Dan Primack summarised this well; Uber failed on messaging:
"Uber has done a lot of questionable things over the years, but its actions this past weekend vis-a-vis Trump's immigration ban weren't among them. An actual timeline from Saturday, which may differ from what you saw on social media:
• 4:20pm ET: CEO Travis Kalanick sent email to employees. It stopped short of explicitly opposing the ban, but did say: (1) The company would identify and compensate affected drivers. (2) Kalanick will raise the issue of how the "ban will impact many innocent people" this Friday during the first meeting of Trump's so-called CEO Council. This email was posted a short time later to Kalanick's public Facebook page.
• 4:55pm ET: NY Taxi Workers union called for a work stoppage at JFK airport from 6pm-7pm. Uber does not suspend its own service, but also does not send out any promotions.
• 7:36pm ET: Uber NYC sends out a tweet, saying that surge pricing to and from JFK has been turned off.
The claim that Uber was trying to 'break the strike' by sending out its surge pricing tweet is belied by the timing (i.e., sent after the strike was set to end). And while it is true that Kalanick has agreed to be on Trump's CEO council, it's also true that execs from both Uber and Lyft have agreed to sit on a new automation council set up by Trump's Department of Transportation. Either a pox on both their houses, or a pox on none.”
Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction.
The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.
Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral.
This is too transparent and Kalanick got caught trying to play both sides.
If he believes the Muslim ban and other policies of hate are immoral, he should loudly and publicly resign his position on the president's economic advisory group.
But if Kalanick continues to collaborate, then we know where he stands and we're free to delete Uber and use Lyft instead.
Right, and on Sunday he followed up by unambiguously calling the ban "wrong and unjust".[1] Which was also a fumble because it sounded like a reaction to the blowback.
Also interesting: Uber pledged $3M to help drivers right now. Lyft pledged just $250K/year.. to the ACLU (annual budget: $133M). But Uber lost that one too. People want war with Trump, not diplomacy.
As for turning off surge pricing, clearly it was after the strike and meant to reduce customer complaints about surge pricing after exceptional events. But it also means they were "effectively undercutting taxi drivers as they returned to work after protesting."[2] Another "Doh!" moment for Uber.
Can this app store download bump be judged independently of the fact that Lyft just expanded to a bunch of cities[1]? Lyft being available in all these cities would obviously give it a large bump.
Not sure why techcrunch doesn't mention that this may have NOTHING to do with the #deleteuber campaign.
All true, but Kalanick has built and traded on a reputation as a 'baller ' (his words, not mine) with a combative attitude, so he has himself to blame for people jumping to conclusions.
If Uber had 'picket-lined' a location (like JFK) against all pick-ups for a time period, that level of driver control could work against the preferred independent-contractor characterization of their driver-relationships. Whether the employer dictates the exact places, times, and manner of service is a part of that evaluation.
It also seems odd to have an employer dictate to its contractors (or even wage employees) to participate in a labor action, or political protest.
Shouldn't that be the workers' decision? Uber didn't force anyone to either do, or not do, JFK pickups.
The strike was nonsense anyway. Why were drivers striking -- punishing the innocent residents and visitors (and protestors/allies!) of New York (a sanctuary city!), in an attempt to punish Donald Trump?
So when was surge pricing actually shut off? Also I was more pissed about Uber's shit PR stunt that day than what happened at JFK.
Uber has pulled out of many cities rather than comply with their regulations(which cabs already had to follow) and left tens of thousands of drivers without jobs, sometimes overnight. The notion that they care about anyone stuck overseas is a joke.
Messaging indeed... Uber has sent a message that they give no fucks about their drivers a long time ago. This isn't the first or even the hundredth time Uber has done something terrible.
Let the tide of public opinion sink this shitty soulless company before were stuck with another Comcast for 20 years
well if they failed on messaging I think it's because
1. they've done a lot of questionable things over the years so when they did something that looks a little off on something that a lot of people are upset about then all those things they did in the past came back to haunt them.
2. if the message is we consider this a bad policy and we don't support it, they mumbled that message low enough that people might have thought they were saying something else.
The current political climate is such that there is so much blind anger on the liberal side about Trump that there is little room for nuance. Everything is either fighting for justice or is a tool of the Trump hate machine.
This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in the wrong.
Uber's Surge system is all automatic--if demand goes way up, and supply doesn't follow suit, prices will increase in the app. Unfortunately, demand goes way up during catastrophes like terror attacks, so Uber has had a few bad instances where, in the wake of a crisis, surge goes up, simply because of the way the system is set up.
