> 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.

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 In this case, the strike was ineffective because there was enough competition/redundancy to cope with the withdrawn services.

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?

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.

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"

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?

> 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.

> 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.

> to distance themselves from the stodgy image

or, ya'know, regulatory laws.

That, too.

That's exactly what happened. Uber wasn't under any obligation to do a time- or money-wasting exercise started by third parties that didn't give a damn about them. It's not even likely to change what's going on given that starts in Washington with support of powerful people and the man's voters. So, no reason to take part in it for achieving a political goal.

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.

Things like this reply on having the power to cause disruption by withdrawing service. In this case, there are a number of downsides:

- 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.

>This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest.

What's the difference??

I think we could all agree by calling it a work-stoppage. To me they're basically all the same but a strike is generally a work stoppage intended to force management to in some way improve the employment environment whereas a political protest can and usually is directed outwards and occurs for any number of reasons.

> a strike is generally a work stoppage intended to force management to in some way

This is also a political protest. Just because it's not against the U.S. government doesn't make it less so.

There's nothing political about a contractual dispute between two private parties.

Yes, there is.