Hacker News Reader

Comment by malloreon | Hacker News Reader

I'm a bit confused by the backlash at Uber. I saw the tweet saying they were suspending surge pricing to JFK. To me that make trips there less likely since drivers would make less.

Wouldn't that be a show of solidarity with the temporarily striking taxi drivers union?

I guess my question is, how does suspending surge pricing to JFK suggest Uber supports the executive order?

View on HN

They could have disabled all pickups at JFK in true solidarity.

I don't think disabling surge pricing is a show of solidarity. With Taxis striking, surge pricing would have skyrocketed. This feels more like Uber just wants to preempt an inevitable news story about how surge pricing hit 10x or something during the taxi strike, which would be bad PR.

The article did say that Uber is working with its affected drivers to provide legal assistance. So, again, they're just protecting themselves. The company has practically no moral compass.

Did Lyft or any other services disable all pickups at JFK in true solidarity?

Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?

This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company, including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK.

If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.

Uber has actively fought against allowing its drivers to unionize. The drivers' inability to organize and participate in strikes (esp. on such short notice) is in large part because of these actions.

I would have liked to see solidarity, but I am extremely uncomfortable vilifying any individual or company for simply choosing to not participate in a protest.

I heard about the SFO protests yesterday, and I largely support the cause, and I could have made it there in time to join. I didn't. Do you question my moral compass? Did I do something wrong? I know people who largely support the issues of the women's march, yet did not attend, or attended only part of the rally or march. Should they be vilified?

I think this is a scary idea. Not everyone can or has to actively join every protest to "prove" that they support the platform or "have a moral compass."

Kalanick spoke out against that EO and condemned it but I think people are angry at him because he was on Trump's advisors team to lobby the admin for favorable economic policies for his interests.

He miscalculated and discounted all the far-right baggage that comes with the Trump admin and therefore he has no one to blame for this misstep except himself.

Drivers don't know where they're going till the ride starts. I also don't think they can refuse to go to a destination without repercussions (i.e. Getting kicked out of Uber).

If anything, disabling surge pricing lessens the impact of a taxi strike as going to/from the airport is more affordable and convenient then having zero or pricier options.

It's not a show of solidarity - it is in fact the opposite. It's called scabbing.

It doesn't matter whether Uber actually supported the executive order any more than Lyft did. The idea is out there that they did, well-connected people are loudly talking about how they deleted their Uber accounts and you should too, and going against that marks you out as an evil Trump supporter. Welcome to post-truth politics. Even other claims that're clearly and unambiguously untrue has been winning out over the truth if it fits the narrative better. (For example, as someone pointed out on HN the list of countries elsewhere in favour of explanations that are outright contradicted by it like Trump's business interests.)

A taxi strike is intended to inconvenience people. Uber reducing prices for riders directly contradicts that. (But if I had to guess, I would guess that they were just trying to avoid stories like "Uber profits from Muslim Ban", not making any kind of political statement about it.)

> Uber profits from Muslim Ban.

Yes, This may well be the most important reason they did that. That PR would have far more disastrous for Uber.

No it doesn't. Uber reducing prices means that less drivers will be available, making it harder to get a ride.

There's supposed to be zero drivers available during a strike

There is no "supposed to". A strike is just people expressing there opinion through action. It is admirable, but there is no guarantee of success or support just because you a striking.

Zero taxi drivers, if it was a strike organized by taxi companies or taxi unions. The presence of Uber drivers, or bus drivers, or train engineers, etc. does not contradict or minimize a taxi strike. And a taxi strike does not obligate or even sugges that all other employees in the human transportation industry should strike. And lastly, Uber choosing to not strike does not imply that Uber or Uber drivers do not support the taxi strike or the cause of protesters.

Zero union drivers.

No-one outside their club needs to comply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com