People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril, which obviously isn't the case. To address cases like this, Uber put into place a surge shutoff system so that people in these positions aren't charged extra.
What happened here was that Uber, in the interest of avoiding another PR disaster, turned off surge to allow protesters (identifying with a cause which their CEO has openly supported) to get to the venue without extra charge. This backfired because that wasn't made clear in their announcement, and they instead came off as strike busters because the NYC taxi firms stupidly chose to express solidarity by shutting down the ability of protesters (not to mention uninvolved travelers) to get to and from the airport via their services.
I don't envy Uber--they're in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't position. It's maddening to see the #deleteUber hashtag get this much traction, especially given that Lyft also continued to operate during the strike, but c'est la vie.
It's funny to me how Lyft positions itself like the poor little underdog that deeply cares about humans. People are so susceptible to marketing it's crazy.
They provide the exact same service, and Lyft cloned most of uber's features once uber had achieved the unbelievable mindshift of changing people's behavior.
Whatever people think, in a few years if Lyft is popular enough, guess what: they too will become the "big evil capitalistic entreprise" and some new venture backed company will send a christmas email to their users telling them they love them and should all dance together on the beach.
Lyft sent me a political message in an email so I deleted Lyft and now don't have either one. I used them, because I thought they were nicer to the drivers and allowed me tip. And I support the refugees and think this is a stupid and dangerous ban. Oh and I was a bit in the same boat as some of them and on a few occasions was not allowed board the plane with a ticket in hand, and was not able to get home to US.
But Lyft is just a driving app nothing else. There are also a few games, a spectrogram utility and other crap. Should I expect my chess game to start sending me "OMG we so hate Trump, stand with us".
This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support statements...
This is an example of the economic principle of goodwill. Uber has a poor reputation that leads to actual losses, but the negative value of the reputation is difficult to quantify. Conversely, Lyft has fostered positive goodwill that strengthens it in indirect ways.
This controversy will likely blow over with a small amount of damage, but it's a reminder of the vulnerability that Uber's management style brings to it. I think they should pay careful attention to how much people really want to hate them.
Quite the PR coup by Lyft, since they were doing the exact same scabbing at JFK. In this waning neoliberal order, I hope the best protest people can muster is better than being deceived by most cunning brand.
Another reminder that emotion trumps (unintentional pun) reasoning on social media. I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories and separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a form of fake news.
You know what would be a good personal assistant or bot to build (using ML)? One that detects and informs users about fake news. Apparently the vast majority of people are pathetic at detecting fake news and this fact has real implications.
>I find it depressing that people don't spend any time verifying stories and separating facts from fiction. I would classify the #deleteuber event as a form of fake news.
The worst part is, this problem will only continue. It's so easy to fake news these days, and lets say a bot was built to vet authenticity...which bot do you trust, the one made by CNN or breitbart? it just feeds back to the original problem, except a bot doing it would just increase the volume of bias news stories that are "vetted" by their version of the truth.
It's worse than that - people don't care. I've seen people admit that something they post is fake, then say that they'll go on spreading it anyway. Even respectable, well-known members of the tech industry whose names most people here would recognize.
It's unfortunate that such a literal instance of hashtag activism was based on pure speculation by random people on Twitter. Uber definitely botched the messaging, but they were in a no-win situation.
Their surge pricing algorithm will raise prices in times of low supply and high demand, which a protest coinciding with a taxi strike will definitely hit. I can understand why they would want to announce that they're going to turn off surge pricing, to make it clear they're not trying to profit off of this situation.
In retrospect, they would've been better off not saying anything, and perhaps refunding some portion of the ride price later. By making a public post devoid of context or justification, they invited fired-up commenters to arrive at their own interpretation. Some felt that Uber was trying to break the taxi strike, some felt that Uber was incentivizing protesters to clear the airport quickly (as some have pointed out, rides to JFK were not discounted).
This coupled with impassioned public largely powerless to react against government action, made a private company which has stoked people's frustrations for a while an easy target for hashtag activism. Lyft's marketing was ingenious -- they quickly capitalized on this unexpected development by donating a million dollars to the ACLU -- actions that are commendable on their own, but definitely appealed to large segments of the population.
Yes. And then, Uber's CEO reminded everyone that he wasn't the only one working with the Trump administration, and Musk and others had too, and the dumb Twitter mob started running around accusing him of "snitching", as if that list wasn't already publicly available. It's so preposterous how gullible and hateful mobs are.
