As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that.
I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more.
Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber.
In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen.
I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.