You don't get to challenge everyone in your life who makes decisions that directly or indirectly affect you.
Where did you get that idea?
I believe the first amendment disagrees. If you have a grievance with someone, it is absolutely within your right to tell them. In fact, I'd argue that a healthy, functional society relies entirely on people being completely honest with each other.
And the driver is not an employee. Yeah, I know this has been discussed a lot of times, but the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation.
And indeed: the loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company.
Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?
Considering that, without the drivers, Uber doesn't have a product, I cannot agree with that statement.
"Its just the nature of how Uber has been set up. I understand the driver's frustration, but what more does the driver expect?"
For the CEO of Uber to act like a human being. But given the news recently, that's far too much for anyone to expect.
I'm not sure what humans you're interacting with but the CEO of Uber acted just how I'd expect myself or any of the other people I know to act when confronted by someone being antagonistic while I'm trying to go home after an evening out.
Be unhappy with him if you want but don't try to paint it as human. You either want the CEO of Uber to act like a politician or a saint, not a human.
For the greater majority of Human History, slaves and concubines were normal. I have very little faith in what a "human being" can and should do.
Except, you know, "being a human"
> loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company.
That's actually not that different from being an employee, where you can usually quit on short notice and start working somewhere else as well – at least on the lower end of the market.
But it's wrong to consider these relationships as symmetrical in terms of power. Uber (or any employer) has vastly more power over an individual driver than the other way around. That's because loss of the gig can mean financial ruin for the driver, but the company wouldn't even notice it.
That's why unions are needed to create a balance of power.
...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard tools of corporate governance...
...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets.
It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.
Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
The story is that TravisK raised his voice while being secretly filmed by one of the drivers. There's no story about a CEO just leaving a cab.
When someone tells you how to do your job better, and that someone is not even qualified to do that job, you'll also get angry.
Kalanick was off the clock, clearly on his way home and in a social setting. The driver could have really capitalized on the moment. He could have opened a productive and respectful conversation by saying he was a very early driver and had some feedback - good and bad - asking to sit down at a more appropriate time. That had far more likelihood of achieving any progress.
But maybe he didn't want progress. Maybe he just wanted the satisfaction of venting to the CEO.