I'm no fan of Uber but come on, this is so stupid, and dangerous for Lyft, because now they are stuck into this kind of pandering. Do they really think these customers will be loyal? at the first political blunder, with enough outrage, they are done. They are pandering to a crowd that is never happy with political posturing. They'll learn it the hard way. Uber absolutely did the right thing here. They chose not to play with fire and play the long term game.
In the end, what really differentiates these companies? There aren't many reasons to pick one over the other. Any opportunity that Lyft has to say "Hey! We're different" is good for business.
Seems like Uber didn't really do anything wrong here other than fail on their messaging. Perhaps worth asking why so many people assumed they would be doing the wrong thing though and had little faith in Kalanick's explanations. Flocking to Lyft instead implies people make a distinction between the two in terms of ethics (which Lyft capitalized on) though probably not for any good reasons.
This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
> This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
That's how I felt about the situation. There were plenty of reasons already that I should've deleted Uber. It doesn't really matter if this was the reason to delete Uber, so much as it was a reminder to finally get around to it.
There is no reason to punish or berate some person/entity/company for NOT participating in a strike. It would only make sense if the company openly tried to take advantage of the strike or attempted to stop or disturb the strike.
It was the Taxi Worker's Union that participated in the Strike, not Cab companies.
Is it really fare for Uber to force their contractors to stop working and making money in "solidarity" with this union? If Uber drivers wanted to support the strike, they could have stopped doing pick ups.
What do the people flying into the airport have to do with the Muslim ban?
The taxi industry is sickening, they feel no empathy towards the people travelling, then why should I feel any empathy towards them?
If angry taxi drivers want to do protests, there are ways to do it without harming innocent people travelling in. If they resort to such a thing, how can they claim moral high ground?
Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.
This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works. And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
This has nothing to do with "angry taxi drivers". This is about making "the innocent people traveling" feel as stuck as the innocent people affected by Trumps order.
"The Taxi Workers Alliance had asked all drivers, Uber included, to not pick up at JFK"
Uber isn't a driver. What does the taxi workers alliance have to say about taxi dispatchers? Did cab companies participate in the strike? For a company to do this might very well be illegal collusion. Individuals can strike, companies aren't as well protected.
I'm curious about how taxi drivers are viewed in the US or this specific region. In Turkey, they're mostly hated, because they will go to any length to extort money out of the customers. This ranges from picking longer roads if they detect that the customer doesn't know the area well to asking for 500 euros to even pick them up after terrorist attacks. So, Uber was seen as the savior as their drivers wouldn't try to do any of this and were generally nicer in people's experience (it really doesn't take much to be nicer than a taxi driver here).
That perfectly timed million dollar donation to ACLU was marketing genius. I can't imagine how you go about making a decision like that and quickly pull the trigger in such a fast paced volatile environment.
these types of events usually blow over in a month or so. but it does confirm what everyone already knows: ride hailing apps have no stickiness. at the end of the day no one cares what service provides the car.
Can someone please help me understand why traditional taxis haven't adapted the same tech as Lyft and Uber? You're right, there really is no moat. Tech is mostly a big ol database. Is it due to disjointure among small companies?
Why protest an issue that affects innocent people by creating another issue that affects innocent people? This is not persuasive and only leads to further disagreement against the actual movement. Creating more friction is not the way to motivate change.
Immigration/border officials going on strike and refusing to follow the ban order would be much more effective.
It will be most interesting to see whether Kalanick follows through with his promise to discuss the EO with Trump [0], and whether having a seat at Trump's shiny business table actually amounts to anything. If it does not, it proves that the council only serves as a prop to promote Trump. This administration is not beyond using cheap props for marketing purposes. [1]
If the council holds no actual sway, Kalanick should then visibly and publicly resign from it if he truly stands behind his commitment to fairness. I'm withholding judgement until then.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
"Uber has done a lot of questionable things over the years, but its actions this past weekend vis-a-vis Trump's immigration ban weren't among them. An actual timeline from Saturday, which may differ from what you saw on social media:
• 4:20pm ET: CEO Travis Kalanick sent email to employees. It stopped short of explicitly opposing the ban, but did say: (1) The company would identify and compensate affected drivers. (2) Kalanick will raise the issue of how the "ban will impact many innocent people" this Friday during the first meeting of Trump's so-called CEO Council. This email was posted a short time later to Kalanick's public Facebook page.
