7 ms·

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. Jus

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.)
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    No they scabbed as well, but we're just better with PR. We've been so inculcated with Neoliberalism that switching to a more successfully deceptive brand is now seen as protest.
leereeves 10y ago
This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with. (I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable outcome.)
- masklinn 10y ago
  > This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. The taxis started a strike action (in support of the protest, but a strike nonetheless). > By not participating strike-breaking. > I'm not taking sides here Of course you are.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 10y ago
    I thought the union (not the individual taxis) called for the work stoppage. Perhaps we can call it both a strike and a political protest. There doesn't seem to have been any way for Uber to avoid (being perceived as) taking sides, but how am I taking sides?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    A competing service that continues BAU without participating has the result of undermining the aim of the strike - to disrupt services. The term 'strike-break' is usually used when that service has some obligation or agreement to participate in the first place. In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.
  - titanix2 10y ago
    If the taxis are doing a strike, you can speak of strike breaking only for taxis not participating in it. Uber are not taxis per se, so there is no way they can break a strike they aren't doing in the first place. Also there seems to be a confusion made on strike and strike consequences or demonstration. Being on strike only means stop working, not directly blocking access or service (although it is often done in conjunction). So again Uber providing service for people not serviced by taxis can not be labeled of strike breaking: Uber didn't prevent any taxis to be on strike if they want to do it. Aside my opinion on the matter as a French who suffered more than one time from strikes is that Uber did a good job by allowing people to live their lives normally. Not being able to move, send a mail, study, lend a book, ... is really frustrating.
kristopolous 10y ago
People appear to expect companies to take stances and play politics. It's an important observation and should be exploited for business leveraging. This is how namecheap gained market traction - they took heavy handed anti-godaddy stances during the SOPA debate and it worked hugely in their favor. The other observation is that if your market position has a lot to do with inertia and habit - as in, if many people are using you mostly because they used you the last time, your position is tenuous. And lastly, this may be a good example of aggregate forms of capital cost. The idea is that every exchange involves not only financial capital (money) but social and spiritual (what one thinks of themselves) capital. Your competitors can increase this aggregate cost and you can modify it without consciously being aware.
Iv 10y ago
> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home?? Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You expect every worker in the field to follow. This is not a strike to get better conditions within one company, this is a strike toward a governmental action.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You mean how it doesn't work. Cartels eventually fall apart when there's no way of enforcing the rules (no way to force someone to strike) because the incentives to cheat (drive during strike) are high.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I suppose someone could've DDOSd Uber's API to force their hand instead of relying on Travis' navigation of the political waters and moral fortitude (hah!).
  - jellicle 10y ago
    Well, at least in the U.S., general strikes worked great and were so effective for labor that they were banned by law, and remain illegal today.
  - Iv 10y ago
    Successful general strikes (a longer list than many people believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike#Notable_general_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike#Notable_general...) usually enforce it somehow. Possibly through illegal means.
- icebraining 10y ago
  You expect workers to follow, not their companies to order them!
- illuminati1911 10y ago
  Causing financial damage and harm to people/companies not responsible for the Trump's immigration rule is pure stupidity and wrong. If Uber as a company doesn't want to be part of it, it's their choice to do so.
fennecfoxen 10y ago
> I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Doubly so since half of their business model's premise is that Uber drivers are not employees, independent contractors who bring their own equipment, set their own hours, and pick up the fares that they feel like. They officially only boss the drivers around once they've picked up the fare.
jpatokal 10y ago
Oh no, Uber is a "ride-sharing platform", so it doesn't have any "drivers", only "partners". If these "partners", being the perfectly free agents that they are, wish to participate in any form of action, they can do so on their own.
robert_foss 10y ago
No company can be expected to behave morally? Is that what you are arguing?
- dvdhnt 10y ago
  Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. Sometimes, that happens to align with public or moral good. However, our only expectation should be that companies make decisions and take actions within the parameters prescribed by regulators. Anything they do beyond that is either a violation, and should be punished, or a secondary, unexpected benefit.
  - robert_foss 10y ago
    I would agree that this seems to be the case almost always, but should it have to be that way? Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often? To some extent this is already the case, you don't see Dow Chemical grinding up children and selling them as couch stuffing, although sometimes they're not very far from that mark.
    - dvdhnt 10y ago
      Right, I mean that's a separate debate, one that requires a lot of introspection re: capitalism, etc. I'm just answering your previous question; that no, we can't expect them to behave morally. However, to continue with your second comment, we're getting closer to the cause of the symptom. I saw a headline on HN that said "why always outlasts how" and I believe this to be intrinsic. If we should encourage companies to behave in ways more closely aligned with the public interest, fine. Now, how do we do that? So far, it has been done through varying degrees of regulation and the court of public opinion, but those often fail. To answer your question - "Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?" - because we lack a better how for the time being.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the current situation is benefiting Uber's shareholders. The point being that by breaking the strike, Uber made a terrible business decision. They massively underestimated the backlash they would get. Now they have a (yet another) PR nightmare in their hands.
rmc 10y ago
OK, they are a company. And a company has no right to customers. Sorry, that's business, that's capitalism, that's the market.
gumby 10y ago
> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home?? Consumers could still vote with their dollars, as they should. If you think Uber did nothing wrong then feel free to continue using them.

