41 ms·

Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction. The taxi d

Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction. The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
Both Thiel and Icahn are investors in Lyft, who are even closer to Trump. How does it feel directly support Thiel and Icahn?
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  I don't support Lyft and my first comment on this post was critical of them and the riders who switched to them out of a false solidarity. Perhaps read other comments on this thread before making assumptions.
Udik 10y ago
The only way Uber could have participated in the strike would have been by paying its drivers for the time they didn't work if they decided not to. Uber, as a taxi drivers employer, cannot just decide on its own that its workers are striking and won't get paid.
- Heliosmaster 10y ago
  You can always disable the service. Then you will get angry drivers that cannot earn money because of a choice you made, but you can participate to the strike.
  - Udik 10y ago
    That would have meant forcing other people (their drivers) to strike, and share the economic loss for it as well. Not very fair, don't you think? Being on strike with other people's money?
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      Yup, that's the short-term drawback. You correctly identified it. Now, contrast it with the long-term drawbacks of not organizing at all.
- jaynos 10y ago
  Uber could have participated by changing the surge pricing to 20X, 100X or some similarly high number. That's not to say that they should have. A lot of the anger at Uber is also due to their CEO being an economic advisor to Trump. Meanwhile, Lyft played this perfectly. Stayed out of the fray and then donated $1MM to the ACLU.
  - davidcbc 10y ago
    If Uber increased surge pricing they would be accused of trying to make more money off of the protest. It would probably be a worse PR disaster than removing surge pricing
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
The sole point I'll argue in this thread is "so did Lyft". If you're boycotting all ridesharing apps in favour of licensed taxis, that's one thing. But deleting Uber and installing Lyft is misguided.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  I agree and already had commented so prior to my post on this thread.
- kkhire 10y ago
  "I'm #deletingUber to show how anti-Trump I am!" uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. nobody does an ounce of research anymore.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    > funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.
    - ntumlin 10y ago
      To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
      - skyrw 10y ago
        Or they can afford private drivers
        prodigal_erik 10y ago
        If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
prostoalex 10y ago
But you don't break the strike by removing surge pricing and increasing everyone's pick-up time, you break it by keeping surge pricing, so that the drivers chasing the surge swarm the location in order to boost their earnings.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Breaking the strike was picking up someone at JFK during the strike. Uber and Lyft both picked up riders during the strike. It's not complicated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/29/uber-triggers-protest-for-not-supporting-taxi-strike-against-refugee-ban/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    So just black out the area for drivers and passengers? Unless this is a coordinated effort, drivers and passengers will just go down the list to see if Lyft/Gett/Wingz/you-name-it is working.
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      Right. And then a driver from one of those services breaks the strike and the parent company they contract for gets hammered in the court of public opinion for breaking the strike.
    - alphonsegaston 10y ago
      The strike was widely publicized and the protest visible. Everyone involved was allowed to act as they saw fit and we can think what we want of those decisions as well.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Workers choosing not to work is a strike. Infrastructure owners choosing not to let workers work is something else.
egopulsus 10y ago
who cares about any of this? it will have 0 real world impact on Uber just as the starbucks boycott will have 0 real world impact on starbucks... just more hysteria
wikyd 10y ago
Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?
- knieveltech 10y ago
  It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >This doesn't make scabbing any less vile This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance. How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
    - cderwin 10y ago
      Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
    - wfo 10y ago
      It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country. Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this. They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
wyager 10y ago
> Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. Okay? So neither Uber nor Lyft wanted to inconvenience thousands of their customers. That's why I use them over taxis in the first place!
hueving 10y ago
Uber drivers broke the strike as well as Lyft drivers. 'Scabs' refers to people, not competitors to the parent company of the striking union members.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
I honestly don't care about taxi drivers and reject the idea that they hold some moral ground. I'm glad they're all going out of business. And if they decide to hold a strike, there's zero reason for Uber or Lyft to want to be beholden to them.
- phy6 10y ago
  I think I'm with you on this--I don't care especially about the taxi-driving profession as it once was, especially the dinosaur unionized kind. (IMO, In less than 10 years it will probably be a nearly extinct profession.) However I think we can all agree that we can still care about taxi drivers themselves, as people.
kelnos 10y ago
The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway. "Ok, so people are going to have trouble with airport transportation because of this immigration ban, so let's make it even harder by taking away from transportation options." They not only could have made it harder for those who did eventually manage to clear CBP to get home, but they also made it harder for protesters to get to and from the airport. If I were in charge of Uber's or Lyft's ability to shut down their service for the airport, I certainly wouldn't do that. This is a fine example of a union strike harming people. Regarding surge, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't": when they leave surge pricing up in these situations, they're blasted for profiteering, and now when they disable it, they're blasted for... what, exactly? Providing less of an incentive for drivers to go there?
- Tritrin 10y ago
