Exactly, people conflate "taxi medallions" with "special driver licenses for transporting people for money", and I think Uber is encouraging this confusion. I would happily get rid of the first, which gives established taxi drivers a quasi-monopoly - or at least change how limited taxi rights are distributed, if you find they are necessary. I am very glad that the special driving licenses exist, though.
In Germany for example, we have both requirements. But for years there have (legally) been companies who don't have "taxi rights", and label themselves as "rental cars with driver". They are cheaper than regular taxis, but they are not allowed to park in taxi spots, and you can't hire them from the roadside I think. But the drivers still have to pass the same tests as regular taxi drivers (health tests, background tests, knowledge of the city, ...). I think this is a really good model, it gives the customer a cheaper option if they are a bit more flexible with their pick-up spots.
Uber should do exactly this, but instead they want to skirt the person transport license requirements and hire "untrained" drives. They purposely mix the issues of licenses and medallions, hoping to use people's hate of monopolies and high taxi prices to steer public opinion in their direction.
Also, Uber sometimes claims to be a ride-sharing service. Just private citizens who share their car and get compensated, not professionals. Well, every Uber I have been in, anywhere in the world, was very professional. You can't tell me this is just their side hobby. And if they really wanted to offer just ride-sharing, this exists legally in Germany as well. People can connect on car-sharing websites with strangers, and pay the driver their share of the expenses. It's a popular way to cheaply get around. And if the driver only does it for compensation, not as a job, no license is required.
The arguments against special taxi licences are the same arguments against occupational licensing in general.
Do you want every entry level job to require a license and put up barriers to getting these jobs for immigrants? Do you think nail technicians, hairdressers and waiters should require a license to do their job too?
Some jobs should require licenses, or better: exams, some shouldn't. I see no problem deciding that on a case-by-case basis. And as long as the test is not too expensive to take, why not have a hairdresser exam?
The thing that is a barrier for immigrants, in most places, is that they don't get work permits.
In Germany for example, we have both requirements. But for years there have (legally) been companies who don't have "taxi rights", and label themselves as "rental cars with driver". They are cheaper than regular taxis, but they are not allowed to park in taxi spots, and you can't hire them from the roadside I think. But the drivers still have to pass the same tests as regular taxi drivers (health tests, background tests, knowledge of the city, ...). I think this is a really good model, it gives the customer a cheaper option if they are a bit more flexible with their pick-up spots.
Uber should do exactly this, but instead they want to skirt the person transport license requirements and hire "untrained" drives. They purposely mix the issues of licenses and medallions, hoping to use people's hate of monopolies and high taxi prices to steer public opinion in their direction.
Also, Uber sometimes claims to be a ride-sharing service. Just private citizens who share their car and get compensated, not professionals. Well, every Uber I have been in, anywhere in the world, was very professional. You can't tell me this is just their side hobby. And if they really wanted to offer just ride-sharing, this exists legally in Germany as well. People can connect on car-sharing websites with strangers, and pay the driver their share of the expenses. It's a popular way to cheaply get around. And if the driver only does it for compensation, not as a job, no license is required.