6 ms·

I don't get it. How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? How about the Uber drivers trying to ma

I don't get it. How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? How about the Uber drivers trying to make a living? Just because they were not part of your protest you'll give them hate?

kungfooguru 10y ago
Yes, it undermines the strike. Strikes are supposed to disrupt.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- benchaney 10y ago
  Strikes are intended to disrupt. They are not entitled to disrupt. There is a huge difference.
  - pikzen 10y ago
    In most professions, there's a feeling of unity. Taxi companies and drivers will either stand with striking drivers, or be respectful enough to not disrupt their action. Then comes Uber, the vulture that swoops in all in the name of disrupting the market. They're allowed to do it, sure. Whether it's morally right is another thing.
    - benchaney 10y ago
      It is definitely morally right. Calling Uber a vulture ignores the reality that the world doesn't stop just because some protesters are unhappy.
      - eropple 10y ago
        "Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky." Be better, please.
        benchaney 10y ago
        Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
        couchand 10y ago
        Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
        benchaney 10y ago
        It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts. Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
        couchand 10y ago
        That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.
        10y ago
- skybrian 10y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean every disruption on our side deserves our unconditional support. It's worth discussing whether disrupting travel further helps or hurts the cause.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  Cutting surge pricing means fewer drivers, increased wait times. Does not convenience anyone.
danharaj 10y ago
Everyone's trying to get on with their lives. However, everyone getting on with their lives crucially depends on other people doing their jobs. When a grave injustice is being committed the purpose of a strike is to say "we refuse to keep an unjust society running". A strike is an act of solidarity between people and the point specifically has to be to disrupt daily life. If a strike does not inconvenience anyone, then it isn't a strike. By undermining the strike, Uber is saying that their profits are more important than the injustice being protested. They are saying that they are perfectly happy to help society function while it is committing such a grave act of injustice against a vulnerable minority. It is organizations and people like Uber who are perfectly willing to make money and let life go on as authoritarians destroy the lives of their fellow citizens that allow evil to persist and thrive. It is people who get on with their lives while those of their neighbors are being disrupted and destroyed that most threaten freedom.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
"Apologies for the inconvenience while we try to fix our country".
cf 10y ago
A lot of people from Iran and other countries were also trying to get home that day. They couldn't call an Uber.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
scarmig 10y ago
Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work. Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?
- danharaj 10y ago
  All protests should be relegated to government sanctioned free speech zones /s
- icebraining 10y ago
  The question asked wasn't whether the Civil Rights protesters shouldn't have inconvenienced people. It's whether a company should force its workers to join a protest.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    How many companies donate to super-PACs, the DNC, RNC, etc.? In this case, the mechanism of political action is constricting the labor supply instead of giving cash to politicians. It seems crazy for a company to force workers to join a protest, until you think about how they force workers to turn a profit and then donate to politicians that would happily oppress those same workers.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      So two wrongs do make a right? What other abuses of worker's rights should we demand they do, for "good reasons"? Companies also collectively fire people to bolster their profits, maybe we should demand they do some mass firings for a good cause. Trump supporters, maybe?
      - ajamesm 10y ago
        I'm not offering a moral judgment, or making a statement about the efficacy of those tactics. I'm saying it's nothing new. (On a related note, there are some regulations around mass layoffs: https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm American companies will run a series of layoffs JUST below the limit to avoid the reporting mandates! Kind of like structuring deposits of $9,999 to avoid the reporting requirement at $10k. Interesting.)
cls59 10y ago
I don't get it either. Given the status of Uber drivers as independent contractors, I'm not convinced it's Uber's place to call an action like a strike. Such a decision should come from the drivers. On the taxi side it sounds like there were unions who clearly have the representation to make this sort of decision.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
notatoad 10y ago
>How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? Inconveniencing those sort of people is exactly the purpose of protesting. It's supposed to make regular everyday people who aren't directly affected by Trump's actions feel their impact. If you disagree with the protesters that's one thing, but complaining about it affecting "normal people" is really missing the point.

