I may have to side with the Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board on this one.
There has been a backlash from patrons of transport network companies (TNCs) but their point lacks objectivity. This issue should be viewed from a different perspective and not just because such vehicles bring convenience.
Face it, Uber/Grab (Manila) did commit violations in terms of accreditation and they do need to be strictly regulated because, after all, they are serving the public; therefore, they shouldn’t be any different from the rest of the PUV franchises in terms of regulation.
Upon finding out there are thousands of illegal Uber/Grab drivers in Manila, I told my husband, “You mean to say, that
the Uber we took is most likely a ‘colorum’?!”
The thought didn’t sit well with me for many reasons.
Going illegal is a precedent, if not equal, to unaccountability and corruption. People shouldn’t support them just because they provide convenience, but instead support compliance, respect, accountability, and honest service.
It isn’t about commuters’ choice because, clearly, there’s deception on the part of these TNCs allowing illegal drivers to operate.
Also, comparing Uber to bad experiences with taxis is biased and totally unfair to the good taxi drivers who still DO
exist, who actually do it for a living and are taxed accordingly. So for Uber to point out their drivers’ income will be greatly affected by the LTFRB’s move is a laugh and a bluff. TNC drivers are assumed to have a day job; otherwise, how did they afford their car?
#doitright
MARIA MADONNA S. WALAG, quidja@yahoo.com