Is it immoral not to participate in a strike organized by people you have no connection to, who work for different people, and who never consulted me?

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.

Broadly speaking, I hate the tendency to conflate "we expect you to hold this view" with "we expect you to take this action". There are some views that I think it's genuinely reasonable to expect of people, but claiming that those views create a right to redirect people's time and money to your tactics is a way higher bar to clear.

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.

Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. Sometimes, that happens to align with public or moral good. However, our only expectation should be that companies make decisions and take actions within the parameters prescribed by regulators. Anything they do beyond that is either a violation, and should be punished, or a secondary, unexpected benefit.

>>Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders.

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.

That's fair, and I certainly wasn't trying to analyze the business implications of Uber's maneuvering, simply that any decision made is 'usually' motivated by how it benefits a company's stakeholders.

I would agree that this seems to be the case almost always, but should it have to be that way?

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.

Right, I mean that's a separate debate, one that requires a lot of introspection re: capitalism, etc. I'm just answering your previous question; that no, we can't expect them to behave morally. However, to continue with your second comment, we're getting closer to the cause of the symptom.

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.