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.)
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  No they scabbed as well, but we're just better with PR. We've been so inculcated with Neoliberalism that switching to a more successfully deceptive brand is now seen as protest.

leereeves 10y ago

This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. By not participating, Uber naturally made enemies among a group of people with a tendency to boycott everyone they disagree with. (I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that this was a predictable outcome.)

masklinn 10y ago
> This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. The taxis started a strike action (in support of the protest, but a strike nonetheless). > By not participating strike-breaking. > I'm not taking sides here Of course you are.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 10y ago
  I thought the union (not the individual taxis) called for the work stoppage. Perhaps we can call it both a strike and a political protest. There doesn't seem to have been any way for Uber to avoid (being perceived as) taking sides, but how am I taking sides?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  A competing service that continues BAU without participating has the result of undermining the aim of the strike - to disrupt services. The term 'strike-break' is usually used when that service has some obligation or agreement to participate in the first place. In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.
- titanix2 10y ago
  If the taxis are doing a strike, you can speak of strike breaking only for taxis not participating in it. Uber are not taxis per se, so there is no way they can break a strike they aren't doing in the first place. Also there seems to be a confusion made on strike and strike consequences or demonstration. Being on strike only means stop working, not directly blocking access or service (although it is often done in conjunction). So again Uber providing service for people not serviced by taxis can not be labeled of strike breaking: Uber didn't prevent any taxis to be on strike if they want to do it. Aside my opinion on the matter as a French who suffered more than one time from strikes is that Uber did a good job by allowing people to live their lives normally. Not being able to move, send a mail, study, lend a book, ... is really frustrating.

kristopolous 10y ago

People appear to expect companies to take stances and play politics. It's an important observation and should be exploited for business leveraging. This is how namecheap gained market traction - they took heavy handed anti-godaddy stances during the SOPA debate and it worked hugely in their favor. The other observation is that if your market position has a lot to do with inertia and habit - as in, if many people are using you mostly because they used you the last time, your position is tenuous. And lastly, this may be a good example of aggregate forms of capital cost. The idea is that every exchange involves not only financial capital (money) but social and spiritual (what one thinks of themselves) capital. Your competitors can increase this aggregate cost and you can modify it without consciously being aware.

Iv 10y ago

> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home?? Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You expect every worker in the field to follow. This is not a strike to get better conditions within one company, this is a strike toward a governmental action.

rubber_duck 10y ago
>Well, yes, that's how a general strike works. You mean how it doesn't work. Cartels eventually fall apart when there's no way of enforcing the rules (no way to force someone to strike) because the incentives to cheat (drive during strike) are high.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I suppose someone could've DDOSd Uber's API to force their hand instead of relying on Travis' navigation of the political waters and moral fortitude (hah!).
- jellicle 10y ago
  Well, at least in the U.S., general strikes worked great and were so effective for labor that they were banned by law, and remain illegal today.
- Iv 10y ago
  Successful general strikes (a longer list than many people believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike#Notable_general_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike#Notable_general...) usually enforce it somehow. Possibly through illegal means.
icebraining 10y ago
You expect workers to follow, not their companies to order them!
illuminati1911 10y ago
Causing financial damage and harm to people/companies not responsible for the Trump's immigration rule is pure stupidity and wrong. If Uber as a company doesn't want to be part of it, it's their choice to do so.

fennecfoxen 10y ago

> I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Doubly so since half of their business model's premise is that Uber drivers are not employees, independent contractors who bring their own equipment, set their own hours, and pick up the fares that they feel like. They officially only boss the drivers around once they've picked up the fare.

jpatokal 10y ago

Oh no, Uber is a "ride-sharing platform", so it doesn't have any "drivers", only "partners". If these "partners", being the perfectly free agents that they are, wish to participate in any form of action, they can do so on their own.

robert_foss 10y ago

No company can be expected to behave morally? Is that what you are arguing?

dvdhnt 10y ago
Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. Sometimes, that happens to align with public or moral good. However, our only expectation should be that companies make decisions and take actions within the parameters prescribed by regulators. Anything they do beyond that is either a violation, and should be punished, or a secondary, unexpected benefit.
- robert_foss 10y ago
  I would agree that this seems to be the case almost always, but should it have to be that way? Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often? To some extent this is already the case, you don't see Dow Chemical grinding up children and selling them as couch stuffing, although sometimes they're not very far from that mark.
  - dvdhnt 10y ago
    Right, I mean that's a separate debate, one that requires a lot of introspection re: capitalism, etc. I'm just answering your previous question; that no, we can't expect them to behave morally. However, to continue with your second comment, we're getting closer to the cause of the symptom. I saw a headline on HN that said "why always outlasts how" and I believe this to be intrinsic. If we should encourage companies to behave in ways more closely aligned with the public interest, fine. Now, how do we do that? So far, it has been done through varying degrees of regulation and the court of public opinion, but those often fail. To answer your question - "Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?" - because we lack a better how for the time being.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the current situation is benefiting Uber's shareholders. The point being that by breaking the strike, Uber made a terrible business decision. They massively underestimated the backlash they would get. Now they have a (yet another) PR nightmare in their hands.

rmc 10y ago

OK, they are a company. And a company has no right to customers. Sorry, that's business, that's capitalism, that's the market.

gumby 10y ago

> This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home?? Consumers could still vote with their dollars, as they should. If you think Uber did nothing wrong then feel free to continue using them.