kungfooguru 10y ago

Yes, it undermines the strike. Strikes are supposed to disrupt.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
benchaney 10y ago
Strikes are intended to disrupt. They are not entitled to disrupt. There is a huge difference.
- pikzen 10y ago
  In most professions, there's a feeling of unity. Taxi companies and drivers will either stand with striking drivers, or be respectful enough to not disrupt their action. Then comes Uber, the vulture that swoops in all in the name of disrupting the market. They're allowed to do it, sure. Whether it's morally right is another thing.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    It is definitely morally right. Calling Uber a vulture ignores the reality that the world doesn't stop just because some protesters are unhappy.
    - eropple 10y ago
      "Some protestors are unhappy" is a really interesting way of phrasing "the federal government is embarking on a concerted attack on 1.7% of the population for reasons at best murky." Be better, please.
      - benchaney 10y ago
        Come on. Trump is doing lots of bad things, but if he weren't people would still be striking. The largest protest in American history happened before he even took office. Let's not pretend that people's emotions are less of a driving factor than the facts. Get over yourself.
        couchand 10y ago
        Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?
        benchaney 10y ago
        It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts. Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.
        couchand 10y ago
        That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.
        10y ago
skybrian 10y ago
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean every disruption on our side deserves our unconditional support. It's worth discussing whether disrupting travel further helps or hurts the cause.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nerfhammer 10y ago
Cutting surge pricing means fewer drivers, increased wait times. Does not convenience anyone.

danharaj 10y ago

Everyone's trying to get on with their lives. However, everyone getting on with their lives crucially depends on other people doing their jobs. When a grave injustice is being committed the purpose of a strike is to say "we refuse to keep an unjust society running". A strike is an act of solidarity between people and the point specifically has to be to disrupt daily life. If a strike does not inconvenience anyone, then it isn't a strike. By undermining the strike, Uber is saying that their profits are more important than the injustice being protested. They are saying that they are perfectly happy to help society function while it is committing such a grave act of injustice against a vulnerable minority. It is organizations and people like Uber who are perfectly willing to make money and let life go on as authoritarians destroy the lives of their fellow citizens that allow evil to persist and thrive. It is people who get on with their lives while those of their neighbors are being disrupted and destroyed that most threaten freedom.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

"Apologies for the inconvenience while we try to fix our country".

cf 10y ago

A lot of people from Iran and other countries were also trying to get home that day. They couldn't call an Uber.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

scarmig 10y ago

Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work. Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?

danharaj 10y ago
All protests should be relegated to government sanctioned free speech zones /s
icebraining 10y ago
The question asked wasn't whether the Civil Rights protesters shouldn't have inconvenienced people. It's whether a company should force its workers to join a protest.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  How many companies donate to super-PACs, the DNC, RNC, etc.? In this case, the mechanism of political action is constricting the labor supply instead of giving cash to politicians. It seems crazy for a company to force workers to join a protest, until you think about how they force workers to turn a profit and then donate to politicians that would happily oppress those same workers.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    So two wrongs do make a right? What other abuses of worker's rights should we demand they do, for "good reasons"? Companies also collectively fire people to bolster their profits, maybe we should demand they do some mass firings for a good cause. Trump supporters, maybe?
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      I'm not offering a moral judgment, or making a statement about the efficacy of those tactics. I'm saying it's nothing new. (On a related note, there are some regulations around mass layoffs: https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm https://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm American companies will run a series of layoffs JUST below the limit to avoid the reporting mandates! Kind of like structuring deposits of $9,999 to avoid the reporting requirement at $10k. Interesting.)

cls59 10y ago

I don't get it either. Given the status of Uber drivers as independent contractors, I'm not convinced it's Uber's place to call an action like a strike. Such a decision should come from the drivers. On the taxi side it sounds like there were unions who clearly have the representation to make this sort of decision.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

notatoad 10y ago

>How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport? Inconveniencing those sort of people is exactly the purpose of protesting. It's supposed to make regular everyday people who aren't directly affected by Trump's actions feel their impact. If you disagree with the protesters that's one thing, but complaining about it affecting "normal people" is really missing the point.