4 ms·

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

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.

sethev 10y ago
That seems like an absurd splitting of hairs. Under that logic the concept of a strike breaker couldn't exist. "It was coal workers who were striking, but the replacements are not coal workers per se they were non-participating laborers who happen to perform the same function"
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike? Will the union let me vote on the strike on that basis?
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    > If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike? Do you intend on charging your mother for the ride she needs? If your answer is "of course not," you aren't providing the same function as a taxi.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> Uber are not taxis per se Of course Uber (and Lyft) are taxis. It's a service that you call to have a guy in a car come pick you up and take you directly to your destination. It's a different kind of taxi, certainly, but it's still a taxi. It's very fashionable right now for startups to pretend that they're really a completely different industry than the one they're trying to disrupt, to distance themselves from the stodgy image, but marketing rhetoric doesn't make it so.
- sleepybrett 10y ago
  > to distance themselves from the stodgy image or, ya'know, regulatory laws.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    That, too.

sethev 10y ago

That seems like an absurd splitting of hairs. Under that logic the concept of a strike breaker couldn't exist. "It was coal workers who were striking, but the replacements are not coal workers per se they were non-participating laborers who happen to perform the same function"

prodigal_erik 10y ago
If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike? Will the union let me vote on the strike on that basis?
- Mtinie 10y ago
  > If my mom arrives at the airport and needs a ride, am I supposed to refuse because of the strike? Do you intend on charging your mother for the ride she needs? If your answer is "of course not," you aren't providing the same function as a taxi.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

> Uber are not taxis per se Of course Uber (and Lyft) are taxis. It's a service that you call to have a guy in a car come pick you up and take you directly to your destination. It's a different kind of taxi, certainly, but it's still a taxi. It's very fashionable right now for startups to pretend that they're really a completely different industry than the one they're trying to disrupt, to distance themselves from the stodgy image, but marketing rhetoric doesn't make it so.

sleepybrett 10y ago
> to distance themselves from the stodgy image or, ya'know, regulatory laws.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  That, too.