  Well that's one way of looking at it. People apparently still could ride Uber and Lyft so they werent really impeding anyones travels to and from the airport. Another is that NY Taxi which employs many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants were granted one hour of their time to stand up in solidarity for those immigrants being detained without risking their jobs. It's not a case of "union strike" since it's unrelated to labour it's simply a political action. You might not like it but calling their protest "poor taste" is just demeaning.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    Well, you can't have it both ways. Either: a) You expect Uber/Lyft to take part in your strike, in which case you are impeding travel, or b) You don't expect Uber/Lyft to take part, in which case no one should be coming down so hard on them for "breaking the strike". I think it's great that NY Taxi gave their immigrant employees time to participate in the protests, but, they could have... y'know... just done that. Not called for a strike. I'm not sure where you're hearing that it wasn't a strike, though: seems like everyone here is convinced it was an actual labor action, as does the original article. Not saying that's the final word on the matter, but it's pretty confusing what went on, and it seems a bit crazy to call for this strike or non-strike or whatever it was, and then get pissed at Uber/Lyft for not participating. I don't agree with you that my words are "demeaning". People's actions have consequences. If protesters had extra trouble getting to/from the airport due to the strike, then I consider that a bad consequence of the strike. If there was even the possibility that someone detained by the CBP could have been released during the strike and had trouble getting home because of the strike, then I think "poor taste" is a generous description of events.
captainmuon 10y ago
Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but the drivers do. This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
- ggggtez 10y ago
  They are a company, sure. But the citizens vote with their wallets, and are clearly making a choice for the type of company they prefer. Maybe that means most people in New York prefer a company which cooperates with their local unions.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Did Lyft cooperate with their local unions?
    - kj01a 10y ago
      Here is the letter they wrote for their blog: >We created Lyft to be a model for the type of community we want our world to be: diverse, inclusive, and safe. >This weekend, Trump closed the country's borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft's and our nation's core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community. >We know this directly impacts many of our community members, their families, and friends. We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. We ask that you continue to be there for each other - and together, continue proving the power of community. I notice that it diplomatically does not answer your question, only that it will donate for the cause. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "cooperate." They certainly didn't order their workers to strike (which would be dumb of them anyway.)
    - 10y ago
edblarney 10y ago
"Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike" I'm pretty sure that's not true. If the Airport 'hired taxis' - and then hired 'other taxis' to do some work, then it might be true. But the Airport doesn't hire them, and also Uber is not technically a taxi ... So I think it's within the law. As far as 'court of public opinion' - that's another matter. I'd be interested to see what people actually think outside of our culture.
cderwin 10y ago
To be clear, Uber did not break the strike. Uber drivers, who apparently did not feel compelled to take part in the strike, broke it. Strikes are not composed of companies, they are composed of workers. Would you expect Uber to have refused to let its drivers operate (against their will) during the taxi strike? That's absurd on its face.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  Most importantly, AFAIK it wasnt even the taxi companies that called the strike, but the taxi unions.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes and empowered to join them, if they were truly a neutral ride-sharing platform. Really, they're just a business that employs people whom they don't want to classify as employees, and would sooner drown their riders in a lake than see them organize.
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    > I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes That seems absurd. Uber is not a union. There is a dangerous conflict of incentive in relying on the people harmed by a strike to be organizing them.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      Yes. That's because Uber ISN'T a neutral platform for ride sharing, it's a taxi service with employees.
briandear 10y ago
Good for Uber. During this strike innocent people get inconvenienced and for what? Who were the taxis striking against? Trump? How is that strike going to solve anything?
madeofpalk 10y ago
Uber was never a part of the strike to begin with! How can they break something they were never a part of, after it even existed?
jps359 10y ago
Does Uber have the capability on their platform to disable the service in a specified region (JFK)?
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
I don't understand why Uber shouldn't have broken the strike. Their competitors decided to shoot themselves in the foot thinking it will help the refugees, and Uber swept in and took advantage (arguably). Coupled with the fact that it uses Saudi money to subsidize American drivers, who surely include refugees among them, I don't see why everyone has a grudge against Uber.
gregshap 10y ago
It's nice when company owners support labor solidarity, but I think it's silly to say that uber scabbed or broke the strike. Uber is a multi hundred billion dollar capitalist entity, with a stated goal of automating away all of the drivers. Uber drivers broke the strike. Lyft drivers also broke the strike. It's one thing to expect labor solidarity from workers, but I don't see how it's rational to expect labor solidarity from a massive store of private wealth. What uber did was make it less profitable for uber drivers to scab, which is moderately pro strike if anything. Lyft fares undoubtedly went up in that time, but Lyft doesn't profit as much from surge pricing, rather their model allowed scabbing drivers to keep those extra wages.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Scabbing is breaking the strike. Uber dispatched drivers to break the strike. I'll say it again, it's not complicated. Scabs have historically operated under the cover of a private entity. This was the express function of the Pinkertons, for example. You can't rewrite the history of American labor and what its accomplished with neoliberal circumlocutions. Just because corporations became clever enough to describe scabs as "independent contractors" operating under "complex algorithms" and "surge pricing," doesn't mean we have to believe them.
  - david38 10y ago
    Uber dispatched nobody. The drivers dispatched themselves. You're saying it was Uber's responsibility to side with the strikers (who are their competition) against the wishes of their own drivers? Seriously? If Uber had forced a strike on its drivers (without a vote no less) people would have been pissed that they were left stranded. If enough Uber drivers wanted to strike, they would have. They didn't. Maybe they are a different demograph with different concerns. Who knows. You know the last time Uber had surge pricing during a huge surge in demand in Australia they got a lot of shit. They said they wouldn't do it again. They kept their word. And why must Uber be on the side of the strikers or face punishment? What about all the people hailing cabs, Ubers, or Lyfts? They are exempt from morality? Lyft picked up people too. The fact that Uber chose not to price gouge is not a support of the ban.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

