They showed that from their very early days. If you supported the company until last year, then you supported their behavior as a whole. You cannot have your pie and eat it too.
To be specific: I am okay with them skirting regulatory procedures. I consider this an extension of "move fast and break things". I am not okay with their purportedly rampant sexual misconduct. It is morally reprehensible and has no business value.
Roping both types of conduct under "their behavior" is a step too far, IMO.
If there were any statement that is a good summation of tech culture hubris, it's "move fast and break things." You can not and, more appropriately, should not apply that to law as a basis for your business. If you are doing something illegal in your resident locale, then you are doing something illegal and reprehensible. Full stop.
If you feel that law is unjust, then fight it in a court of law. However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics. Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.
However, intentionally breaking that law with no intention of fighting it on its merits of being just but rather on the merits of preferred business operation is a pretty clear violation of ethics.
The two are not incompatible.
Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.
"Violating the law is illegal", says Captain Obvious.
>Regardless, the court's decision is ultimately what governs the upholding of a law. Being in violation of that is still illegal.
This is just a tautology.
Anyone who intentionally breaks the law has to meet a heavy burden of justification. The circumstances under which it's morally ok to do so are rare, and usually involve emergencies or deliberate protest (in which case the perpetrator has to be prepared to accept the consequences). You cannot just go around breaking whatever law happens to be impacting your bank balance at the present moment and then justify that behaviour merely by intoning the phrase "legality is not morality".
In any case, I think you meant "conflating", not "conflicting".
This is bad advice for companies like Uber. The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them.
It's also a fallacy that breaking the law is always morally reprehensible. Some laws are just stupid.
Does Uber pick the laws to break by their apparent stupidity? Or just by them being inconvenient for their money-making scheme?
> The laws were changed far, far quicker with them simply disregarding them than they would have been with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them.
Well, sure, just how like I could resolve a conflict with my associate by killing him much faster than it would take me to go through courts. But the very reason for laws to exist is to safeguard the needs of the whole. Just because a law is invonvenient to an individual or an organization, doesn't mean the law is stupid or obsolete.
> with them politely asking for them to be changed with the entire global taxi industry against them.
The funny thing is, there is no global taxi industry. There never was. It's only a collection of mostly unrelated city-wide operations. The only truly global player on the scene is Uber - and they use the fact they're the only global presence to their advantage, by raising absurd amounts of money from VCs and using it to conquer local markets, one by one.
I don't think there was any other way to break the system without a competitor coming in and breaking the law and showing people how much better taxis could be.
If that were the only law they broke, I'd be fine with it.
Encouraging citizens to break the law and then pay their legal fees and fines when they get in trouble is a little bit more than "skirting regulatory procedures"
Frankly, we're talking about Uber hurting the livelihood of and exploiting lots of people worldwide, all for the sake of profits (the whole talk about "disrupting entrenched legacy industry" was always a PR bullshit, as evidenced e.g. by them breaking any law they didn't like, and not just those helping "taxi mafias") - and comparing that to them hurting the feelings of a few employees.
Frankly, this pile-up on Uber because of Susan Fowler story feels like a case of "arson, murder, jaywalking"[0] to me. I do appreciate it nonetheless, because maybe this will be enough to reach critical mass and finally kill off their business.
--
[0] - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJay...
Not all jurisdictions limited the number of taxis (via "medallions"/etc). Arizona had a limited number of regulations to protect people from blatant dishonesty (inaccurate meters, background screening for drivers, etc). Large taxi companies were trusted to regulate themselves, or the department of weights & measures helped single-car companies certify their meter's accuracy & verify vehicle safety, etc.
I drove for a large company because they'd spent decades building a brand that people trusted. They took care of the regulations, provided a clean well-maintained vehicle, and made a little off my efforts. I considered it an acceptable arrangement.
The company changed its leasing operation to unmarked vehicles that drivers can use with any of the apps. Their contracts (Medicaid patients to/from appointments, etc) pay better than non-surge uber fares, and their app is cheaper for riders than the upstarts'.
When uber cab is dead and gone, no one in Arizona will care.