate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
There may be a move, which the Greens have been pushing for years, to allow dual citizens to serve in parliament via referendum but i doubt the High Court will want to legislate that from the bench and just say "y'all are hosed" and that the law at the time was y'all are traitors. They may instead just make drat sure everyone from now on has citizenship in order but if court rules that way a citizenship audit of the entire parliament will be required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
I don't get it you can just get House of Cards on Netflix also it's terrible don't watch it
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:"a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments." I didn't express an opinion, I asked a question. If that's the definition you're going for then anyone who engages in any form of debate is playing devil's advocate. [EDIT: Now that I think about it, it's pretty reasonable to conclude this, but the way the term is used around here usually implies some sort of value judgement.] open24hours fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Oct 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wzOpGanupOk
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Labor, the Greens and climate change activists have rounded on Tony Abbott for a "loopy" London speech in which the former prime minister suggested temperature rises caused by climate change could be beneficial because "far more people die in cold snaps". Political allies and friends of the former leader went to ground on Tuesday following the incendiary speech to the sceptic Global Warming Policy Forum, which is the latest in a series of dramatic interventions from Mr Abbott into the energy debate, including a recent warning that he could cross the floor rather vote for a clean energy target. The Coalition has effectively signalled it will not adopt a clean energy target and an alternative policy proposal, designed to ensure greater reliability in Australia's electricity networks and force down prices, could go to cabinet and then the Coalition party room as soon as next week. In his speech, Mr Abbott also suggested the science of climate change was not settled, that 100 years of photography at Manly beach, in his Warringah electorate in Sydney, suggested sea levels had not risen and that, "environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause". "Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We're more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect," he said. Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek said Mr Abbott had "left the realm of the merely destructive and entered the realm of the loopy. This is actually weird stuff - we know climate change is having an effect in Australia as well. To be denying it in this way seems so bloody minded." Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the speech was an "extraordinary intervention" and that the former prime minister was "calling the policy shots" on the government's move to walk away from the clean energy target. Fairfax Media spoke to several Liberal MPs who count themselves as friends and conservative allies of Mr Abbott on Tuesday but none wished to speak on the record about the former prime minister's intervention. Those MPs welcomed the prospect of the government walking away from a clean energy target but dismissed suggestions that Mr Abbott had played a consequential role in arriving at this position. Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt MP said the former Liberal leader was a "dangerous fool who could be simply ignored were it not for his ability to dictate Malcolm Turnbull's climate policy", while environmental groups such as the Climate Council said the speech was out of touch with reality. Former British Labour leader Ed Miliband responded to the speech with a tweet that said: "I know Donald Trump has lowered the bar for idiocy but....." Mr Abbott has adopted a variety of positions on climate change in the past decade, including advocating a carbon tax and advocating a vote for Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme back in 2009 - before he reversed course and took the leadership from Malcolm Turnbull in the process - campaigning against Julia Gillard's emissions trading scheme, signing up to the Paris Climate agreement and then suggesting that the deal was aspirational only. Mr Abbott's political ally Craig Kelly dismissed suggestions the former leader was angling for a return to the leadership and that Mr Turnbull would lead the party to the next election during an interview on Sky News. He added, however, that you could "never say never" about such an unlikely political come back. When Ed Millibrand is dunking on you...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
hooman posted:Depends on whether you think using any consumer electronics is also unethical. Or wearing clothes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:I don't get it you can just get House of Cards on Netflix also it's terrible don't watch it
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Are they unaware that everyone has virtually voted or are they just cramming in as much bigotry as possible while they have the green light?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:48
|
|