• 4:55pm ET: NY Taxi Workers union called for a work stoppage at JFK airport from 6pm-7pm. Uber does not suspend its own service, but also does not send out any promotions.
• 7:36pm ET: Uber NYC sends out a tweet, saying that surge pricing to and from JFK has been turned off.
The claim that Uber was trying to 'break the strike' by sending out its surge pricing tweet is belied by the timing (i.e., sent after the strike was set to end). And while it is true that Kalanick has agreed to be on Trump's CEO council, it's also true that execs from both Uber and Lyft have agreed to sit on a new automation council set up by Trump's Department of Transportation. Either a pox on both their houses, or a pox on none.”
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.
[+] [-] panarky|9 years ago|reply
Kalanick is playing a double game, collaborating with the Trump administration on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to be seen as moral.
This is too transparent and Kalanick got caught trying to play both sides.
If he believes the Muslim ban and other policies of hate are immoral, he should loudly and publicly resign his position on the president's economic advisory group.
But if Kalanick continues to collaborate, then we know where he stands and we're free to delete Uber and use Lyft instead.
[+] [-] abalone|9 years ago|reply
Also interesting: Uber pledged $3M to help drivers right now. Lyft pledged just $250K/year.. to the ACLU (annual budget: $133M). But Uber lost that one too. People want war with Trump, not diplomacy.
As for turning off surge pricing, clearly it was after the strike and meant to reduce customer complaints about surge pricing after exceptional events. But it also means they were "effectively undercutting taxi drivers as they returned to work after protesting."[2] Another "Doh!" moment for Uber.
[1] https://newsroom.uber.com/standing-up-for-the-driver-communi...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/lyft-an...
[+] [-] pj_mukh|9 years ago|reply
Not sure why techcrunch doesn't mention that this may have NOTHING to do with the #deleteuber campaign.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/25/lyft-expands-to-40-new-u-s...
[+] [-] anigbrowl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|9 years ago|reply
If Uber had 'picket-lined' a location (like JFK) against all pick-ups for a time period, that level of driver control could work against the preferred independent-contractor characterization of their driver-relationships. Whether the employer dictates the exact places, times, and manner of service is a part of that evaluation.
It also seems odd to have an employer dictate to its contractors (or even wage employees) to participate in a labor action, or political protest.
Shouldn't that be the workers' decision? Uber didn't force anyone to either do, or not do, JFK pickups.
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didibus|9 years ago|reply
Lyft took a very public opposition stance and committed to give 1 000 000$ to support an advocacy group.
And this isn't necessarily a stance against Trump, but just this particular executive order.
[+] [-] cdmckay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mempko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autokad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaydbfif|9 years ago|reply
Uber has pulled out of many cities rather than comply with their regulations(which cabs already had to follow) and left tens of thousands of drivers without jobs, sometimes overnight. The notion that they care about anyone stuck overseas is a joke.
Messaging indeed... Uber has sent a message that they give no fucks about their drivers a long time ago. This isn't the first or even the hundredth time Uber has done something terrible.
Let the tide of public opinion sink this shitty soulless company before were stuck with another Comcast for 20 years
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|9 years ago|reply
1. they've done a lot of questionable things over the years so when they did something that looks a little off on something that a lot of people are upset about then all those things they did in the past came back to haunt them.
2. if the message is we consider this a bad policy and we don't support it, they mumbled that message low enough that people might have thought they were saying something else.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _andromeda_|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iiiggglll|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hueving|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxLeiter|9 years ago|reply
This is all a consequence of bad messaging on Uber's part here; they're not in the wrong.
Uber's Surge system is all automatic--if demand goes way up, and supply doesn't follow suit, prices will increase in the app. Unfortunately, demand goes way up during catastrophes like terror attacks, so Uber has had a few bad instances where, in the wake of a crisis, surge goes up, simply because of the way the system is set up.
People who don't know about how Surge works might assume that Uber is deliberately raising prices in these crisis zones to gouge people in peril, which obviously isn't the case. To address cases like this, Uber put into place a surge shutoff system so that people in these positions aren't charged extra.
What happened here was that Uber, in the interest of avoiding another PR disaster, turned off surge to allow protesters (identifying with a cause which their CEO has openly supported) to get to the venue without extra charge. This backfired because that wasn't made clear in their announcement, and they instead came off as strike busters because the NYC taxi firms stupidly chose to express solidarity by shutting down the ability of protesters (not to mention uninvolved travelers) to get to and from the airport via their services.
