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.)
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.
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 In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.
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?
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.
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.
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.
or, ya'know, regulatory laws.
Now, on business side, image management is so important it's a huge industry. Many businesses have gone under or lost substantial money when their brands were tarnished by what potential buyers thought of them. Looks like they made another bad move on this front. Most Fortune 500 companies would at least pretend to care more than Uber does. Also in a way highly visible to customers.
- It also shows people/companies what a liability free drivers / unions are. Especially were there is a limit of available taxis (taxi badge).
- Individual taxis are being disrupted and facing competition from Lyft/Uber at the moment.
- the country is divided over support of Trump. Strikers may not be able to reply on a majority for support due to the political nature of the strike.
What's the difference??
This is also a political protest. Just because it's not against the U.S. government doesn't make it less so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I was going to work and some strangers told me not to because they were on strike, I'd tell them to get lost.
Uber took steps to help their affected drivers, and stated intent to raise the issue at meetings with Trump. They decided not to engage in the strike along with the taxi drivers. Somehow, what looks to me like a tactical disagreement got recast as proof that Uber doesn't care about immigrants.
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.
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.
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.
>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.)
Consumers could still vote with their dollars, as they should. If you think Uber did nothing wrong then feel free to continue using them.
This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??