Both Thiel and Icahn are investors in Lyft, who are even closer to Trump. How does it feel directly support Thiel and Icahn?

alphonsegaston 10y ago
I don't support Lyft and my first comment on this post was critical of them and the riders who switched to them out of a false solidarity. Perhaps read other comments on this thread before making assumptions.

Udik 10y ago

The only way Uber could have participated in the strike would have been by paying its drivers for the time they didn't work if they decided not to. Uber, as a taxi drivers employer, cannot just decide on its own that its workers are striking and won't get paid.

Heliosmaster 10y ago
You can always disable the service. Then you will get angry drivers that cannot earn money because of a choice you made, but you can participate to the strike.
- Udik 10y ago
  That would have meant forcing other people (their drivers) to strike, and share the economic loss for it as well. Not very fair, don't you think? Being on strike with other people's money?
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    Yup, that's the short-term drawback. You correctly identified it. Now, contrast it with the long-term drawbacks of not organizing at all.
jaynos 10y ago
Uber could have participated by changing the surge pricing to 20X, 100X or some similarly high number. That's not to say that they should have. A lot of the anger at Uber is also due to their CEO being an economic advisor to Trump. Meanwhile, Lyft played this perfectly. Stayed out of the fray and then donated $1MM to the ACLU.
- davidcbc 10y ago
  If Uber increased surge pricing they would be accused of trying to make more money off of the protest. It would probably be a worse PR disaster than removing surge pricing

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

The sole point I'll argue in this thread is "so did Lyft". If you're boycotting all ridesharing apps in favour of licensed taxis, that's one thing. But deleting Uber and installing Lyft is misguided.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
I agree and already had commented so prior to my post on this thread.
kkhire 10y ago
"I'm #deletingUber to show how anti-Trump I am!" uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. nobody does an ounce of research anymore.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  > funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.
  - ntumlin 10y ago
    To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
    - skyrw 10y ago
      Or they can afford private drivers
      - prodigal_erik 10y ago
        If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

