6 ms·

Where else should he grind it? Kalanick is the CEO. He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. Kalanick certainly gets paid enough to face up to peo

Where else should he grind it? Kalanick is the CEO. He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. Kalanick certainly gets paid enough to face up to people like this. And if he wants to stop facing up to it, maybe he can do something about their pay.

erdojo 10y ago
Right person, wrong time, wrong approach. Kalanick was off the clock, clearly on his way home and in a social setting. The driver could have really capitalized on the moment. He could have opened a productive and respectful conversation by saying he was a very early driver and had some feedback - good and bad - asking to sit down at a more appropriate time. That had far more likelihood of achieving any progress. But maybe he didn't want progress. Maybe he just wanted the satisfaction of venting to the CEO.
dragontamer 10y ago
> Kalanick is the CEO. And the driver is not an employee. Yeah, I know this has been discussed a lot of times, but the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. And indeed: the loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?
- matt4077 10y ago
  > the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. Except, you know, "being a human" > loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. That's actually not that different from being an employee, where you can usually quit on short notice and start working somewhere else as well – at least on the lower end of the market. But it's wrong to consider these relationships as symmetrical in terms of power. Uber (or any employer) has vastly more power over an individual driver than the other way around. That's because loss of the gig can mean financial ruin for the driver, but the company wouldn't even notice it. That's why unions are needed to create a balance of power.
  - computerex 10y ago
    I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      >Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
      - computerex 10y ago
        I don't think the actions are immoral. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. This is how capitalism works.
        zepto 10y ago
        Yes, and being shamed for immoral acts is how society works. Capitalists need to either take that into account, or accept the consequences.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Even ignoring that, by that standard, he is among the worst human being ever with around -80 billions of "profit" so far... ...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard tools of corporate governance... ...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets. It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.
- rhizome 10y ago
  If you agree that the driver is not an employee, how do you think that would have played out if TravisK had blown him off on video? Do you think everybody would see it your way, and would that be fair of them to do?
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Honestly? If TravisK just walked away without discussion? Then there wouldn't be any story here. The story is that TravisK raised his voice while being secretly filmed by one of the drivers. There's no story about a CEO just leaving a cab.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation." Considering that, without the drivers, Uber doesn't have a product, I cannot agree with that statement. "Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?" For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. But given the news recently, that's far too much for anyone to expect.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. For the greater majority of Human History, slaves and concubines were normal. I have very little faith in what a "human being" can and should do.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    >For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. I'm not sure what humans you're interacting with but the CEO of Uber acted just how I'd expect myself or any of the other people I know to act when confronted by someone being antagonistic while I'm trying to go home after an evening out. Be unhappy with him if you want but don't try to paint it as human. You either want the CEO of Uber to act like a politician or a saint, not a human.
1_2__3 10y ago
> He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago
  It's not like he had a right to challenge him, he had an opportunity, which he took.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Hypothetically, don't you think a world where you could do that would be better? Besides this isn't exactly indirect. There is a direct line from Kalanick's decisions to this mans paycheck.
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  > You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you. I believe the first amendment disagrees. If you have a grievance with someone, it is absolutely within your right to tell them. In fact, I'd argue that a healthy, functional society relies entirely on people being completely honest with each other.
- random314 10y ago
  > You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you. Where did you get that idea?
- Aeolun 10y ago
  Well, yes, you do. At least, there's generally no reason why you couldn't challenge them. No guarantee they'll listen.
calvinbhai 10y ago
I'd have agreed with your reasoning, if Uber was a charity. But its not. If Uber didn't cut prices, Lyft would have steamrolled Uber in 2013. So, Travis is not lying when he says "they had to drop prices". When someone tells you how to do your job better, and that someone is not even qualified to do that job, you'll also get angry.

erdojo 10y ago

Right person, wrong time, wrong approach. Kalanick was off the clock, clearly on his way home and in a social setting. The driver could have really capitalized on the moment. He could have opened a productive and respectful conversation by saying he was a very early driver and had some feedback - good and bad - asking to sit down at a more appropriate time. That had far more likelihood of achieving any progress. But maybe he didn't want progress. Maybe he just wanted the satisfaction of venting to the CEO.

dragontamer 10y ago

> Kalanick is the CEO. And the driver is not an employee. Yeah, I know this has been discussed a lot of times, but the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. And indeed: the loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?

matt4077 10y ago
> the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. Except, you know, "being a human" > loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. That's actually not that different from being an employee, where you can usually quit on short notice and start working somewhere else as well – at least on the lower end of the market. But it's wrong to consider these relationships as symmetrical in terms of power. Uber (or any employer) has vastly more power over an individual driver than the other way around. That's because loss of the gig can mean financial ruin for the driver, but the company wouldn't even notice it. That's why unions are needed to create a balance of power.
- computerex 10y ago
  I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    >Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
    - computerex 10y ago
      I don't think the actions are immoral. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. This is how capitalism works.
      - zepto 10y ago
        Yes, and being shamed for immoral acts is how society works. Capitalists need to either take that into account, or accept the consequences.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Even ignoring that, by that standard, he is among the worst human being ever with around -80 billions of "profit" so far... ...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard tools of corporate governance... ...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets. It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.
rhizome 10y ago
If you agree that the driver is not an employee, how do you think that would have played out if TravisK had blown him off on video? Do you think everybody would see it your way, and would that be fair of them to do?
- dragontamer 10y ago
  Honestly? If TravisK just walked away without discussion? Then there wouldn't be any story here. The story is that TravisK raised his voice while being secretly filmed by one of the drivers. There's no story about a CEO just leaving a cab.
st3v3r 10y ago
"there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation." Considering that, without the drivers, Uber doesn't have a product, I cannot agree with that statement. "Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?" For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. But given the news recently, that's far too much for anyone to expect.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. For the greater majority of Human History, slaves and concubines were normal. I have very little faith in what a "human being" can and should do.
- Trundle 10y ago
  >For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. I'm not sure what humans you're interacting with but the CEO of Uber acted just how I'd expect myself or any of the other people I know to act when confronted by someone being antagonistic while I'm trying to go home after an evening out. Be unhappy with him if you want but don't try to paint it as human. You either want the CEO of Uber to act like a politician or a saint, not a human.

1_2__3 10y ago

> He made a decision which affects this mans livelihood. You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you.

placeybordeaux 10y ago
It's not like he had a right to challenge him, he had an opportunity, which he took.
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Hypothetically, don't you think a world where you could do that would be better? Besides this isn't exactly indirect. There is a direct line from Kalanick's decisions to this mans paycheck.
orthecreedence 10y ago
> You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you. I believe the first amendment disagrees. If you have a grievance with someone, it is absolutely within your right to tell them. In fact, I'd argue that a healthy, functional society relies entirely on people being completely honest with each other.
random314 10y ago
> You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you. Where did you get that idea?
Aeolun 10y ago
Well, yes, you do. At least, there's generally no reason why you couldn't challenge them. No guarantee they'll listen.

calvinbhai 10y ago

I'd have agreed with your reasoning, if Uber was a charity. But its not. If Uber didn't cut prices, Lyft would have steamrolled Uber in 2013. So, Travis is not lying when he says "they had to drop prices". When someone tells you how to do your job better, and that someone is not even qualified to do that job, you'll also get angry.