I don't envy Uber--they're in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't position. It's maddening to see the #deleteUber hashtag get this much traction, especially given that Lyft also continued to operate during the strike, but c'est la vie.
[+] [-] nichochar|9 years ago|reply
They provide the exact same service, and Lyft cloned most of uber's features once uber had achieved the unbelievable mindshift of changing people's behavior.
Whatever people think, in a few years if Lyft is popular enough, guess what: they too will become the "big evil capitalistic entreprise" and some new venture backed company will send a christmas email to their users telling them they love them and should all dance together on the beach.
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
But Lyft is just a driving app nothing else. There are also a few games, a spectrogram utility and other crap. Should I expect my chess game to start sending me "OMG we so hate Trump, stand with us".
This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phone start emailing me political support statements...
[+] [-] rm999|9 years ago|reply
This controversy will likely blow over with a small amount of damage, but it's a reminder of the vulnerability that Uber's management style brings to it. I think they should pay careful attention to how much people really want to hate them.
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/2...
[+] [-] ploggingdev|9 years ago|reply
You know what would be a good personal assistant or bot to build (using ML)? One that detects and informs users about fake news. Apparently the vast majority of people are pathetic at detecting fake news and this fact has real implications.
[+] [-] kkhire|9 years ago|reply
The worst part is, this problem will only continue. It's so easy to fake news these days, and lets say a bot was built to vet authenticity...which bot do you trust, the one made by CNN or breitbart? it just feeds back to the original problem, except a bot doing it would just increase the volume of bias news stories that are "vetted" by their version of the truth.
[+] [-] 3131s|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makomk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cocktailpeanuts|9 years ago|reply
The real problem is people becoming idiots and sharing stuff they want to believe even though they question whether it's fake or not.
[+] [-] niftich|9 years ago|reply
Their surge pricing algorithm will raise prices in times of low supply and high demand, which a protest coinciding with a taxi strike will definitely hit. I can understand why they would want to announce that they're going to turn off surge pricing, to make it clear they're not trying to profit off of this situation.
In retrospect, they would've been better off not saying anything, and perhaps refunding some portion of the ride price later. By making a public post devoid of context or justification, they invited fired-up commenters to arrive at their own interpretation. Some felt that Uber was trying to break the taxi strike, some felt that Uber was incentivizing protesters to clear the airport quickly (as some have pointed out, rides to JFK were not discounted).
This coupled with impassioned public largely powerless to react against government action, made a private company which has stoked people's frustrations for a while an easy target for hashtag activism. Lyft's marketing was ingenious -- they quickly capitalized on this unexpected development by donating a million dollars to the ACLU -- actions that are commendable on their own, but definitely appealed to large segments of the population.
[+] [-] concinds|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaw181ay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wan23|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ejlangev|9 years ago|reply
This doesn't seem like a good reason to delete Uber but there have been plenty of those in the past so I don't find myself very sad to see them lose business.
[+] [-] ncallaway|9 years ago|reply
That's how I felt about the situation. There were plenty of reasons already that I should've deleted Uber. It doesn't really matter if this was the reason to delete Uber, so much as it was a reminder to finally get around to it.
[+] [-] FT_intern|9 years ago|reply
There is no reason to punish or berate some person/entity/company for NOT participating in a strike. It would only make sense if the company openly tried to take advantage of the strike or attempted to stop or disturb the strike.
Inaction should not be considered as malice
[+] [-] tofu_icecream|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badwulf|9 years ago|reply
The taxi industry is sickening, they feel no empathy towards the people travelling, then why should I feel any empathy towards them?
If angry taxi drivers want to do protests, there are ways to do it without harming innocent people travelling in. If they resort to such a thing, how can they claim moral high ground?
[+] [-] azernik|9 years ago|reply
This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works. And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.
[+] [-] maaaats|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kevinpet|9 years ago|reply
Uber isn't a driver. What does the taxi workers alliance have to say about taxi dispatchers? Did cab companies participate in the strike? For a company to do this might very well be illegal collusion. Individuals can strike, companies aren't as well protected.
[+] [-] doguozkan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foolfoolz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillingeffect|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewmchen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway5752|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manigandham|9 years ago|reply
Immigration/border officials going on strike and refusing to follow the ban order would be much more effective.
[+] [-] omegaworks|9 years ago|reply
If the council holds no actual sway, Kalanick should then visibly and publicly resign from it if he truly stands behind his commitment to fairness. I'm withholding judgement until then.
0. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-will...
1. http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/201...