3 ms·

They could have disabled all pickups at JFK in true solidarity. I don't think disabling surge pricing is a show of solidarity. With Taxis striking, surge prici

by 010a 10y ago

They could have disabled all pickups at JFK in true solidarity. I don't think disabling surge pricing is a show of solidarity. With Taxis striking, surge pricing would have skyrocketed. This feels more like Uber just wants to preempt an inevitable news story about how surge pricing hit 10x or something during the taxi strike, which would be bad PR. The article did say that Uber is working with its affected drivers to provide legal assistance. So, again, they're just protecting themselves. The company has practically no moral compass.

jasonbarone 10y ago
Did Lyft or any other services disable all pickups at JFK in true solidarity?
icebraining 10y ago
Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?
- notatoad 10y ago
  This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company, including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK. If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.
  - licyeus 10y ago
    Uber has actively fought against allowing its drivers to unionize. The drivers' inability to organize and participate in strikes (esp. on such short notice) is in large part because of these actions.
baddox 10y ago
I would have liked to see solidarity, but I am extremely uncomfortable vilifying any individual or company for simply choosing to not participate in a protest. I heard about the SFO protests yesterday, and I largely support the cause, and I could have made it there in time to join. I didn't. Do you question my moral compass? Did I do something wrong? I know people who largely support the issues of the women's march, yet did not attend, or attended only part of the rally or march. Should they be vilified? I think this is a scary idea. Not everyone can or has to actively join every protest to "prove" that they support the platform or "have a moral compass."

by 010a 10y ago

jasonbarone 10y ago

Did Lyft or any other services disable all pickups at JFK in true solidarity?

icebraining 10y ago

Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?

notatoad 10y ago
This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company, including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK. If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.
- licyeus 10y ago
  Uber has actively fought against allowing its drivers to unionize. The drivers' inability to organize and participate in strikes (esp. on such short notice) is in large part because of these actions.

baddox 10y ago

I would have liked to see solidarity, but I am extremely uncomfortable vilifying any individual or company for simply choosing to not participate in a protest. I heard about the SFO protests yesterday, and I largely support the cause, and I could have made it there in time to join. I didn't. Do you question my moral compass? Did I do something wrong? I know people who largely support the issues of the women's march, yet did not attend, or attended only part of the rally or march. Should they be vilified? I think this is a scary idea. Not everyone can or has to actively join every protest to "prove" that they support the platform or "have a moral compass."