[Tactic]

I have spoke up in similar situations several times at a number of companies. Not once was what I said a revelation or surprise. The business people knew already what the possible results would be. They had assessed it and decided to move on regardless. Clearly the potential results were worth the risk in their assessment.

I have learned that my code of ethics are just not the same as a number of business persons'. This may explain, in part, why I have two failed businesses.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Unfortunately, we reward bad behavior by not having the hammer be swung down hard and fast.

Look at the ridesharing companies, all of them started by defying local laws. Couple of people get assaulted here and there, doesn't matter as long as Silicon Valley gets it's money.

[bobthepanda]

The hammer swings down fast in some cases. Look at Robin Hood's checking account debacle. The SEC, FDIC and SPIC do not play around.

The problem is where regulations are enforced. At state level results may vary. At local level very few jurisdictions can out-battle a company with millions or billions in VC funding. Uber blocked local regulators in Portland from blocking rides: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-portland/portland-pr...

[CamperBob2]

At some point, it becomes impossible to argue that taxi regulations were actually benefiting the public. Civil disobedience is a valid option in such cases, whether your name is Travis Kalanick or Rosa Parks.

[bobthepanda]

Uber and Lyft are hardly Rosa Parks. They mostly use their size to bully around smaller localities that can’t handle the pressure.

If they truly believed that taxi regulations were onerous they’d fight them wherever they exist. Uber and Lyft left Austin in protest because they felt a fingerprinting requirement was too onerous, and they didn’t come back until Texas overruled them; but they already comply with such a regulation in New York! And this is before we get into their other controversies, like Uber India obtaining a customer’s medical report after she got raped in one of their cars.

[CamperBob2]

Uber and Lyft are hardly Rosa Parks. They mostly use their size to bully around smaller localities that can’t handle the pressure.

Which would never have worked if customers were satisfied with existing solutions.

If they truly believed that taxi regulations were onerous they’d fight them wherever they exist

It can take decades to correct the law if you insist on playing by its own rules, especially given the historical corruption associated with taxi regulation. As Americans, we have a cultural responsibility to resist unjust laws... and at least IMHO, taxi regulations fall squarely into that category.

[8ytecoder]

And riders get their cheap rides. Why are we not blaming the customers who can simply choose an alternative even if it's less convenient. We don't need Uber or Lyft or Instacart or Door dash. Why are these companies even in business after breaking laws repeatedly and with impunity? May be there lies the answer. If customers don't care enough to put a dent why would the business people care about it?

[dv_dt]

The customers don't have perfect information of a company's full behavior and dealings. Fully checking every company you ever interact with would be exhausting and nonproductive - so people rely on news and word of mouth, but even then the information doesn't reach every potential customer.

Companies that facilitate business checking, have their own problems too. E.g. yelp, BBB, et al.

[8ytecoder]

These infractions have been in the news forever though. I agree with you but this is not either or. Yes, the business decisions have to be better but when there's no blowback - nothing material at least - why would we think the behavior will change?

[nostrademons]

I've spoken up and actually had decisions reversed (or at least dropped), but I did so with hard data that the "better" (ethically) decision didn't materially hurt the bottom line, or that there were other actions we could take that would win back any lost revenue.

I've never known a company to make the ethical call when doing so materially hurts their earnings. To do so (and have it made public) would invite a shareholder lawsuit, so even if they did, they'd always couch it in language around long-term profitability or retaining employees. (Like Google did when they pulled out of China the first time, or when they repriced options for all their employees in 2009.) If you want companies to do the right thing, figure out how to become powerful enough that you can hold a metaphorical gun to their heads; their is no such thing as a "right thing" in business beyond that.