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.

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).

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.

But the people claiming Uber was stabbing don't even understand it. Scabbing is something done by individuals, in this case the Uber drivers.

>these common norms

Common to union supporters.

Also, abusing a unions' power to make a political statement rather than fight for the workers' rights is only weakening the union further. It's now less of a self defense mechanism and more of a mafia-esque bullying mechanism.

Don't you have to agree to a strike (or agree to be part of an organization that strikes) to be considered to be "breaking the strike"? Wasn't it taxi unions or collectives that decided to strike? Aren't Uber drivers (and Uber the corporation) not beholden in any way to the organizations which chose to strike? When the writer's guild decided to strike in 2007, that only applied to members of the WGA, not everyone who happened to do any work in that industry or a similar industry. Were bus drivers "breaking the strike"? How about pilots? Train engineers? Surely the fact that taxi organizations decided to strike doesn't mean that anyone involved in human transportation at the time was "breaking the strike."

Well, six entities: the three you mention plus each one with s/Uber/Lyft/, since Lyft was also picking up people from the airport during that time.

Your point still stands, of course. (Though I choose to avoid taking the moral high ground not by condemning all of those entities, but by refusing to condemn any of them, since I don't see any fault here.)

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.

Because we all live in one society?

Clearly we don't, at least for values of society that include this strike?

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

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.

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.

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?

That's not how Uber or Lyft works. Drivers drive whenever they feel like it.

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?

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.

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

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.

The end of the surge pricing wasn't until after the strike.

the timeline provided does not confirm this tho

lol it completely confirms it. The strike ended at 7pm, surge was lowered at 7:36pm.