Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway. "Ok, so people are going to have trouble with airport transportation because of this immigration ban, so let's make it even harder by taking away from transportation options." They not only could have made it harder for those who did eventually manage to clear CBP to get home, but they also made it harder for protesters to get to and from the airport. If I were in charge of Uber's or Lyft's ability to shut down their service for the airport, I certainly wouldn't do that.

This is a fine example of a union strike harming people.

Regarding surge, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't": when they leave surge pricing up in these situations, they're blasted for profiteering, and now when they disable it, they're blasted for... what, exactly? Providing less of an incentive for drivers to go there?

View on HN

Well that's one way of looking at it. People apparently still could ride Uber and Lyft so they werent really impeding anyones travels to and from the airport.

Another is that NY Taxi which employs many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants were granted one hour of their time to stand up in solidarity for those immigrants being detained without risking their jobs. It's not a case of "union strike" since it's unrelated to labour it's simply a political action. You might not like it but calling their protest "poor taste" is just demeaning.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either:

a) You expect Uber/Lyft to take part in your strike, in which case you are impeding travel, or

b) You don't expect Uber/Lyft to take part, in which case no one should be coming down so hard on them for "breaking the strike".

I think it's great that NY Taxi gave their immigrant employees time to participate in the protests, but, they could have... y'know... just done that. Not called for a strike. I'm not sure where you're hearing that it wasn't a strike, though: seems like everyone here is convinced it was an actual labor action, as does the original article. Not saying that's the final word on the matter, but it's pretty confusing what went on, and it seems a bit crazy to call for this strike or non-strike or whatever it was, and then get pissed at Uber/Lyft for not participating.

I don't agree with you that my words are "demeaning". People's actions have consequences. If protesters had extra trouble getting to/from the airport due to the strike, then I consider that a bad consequence of the strike. If there was even the possibility that someone detained by the CBP could have been released during the strike and had trouble getting home because of the strike, then I think "poor taste" is a generous description of events.

I never claimed to hold either of those positions. Personally I think it's great that the taxi drivers of NY could display solidarity in this issue with the detained immigrants and their contempt for this clusterfuck of an Excecute Order. But I will not engage you in trying to collapse this argument into a squabble over trivial details. To echo another reply:

You don't understand protest.

The words in MLKs "Letter from a Birmingham jail" could hardly be more suitable to your chain of reasoning.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the ____ great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the ____ to wait for a'"more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."[0]

sources: [0] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

> This is a fine example of a union strike harming people.

IMHO every strike is about "harming people". That's the point. When the bus drivers in my city strike, they do it to cause mass inconvenience to get people to notice and get a message across.

In this case, my stance is they're harming the people they're intending to support/help.

I'm sort of baffled by your reasoning. You believe that they are "harming" the people by protesting with them?

I mean honestly, you think that one hour (not several hours as you posted) of protesting to show solidarity with the people being detained. One hour of looking the people you are trying to help in the eye and saying "We're with you! You are not alone." is somehow "harming" the people they're trying to help?

Maybe you feel that you can save the world behind a keyboard but most of us would, I think, disagree. You have to show support with actions, not just words.

I think the choice of actions matters too. If people aren't going to think seriously about the consequences of their actions instead of just going along for fear of being branded strikebreakers, I'd rather they limited themselves to words. At least that way they won't cause that much damage.

No opinion on the specific case, I just find your proposal overbroad.

> The taxi drivers' strike was in poor taste anyway.

Most taxi drivers are immigrants and many are refugees, whose families are directly affected by this ban; I'm sure your own personal notion of good taste was far from their minds.

Source on "Most taxi drivers are immigrants and many are refugees, whose families are directly affected by this ban"?

uh, going outside? I thought that was a 'sky is blue' level of common knowledge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com