prostoalex 10y ago

But you don't break the strike by removing surge pricing and increasing everyone's pick-up time, you break it by keeping surge pricing, so that the drivers chasing the surge swarm the location in order to boost their earnings.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Breaking the strike was picking up someone at JFK during the strike. Uber and Lyft both picked up riders during the strike. It's not complicated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/29/uber-triggers-protest-for-not-supporting-taxi-strike-against-refugee-ban/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
- prostoalex 10y ago
  So just black out the area for drivers and passengers? Unless this is a coordinated effort, drivers and passengers will just go down the list to see if Lyft/Gett/Wingz/you-name-it is working.
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    Right. And then a driver from one of those services breaks the strike and the parent company they contract for gets hammered in the court of public opinion for breaking the strike.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    The strike was widely publicized and the protest visible. Everyone involved was allowed to act as they saw fit and we can think what we want of those decisions as well.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Workers choosing not to work is a strike. Infrastructure owners choosing not to let workers work is something else.

egopulsus 10y ago

who cares about any of this? it will have 0 real world impact on Uber just as the starbucks boycott will have 0 real world impact on starbucks... just more hysteria

wikyd 10y ago

Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?

knieveltech 10y ago
It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.
- hueving 10y ago
  >This doesn't make scabbing any less vile This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance. How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
  - cderwin 10y ago
    Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
  - wfo 10y ago
    It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country. Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this. They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.

wyager 10y ago

> Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. Okay? So neither Uber nor Lyft wanted to inconvenience thousands of their customers. That's why I use them over taxis in the first place!

hueving 10y ago

Uber drivers broke the strike as well as Lyft drivers. 'Scabs' refers to people, not competitors to the parent company of the striking union members.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

I honestly don't care about taxi drivers and reject the idea that they hold some moral ground. I'm glad they're all going out of business. And if they decide to hold a strike, there's zero reason for Uber or Lyft to want to be beholden to them.

phy6 10y ago
I think I'm with you on this--I don't care especially about the taxi-driving profession as it once was, especially the dinosaur unionized kind. (IMO, In less than 10 years it will probably be a nearly extinct profession.) However I think we can all agree that we can still care about taxi drivers themselves, as people.

kelnos 10y ago

The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway. "Ok, so people are going to have trouble with airport transportation because of this immigration ban, so let's make it even harder by taking away from transportation options." They not only could have made it harder for those who did eventually manage to clear CBP to get home, but they also made it harder for protesters to get to and from the airport. If I were in charge of Uber's or Lyft's ability to shut down their service for the airport, I certainly wouldn't do that. This is a fine example of a union strike harming people. Regarding surge, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't": when they leave surge pricing up in these situations, they're blasted for profiteering, and now when they disable it, they're blasted for... what, exactly? Providing less of an incentive for drivers to go there?

Tritrin 10y ago
Well that's one way of looking at it. People apparently still could ride Uber and Lyft so they werent really impeding anyones travels to and from the airport. Another is that NY Taxi which employs many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants were granted one hour of their time to stand up in solidarity for those immigrants being detained without risking their jobs. It's not a case of "union strike" since it's unrelated to labour it's simply a political action. You might not like it but calling their protest "poor taste" is just demeaning.
- kelnos 10y ago
  Well, you can't have it both ways. Either: a) You expect Uber/Lyft to take part in your strike, in which case you are impeding travel, or b) You don't expect Uber/Lyft to take part, in which case no one should be coming down so hard on them for "breaking the strike". I think it's great that NY Taxi gave their immigrant employees time to participate in the protests, but, they could have... y'know... just done that. Not called for a strike. I'm not sure where you're hearing that it wasn't a strike, though: seems like everyone here is convinced it was an actual labor action, as does the original article. Not saying that's the final word on the matter, but it's pretty confusing what went on, and it seems a bit crazy to call for this strike or non-strike or whatever it was, and then get pissed at Uber/Lyft for not participating. I don't agree with you that my words are "demeaning". People's actions have consequences. If protesters had extra trouble getting to/from the airport due to the strike, then I consider that a bad consequence of the strike. If there was even the possibility that someone detained by the CBP could have been released during the strike and had trouble getting home because of the strike, then I think "poor taste" is a generous description of events.

captainmuon 10y ago

Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but the drivers do. This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??

