6 ms·

I think the issue people have isn't the surge pricing so much as the fact that Uber didn't participate in the strike, and thus profited from it.

by cdmckay 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
foota 10y ago
Do we know there was an attempt to collaborate with Uber on the strike?
- wavefunction 10y ago
  So far we have no evidence that Uber attempted to take part in the strike but we do have evidence that Uber knew about the strike (temporary cessation of surge pricing) and didn't take part in it.
  - foota 10y ago
    The end of the surge pricing wasn't until after the strike.
  - timmyc 10y ago
    the timeline provided does not confirm this tho
    - pfarnsworth 10y ago
      lol it completely confirms it. The strike ended at 7pm, surge was lowered at 7:36pm.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
true_religion 10y ago
So? I have a hard time understanding why a multinational company needs to participate so deeply in the politics and labor strikes of a single city. New York is big, but I'd imagine the CEO had a focus that included LA, Chicago, London, etc. and that would take away from coordinating with any taxi-strikers in NYC. Addendum: Did the taxi union contact Uber before the strike to coordinate this action? I mean it's a 1 hour strike. Is there any real meaning to this? The trains have stopped working for far longer than that.
- incongruity 10y ago
  They don't have to but their customers are similarly free to opt to not use Uber and, even, to call for other customers to do the same.
- zouhair 10y ago
  Because we all live in one society?
  - thescribe 10y ago
    Clearly we don't, at least for values of society that include this strike?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Worth noting that 3 collective entities "broke" the strike. 1) Uber drivers by responding to pickups. 2) Uber customers by requesting those pickups. 3) Uber the company by facilitating those pickups. I am not sure we can claim high moral ground and label (3) immoral while staying oblivious to (1) and (2).
  - arglebarnacle 10y ago
    Failing to boycott is not the same thing as breaking a strike. If this whole incident has revealed one thing, it's the extent to which the labor movement has lost cultural and moral mindshare. Forty years ago, everyone knew what scabbing was, what it wasn't, and had social/political/moral ideas about it. Now that the labor occupies a much less central place in our society, these common norms and knowledge have been lost. I happen to be appalled by this because of my own political views, but good or bad it's certainly a sign of the times.
tedunangst 10y ago
But Uber drivers in New York were free to strike if they wanted, no? Did uber threaten to fire anyone who didn't drive during the strike?
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  That's not how Uber or Lyft works. Drivers drive whenever they feel like it.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Isn't it the same for taxi drivers? Couldn't any NYC taxi driver break the strike just as easily as an Uber driver? Or do they have to deposit their cars in some common depot? /activate the taximeter?
Meekro 10y ago
Lyft didn't participate either. Switching to them because of this strike is irrational.
- bradjohnson 10y ago
  It's not irrational. It might be unfair, but it sends the intended message. If businesses associate pro-trump practices with a loss of revenue, this protest has been effective.
taneq 10y ago
So Uber's choices are (a) Do nothing and be accused of profiteering from the strike, (b) Forgo profit and be accused of breaking the strike, or (c) Recognize that they're in a hostage situation and be forced into joining the strike. I'm no Uber fan but those are pretty lousy choices to force on anyone.
brbrodude 10y ago
To me its clear its about the surge pricing. Because it means they weren't neutral, they picked their side against the taxi-drivers solidarity when they opted to undercut the strike by making a promotion for the passengers. How is this hard to understand? Lyft may have not joined they strike and nobody expects a business to not behave like a business(in the sense: make some press release stating a position or something but operate normally or just don't get involved or do it indirectly like Lyft did of making a donation etc) but they did remained neutral instead of going the disgusting-profitteer-pig-Ill-try-to-win-some-regardless-of-anything way of uber. It's so damn simple.

I think the issue people have isn't the surge pricing so much as the fact that Uber didn't participate in the strike, and thus profited from it.

by cdmckay 10y ago

I think the issue people have isn't the surge pricing so much as the fact that Uber didn't participate in the strike, and thus profited from it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

foota 10y ago

Do we know there was an attempt to collaborate with Uber on the strike?

wavefunction 10y ago
So far we have no evidence that Uber attempted to take part in the strike but we do have evidence that Uber knew about the strike (temporary cessation of surge pricing) and didn't take part in it.
- foota 10y ago
  The end of the surge pricing wasn't until after the strike.
- timmyc 10y ago
  the timeline provided does not confirm this tho
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    lol it completely confirms it. The strike ended at 7pm, surge was lowered at 7:36pm.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

true_religion 10y ago

So? I have a hard time understanding why a multinational company needs to participate so deeply in the politics and labor strikes of a single city. New York is big, but I'd imagine the CEO had a focus that included LA, Chicago, London, etc. and that would take away from coordinating with any taxi-strikers in NYC. Addendum: Did the taxi union contact Uber before the strike to coordinate this action? I mean it's a 1 hour strike. Is there any real meaning to this? The trains have stopped working for far longer than that.

incongruity 10y ago
They don't have to but their customers are similarly free to opt to not use Uber and, even, to call for other customers to do the same.
zouhair 10y ago
Because we all live in one society?
- thescribe 10y ago
  Clearly we don't, at least for values of society that include this strike?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
prostoalex 10y ago
Worth noting that 3 collective entities "broke" the strike. 1) Uber drivers by responding to pickups. 2) Uber customers by requesting those pickups. 3) Uber the company by facilitating those pickups. I am not sure we can claim high moral ground and label (3) immoral while staying oblivious to (1) and (2).
- arglebarnacle 10y ago
  Failing to boycott is not the same thing as breaking a strike. If this whole incident has revealed one thing, it's the extent to which the labor movement has lost cultural and moral mindshare. Forty years ago, everyone knew what scabbing was, what it wasn't, and had social/political/moral ideas about it. Now that the labor occupies a much less central place in our society, these common norms and knowledge have been lost. I happen to be appalled by this because of my own political views, but good or bad it's certainly a sign of the times.

tedunangst 10y ago

But Uber drivers in New York were free to strike if they wanted, no? Did uber threaten to fire anyone who didn't drive during the strike?

BurningFrog 10y ago
That's not how Uber or Lyft works. Drivers drive whenever they feel like it.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Isn't it the same for taxi drivers? Couldn't any NYC taxi driver break the strike just as easily as an Uber driver? Or do they have to deposit their cars in some common depot? /activate the taximeter?

Meekro 10y ago

Lyft didn't participate either. Switching to them because of this strike is irrational.

bradjohnson 10y ago
It's not irrational. It might be unfair, but it sends the intended message. If businesses associate pro-trump practices with a loss of revenue, this protest has been effective.

taneq 10y ago

So Uber's choices are (a) Do nothing and be accused of profiteering from the strike, (b) Forgo profit and be accused of breaking the strike, or (c) Recognize that they're in a hostage situation and be forced into joining the strike. I'm no Uber fan but those are pretty lousy choices to force on anyone.

brbrodude 10y ago

To me its clear its about the surge pricing. Because it means they weren't neutral, they picked their side against the taxi-drivers solidarity when they opted to undercut the strike by making a promotion for the passengers. How is this hard to understand? Lyft may have not joined they strike and nobody expects a business to not behave like a business(in the sense: make some press release stating a position or something but operate normally or just don't get involved or do it indirectly like Lyft did of making a donation etc) but they did remained neutral instead of going the disgusting-profitteer-pig-Ill-try-to-win-some-regardless-of-anything way of uber. It's so damn simple.