Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by alphonsegaston | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

alphonsegaston

Uber also sent scabs to break up the taxi strike in support of the refugees at JFK. Even shut off surge pricing.

EDIT: Including link to news story as proof:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-af...

View on HN

Shutting off surge pricing... reduces the disincentive to strike. Drivers get paid more when surge pricing is on.

It was Uber's competition striking, right? Disabling surge pricing when they'd otherwise have it seems like a way of capitalizing on the strike. That kind of thing is generally frowned upon in the labor movement.

I'm speculating, though! I don't know much about the Delete Uber thing; I'm as curious as everyone else is about it.

No idea who actually went on strike but the call to do so included Uber drivers, if you read the article.

If there's a shortage of rides in any event, turning off surge pricing is not a way to maximize income. Makes no sense.

No, your assessment is correct. They also went on their NYC social media accounts to advertise that they were still running from JFK at reduced prices (since everyone expected surge pricing to be in effect). There was some initial confusion that Uber might be striking in solidarity with Taxi drivers, but they made sure to clear that up.

Surge pricing is often derided as price gouging.

Uber has turned off surge pricing in the past during unexpected events (such as the New York bombing), so as to not be seen as profiting off unfortunate events.

This seems to have been done under the same principles.

(Whether one agrees with the policy is not too relevant. The subject of price increases during disasters has always been a controversial one, even before Uber, and that's a debate for game theorists and ethicists.)

So by your logic, the strike in support of refugees is an unfortunate event they're trying to avoid profiting from. And they're trying not to profit from it by...breaking the strike and advertising that they're doing so?

Like I said, it's a matter of debate as to whether raising prices during an unfortunate circumstance is ethical.

Regardless of which choice Uber makes, they are open to criticism. There could have been articles right now about how Uber is profiting because of the strike by raising rates.

All I'm pointing out is that their action is consistent with how they've handled previous unexpected surges which had potential for bad PR.

How ethical raising prices is under these circumstances is not what is at question. I don't know why you keep raising this.

To be clear, Uber broke a strike in support of the immigrants and refugees, advertising that they were doing so. Taxis drivers stood in solidarity with the immigrants and refugees by halting service in and out of JFK. Uber sent drivers there. Surge pricing was just an implementation detail of their being scabs.

If you want to argue on behalf of Uber breaking this strike, please, go ahead.

Why should the taxi union's decision to strike impose an obligation to strike on others who are not part of the union and had no input in the decision to strike?

There's no obligation. Just a choice to make about with whom one holds solidarity. The taxi drivers made a choice and so did Uber.

That's fair.

Turning off surge pricing turns drivers away, it doesn't send them there

Now analyze the demand side. Same conclusion?

The surge thing is just the grease, the main thing is serving JFK at all.

Isnt also having surge pricing active seen as capitalising on the strike?

It's long been Uber's policy to disable surge pricing during 'disasters' like this, so I'm not really seeing the need for outrage here. Sure, people can be upset that Uber isnt taking place in the strike, but I don't see anything wrong with disabling surge pricing.

Even if they didn't stop surge pricing, they announced they were serving the airport after the taxis had announced their strike.

So what? I don't think its entirely fair to criticise Uber for not participating in the strike when they never said they would. Busses and other transport operators still ran.

Sure, you can prefer that they did strike as well, but theres certainly no obligation for them to and the reaction was too much over the top.

Life ain't fair, I don't see why Uber should be immune to this. In another context we would say they misjudged the market.

This era of "disruptive innovation" has been in no small part cultural cover for renewed old-school exploitation.

Would not surge pricing encourage drivers to pick up more passengers at the airport? Therefore by disabling surge pricing, Uber drivers have less motivation to be "scabs" by picking up people at the airport?

See tptacek's comment on this thread and my response to it.

I'm genuinely confused about the taxi strike: How does not driving passengers help?

It shows how important Muslims are to the daily working of society in NYC.

That makes sense, although then it seems to me that it'd have been better to strike within Manhattan and keep servicing the airport.

To be fair to Uber, whether or not those drivers went to JFK was entirely optional. I don't think the taxi companies started the strike at JFK.

Jesus that's low. It's hard to even imagine a company making a political statement like that. Fuck Uber, the new Comcast

How is this "low"? I'm genuinely confused here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com