ggggtez 10y ago
They are a company, sure. But the citizens vote with their wallets, and are clearly making a choice for the type of company they prefer. Maybe that means most people in New York prefer a company which cooperates with their local unions.
- leereeves 10y ago
  Did Lyft cooperate with their local unions?
  - kj01a 10y ago
    Here is the letter they wrote for their blog: >We created Lyft to be a model for the type of community we want our world to be: diverse, inclusive, and safe. >This weekend, Trump closed the country's borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft's and our nation's core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community. >We know this directly impacts many of our community members, their families, and friends. We stand with you, and are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. We ask that you continue to be there for each other - and together, continue proving the power of community. I notice that it diplomatically does not answer your question, only that it will donate for the cause. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "cooperate." They certainly didn't order their workers to strike (which would be dumb of them anyway.)
  - 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

"Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike" I'm pretty sure that's not true. If the Airport 'hired taxis' - and then hired 'other taxis' to do some work, then it might be true. But the Airport doesn't hire them, and also Uber is not technically a taxi ... So I think it's within the law. As far as 'court of public opinion' - that's another matter. I'd be interested to see what people actually think outside of our culture.

cderwin 10y ago

To be clear, Uber did not break the strike. Uber drivers, who apparently did not feel compelled to take part in the strike, broke it. Strikes are not composed of companies, they are composed of workers. Would you expect Uber to have refused to let its drivers operate (against their will) during the taxi strike? That's absurd on its face.

madeofpalk 10y ago
Most importantly, AFAIK it wasnt even the taxi companies that called the strike, but the taxi unions.
ajamesm 10y ago
I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes and empowered to join them, if they were truly a neutral ride-sharing platform. Really, they're just a business that employs people whom they don't want to classify as employees, and would sooner drown their riders in a lake than see them organize.
- FeepingCreature 10y ago
  > I would expect Uber to ensure drivers are organized and informed about strikes That seems absurd. Uber is not a union. There is a dangerous conflict of incentive in relying on the people harmed by a strike to be organizing them.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    Yes. That's because Uber ISN'T a neutral platform for ride sharing, it's a taxi service with employees.

briandear 10y ago

Good for Uber. During this strike innocent people get inconvenienced and for what? Who were the taxis striking against? Trump? How is that strike going to solve anything?

madeofpalk 10y ago

Uber was never a part of the strike to begin with! How can they break something they were never a part of, after it even existed?

jps359 10y ago

Does Uber have the capability on their platform to disable the service in a specified region (JFK)?

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

I don't understand why Uber shouldn't have broken the strike. Their competitors decided to shoot themselves in the foot thinking it will help the refugees, and Uber swept in and took advantage (arguably). Coupled with the fact that it uses Saudi money to subsidize American drivers, who surely include refugees among them, I don't see why everyone has a grudge against Uber.

gregshap 10y ago

It's nice when company owners support labor solidarity, but I think it's silly to say that uber scabbed or broke the strike. Uber is a multi hundred billion dollar capitalist entity, with a stated goal of automating away all of the drivers. Uber drivers broke the strike. Lyft drivers also broke the strike. It's one thing to expect labor solidarity from workers, but I don't see how it's rational to expect labor solidarity from a massive store of private wealth. What uber did was make it less profitable for uber drivers to scab, which is moderately pro strike if anything. Lyft fares undoubtedly went up in that time, but Lyft doesn't profit as much from surge pricing, rather their model allowed scabbing drivers to keep those extra wages.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Scabbing is breaking the strike. Uber dispatched drivers to break the strike. I'll say it again, it's not complicated. Scabs have historically operated under the cover of a private entity. This was the express function of the Pinkertons, for example. You can't rewrite the history of American labor and what its accomplished with neoliberal circumlocutions. Just because corporations became clever enough to describe scabs as "independent contractors" operating under "complex algorithms" and "surge pricing," doesn't mean we have to believe them.
- david38 10y ago
  Uber dispatched nobody. The drivers dispatched themselves. You're saying it was Uber's responsibility to side with the strikers (who are their competition) against the wishes of their own drivers? Seriously? If Uber had forced a strike on its drivers (without a vote no less) people would have been pissed that they were left stranded. If enough Uber drivers wanted to strike, they would have. They didn't. Maybe they are a different demograph with different concerns. Who knows. You know the last time Uber had surge pricing during a huge surge in demand in Australia they got a lot of shit. They said they wouldn't do it again. They kept their word. And why must Uber be on the side of the strikers or face punishment? What about all the people hailing cabs, Ubers, or Lyfts? They are exempt from morality? Lyft picked up people too. The fact that Uber chose not to price gouge is not a support of the ban.