Profit or principles? The story of #DeleteUber
Should we #DeleteUber?
Yesterday #DeleteUber started tending on Twitter. Not because of the way they treat their drivers or unfair surge pricing or the threat to "traditional" taxi drivers, but because they had broken an anti-Trump strike.
While the NY Taxi Workers Alliance joined the protest against the #MuslimBan and suspended pickups from JFK in solidarity, Uber announced it was continuing to service the airport and had turned off surge pricing.
What happened next may be played out many times during the Trump administration as big businesses are forced to choose sides and decide whether to follow profit or principles.
First, #DeleteUber started trending with many deleting their accounts and giving no-holds-barred feedback:
Next, Lyft - a rival ridesharing app - posted a couple of tweets from one of their founders, making it clear which side of the fence they were on:
Cue several responses like this:
Five hours after its "strike-breaking" tweet, Uber then tried to repair the damage and tweeted a link to a Facebook post of an internal email (are you still following?) from their CEO:
Many innocent people would be impacted, said Travis Kalanick in his tweet/Facebook post/internal email, and also promised to bring it up when he meets Trump at the end of the week as part of his business advisory group. His sign-off that "It's the magic of living in America that people are free to disagree," probably gave little comfort to the families driven apart by Trump's policy.
Next, Lyft cemented its position by emailing all its customers to again state that it disagrees with Trump's policy AND it was putting its money where it's mouth is by donating $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union over the next four years.
What's interesting here is that they chose to send an email to their existing customers rather than making a public statement. Of course, all their users rushed to screenshot and share the email on social media, but because the story came from them, Lyft sidestepped (mostly) any accusations of opportunism. It was only later that Lyft published a short blog called Defending Our Values.
So, what to make of all this?
Should people who don't support Trump delete their Uber accounts because Uber "broke the strike" and because their CEO is part of Trump's cosy advisory group? What about the thousands of Uber drivers and their families who could suffer lost income as a result?
Should Lyft capitalise on its rival's position? Is every political protest also a marketing and PR opportunity? Should we even care what our brand of transport or entertainment or toothpaste has to say about it?
And should CEOs like Travis Kalanick join formal groups created to advise Trump? Many of Uber's own employees have denounced the link as embarrassing and called it out as a "pragmatic capitalist" move designed to protect the company against any legislation that could hinder its growth plans. Uber's own CTO Thuan Pham sent out an internal email calling Trump an "ignoramus" and warning that "things will get very ugly before his reign is over." He also rallies employees that "There is much work that we can do to help make this world a better place, through what we do here at work and in our society."
“There is much work that we can do to help make this world a better place, through what we do here at work and in our society.”
For Uber employees who are anti-Trump, is it better to stay and engage from the inside, or to turn their back on the company and work for Lyft or another business more aligned to their values? There have already been several well-documented resignations from businesses in Trump's advisory group.
For big businesses, is it better to have the ear of Trump and risk alienating many potential customers, or to engage with him (and endear yourself to another group of prospects), regardless of ethical disagreement.
And for consumers, should we boycott brands that don't share our standpoint? I haven't deleted my Uber app. Yet.
