Uber's business model of refusing to follow rules governing the taxi industry has been described as either "disruptive or illegal, depending whom you ask." Which view do you hold and why?

Uber is an organization that operates in the taxi industry. Any rules that are being formulated for the taxi industry are applicable to the Uber. Not following the rules, regulations and the guidelines that has been framed for the taxi industry would create a chaos in the taxi industry itself. Other companies operating in the industry would consider it as the discrimination if the government would not take the necessary action against Uber. Other companies operating in the same industry would also try to disregard the rules being framed by the government of the nation and the state. This would create a conflict between the government, other industry player and Uber and whole industry would get affected. Thus, the business model being framed by Uber to disregard the policy of the government is disruptive for the industry and is also illegal as the companies operating within the region is required to follow the rules of that region.

Is it an acceptable business practice to break the law? What are the ethical considerations of doing so and how might this impact on or reflect corporate culture?

It is not at all an acceptable practice to break the law as it hampers the business in the short and the long run. The ethical consideration on breaking the law is that the business is not concerned of the standards that have been formulated for the safety of the consumers and other stakeholders associated with the business which mean that the business is not thinking of doing good for the larger population. Here the ethical theory of utilitarianism can be applied where the business is supposed to take those decisions that would be good for the larger population of the stakeholders associated with the business such as its customers, employees, directors, etc.

The government may penalize the business and it may prove to be a loss for the business in the short and long run. Thus, making a decision of not following the rules of the government would prove to be detrimental for the business and would be against the best interest of the company. The long run impact on the business for not following the law would lead to the revocation of the license of sealing of the business by the government.

Google search about issues which occurred due to their business model (why they had to get a ban in several countries); literature (cite the information source)

Uber clashes with regulators in cites and around the world

From Europe to North America, the ride-hailing company has run into trouble with authorities over falling foul of rules

The company is battling issues ranging from security to abiding by employment law in some countries where it operates. Claiming to be communications platform rather than a taxi service, Uber has expanded by ignoring existing rules. This has prompted protests against the ride-hailing company by drivers, run-ins with national authorities, and new laws designed to curb its activities. The decision by Transport for London to strip Uber of its licence was the in a long line of clashes between the US firm and the establishment.

In some cities around the world where it operates, Uber is on a collision course with regulators, while in other it remains firmly outlawed. In several places however the $70bn firm is actively negotiation its return-or already back up and running.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/29/uber-clashes-with-regulators-in-cities-around-the-world

Many communities, governments, and organizations have established rules and regulations that specifically governridesharing companies. In some jurisdictions, for-profit ridesharing operations are completely illegal.Regulations can include requirements for driver background checks,fares,the number of drivers,and licensing.

Taxiindustry groups have argued that ridesharing companies areillegal taxicab operationswhich take away their business.Others have called for governments to relax legislation in favor of ridesharing companies.

Ridesharing companies are banned from or have voluntary pulled out of, due to legal restrictions, the following jurisdictions: parts ofOregon,Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, and parts of Germany. The Uber Pop level of service is banned in Italy, France, Netherlands, and Finland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_ridesharing_companies_by_jurisdiction

1. To critically analyze:a. Argument in favour of the ban

Reason for favour for of the ban: There are playing unfairly and not trained:

As the reason uber should be banned, As results they have no training unlike a taxi has training. They have no paperwork, unlike a taxi requires, they don't have a dispatch system which has a base to assisted 24/7 which a taxi does they do not have duress alarm, security cameras fitted in they vehicle which is mandatory in the taxi industries

Uber prices was jack up very high they also have inexperience drivers who does not know where to go you have to guide them.

a. Alternative argument - how Uber confronted this issue or reacted to the ban (was it disruptive or illegal)

The ride-hailing company Uber has achieved extremely rapid global expansion by means of outmanoeuvring governments, regulators and competitors. The rise of the company has been based on a deliberate strategy of acting as a market disruptive innovator through a user-friendly technology and making use of the 'sharing economy'. These attributes are not unique but are distinctively augmented by a relentless expansionary ambition and an ability to maintain the capacity to innovate. Uber has generated great political controversy, but the challenge for governments and regulators is to embrace the benefits of the disruptive innovator, while adopting an approach that takes into account the full range of impacts. For Uber, the challenge is to maintain its expansionary style as a disruptive innovator, while also redefining on its terms the political and public debate.

Recommendations/ suggestions given by your group members.

No group suggestions no one work with me in my group.

Groups proposition - 1 or 2 considering the law of the land.

Uber service is unambiguously illegal in most cities in Canada because municipal and provincial taxi licensing law (British Columbia and Quebec license taxis at the provincial level) considers UberX a taxi service and Uber refuses to apply for a taxi licence for Uber under these laws. And it doesn't apply for a taxi license for Uber because it does not want Uber to operate under the same rules as the rest of the taxi industry and incur the same licencing fee, insurance, and consumer safety costs that the rest of the industry pays.

Nor does it want its Uber service to charge the same regulated fares as its taxi competitors - it wants to be able to charge "surge pricing" which sometimes increases the fare for an Uber passenger as much as 10-fold over the regular fare.

In other words, while Uber is competing for the exact same passenger dollars as the rest of the taxi industry, Uber wants to play by its own rules when it comes to industry regulatory costs and fares.

For the most part, Canada's taxi industry has followed the rules and regulations put in place by licensing governments over the years. And these rules and regulations have a significant public interest component. Canada's taxicabs are equipped with roof lights, door numbers, government-sanctioned meters and in-car security cameras. Drivers are trained, pay significant licensing fees, carry commercial insurance, and have a police background check.

Currently there are other service under the Uber name

1: Uber Green

2: Uber Rent

3: Uber Eats

4: Uber Reserve

5: UberX

6: UberX Saver

7: Uber Pool

8: Uber Taxi

9: Uber intercity

10: Uber Technologies Inc

11: Uber Stock