• Mike Isaac - Super Pumped The Battle for Uber
    https://www.mike-isaac.com
    Lesenswert

    “The first thing to know about Mike Isaac’s new book is that it’s wildly entertaining. But it’s also a very important read, because Isaac shows how Uber’s messy inner workings and dramatic power struggles have made a company that, for better and worse, is now part of the fabric of modern life.”

    ISBN 978-0-393-65224-6

    #deleteUber #Uber #Taxi #USA

  • Over 200,000 people deleted Uber after #deleteUber - Business Insider
    https://www.businessinsider.de/over-200000-people-deleted-uber-after-deleteuber-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

    Même les géants du web sont vulnérables aux conséquences des mouvements sociaux surtout quand elles sont bien orchestrés.

    3.02.2017 - More than 200,000 people deleted their Uber accounts after a weekend of outrage aimed at the ride-hailing company, according to The New York Times.

    Furious Uber riders had deleted the app after the company continued operating its service at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Saturday, creating the perception that it was undermining a taxi strike in protest of President Trump’s immigration ban.

    Dans son nouveau livre Super Pumped The Battle for Uber Mike Isaac raconte comment la campagne #deleteuber lancée par un seul militant a couté des millions à la plateforme #Uber.

    Super Pumped The Battle for Uber, Mike Isaac, W. W. Norton Company, 2019, ISBN 978-0-393-65224-6

    Chapter 21
    #DELETEUBER

    As Travis fought his way onto the Trump business advisory council, a Chicago tech worker named Dan O’Sullivan still believed Donald Trump was full of shit.
    The president spent his entire first week arguing with the press over the size of his inauguration crowd. (“The biggest ever inauguration audience!” Trump’s press office announced, an obviously false statement.) Trump was a buffoon, O’Sullivan thought, an idiot foisted upon the office by an electorate poisoned by Fox News. By the time he left office, O’Sullivan prayed, Trump would be thwarted by his advisors and accomplish little of what he promised on the stump in 2016.

    The Long Island–born son of a nurse and an Irish telephone lineman, Dan O’Sullivan grew up worlds away from Trump’s gold-plated tower in Manhattan. He was proud of his blue-collar background. His great-great-uncle, Mike Quill, co-founded the Transport Workers Union in New York City back in 1934. Quill’s ties to the Communist Party earned him the nickname “Red Mike.” On the night of his sister’s birth, O’Sullivan’s father was out on strike with fellow linemen in the Communication Workers Union.

    After kicking around schools in Long Island and Maine, Dan O’Sullivan landed in Chicago, a place he liked though knew little about. At six-foot-three and pushing 220 pounds, O’Sullivan looked like a different kind of lineman—more Chicago Bear than Bell Atlantic like his father. He picked up a Chicago accent quickly, cutting short his “U’s” and “A’s.” His nasally vowels gave many the mistaken impression he was a native Chicagoan.

    O’Sullivan dreamed of being a writer, and started freelancing political pieces for Gawker, Jacobin, and other left-leaning outlets. To pay the bills, he landed in a call center at a tech company, a lower-level peon answering angry customer support questions. The work was depressing, but he spent his off-hours pursuing his passion, hustling for opportunities to write.

    More vivid than his dreary call center job was O’Sullivan’s digital life on Twitter. He mostly used it to follow political accounts and news and to connect with other writers. He started chatting with other leftists and joking around with people who began as anonymous avatars in his Twitter feed, then slowly grew to become his online friends. Even as Dan despaired at Trump’s popularity and success, at least he could make fun of Trump’s buffoonery with his friends on Twitter.

    O’Sullivan cherished his digital anonymity. He was opinionated and crass on Twitter, and knew his obscenities towards Trump might not please his employer. And if he had to find a new job, some of the esoteric, vulgar in-jokes he shared with Twitter friends wouldn’t thrill a recruiter.

    Still, Twitter was worth it. He chose a handle for himself, a pun his online friends could remember him by: @Bro_Pair.

    The order came as night fell on Friday, January 27, a week after Trump took the oath of office. Effective immediately, Trump was closing the nation’s borders. Singling out predominantly Muslim countries, he barred refugees from places like Syria, which was in the midst of a violent civil war that was driving thousands to seek asylum from potential slaughter.

    “We don’t want them here,” Trump said, referring to so-called “radical Islamic terrorists”—his name for Muslims—during the signing ceremony. “We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country, and love deeply our people.”

    Trump had presaged such a proposal at the end of 2015 on the campaign trail, in which he called for a complete restriction of all Muslims from entering the United States as a response to bloody terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California and Paris, France. Christians and other religious practitioners, he said, should be granted immigration priority over Muslims seeking asylum. The Muslim ban played extremely well at rallies. Trump’s base loved it. At the time, of course, politicians from both parties condemned the idea as inhumane and unconstitutional. But the outrage at the time passed almost as quickly as it arrived.

    Now it was 2017, Donald Trump was the president of the United States, and he was following through with a campaign promise. Among ardent Trump opponents like Dan O’Sullivan, the Muslim Ban brought forth all of the rage that had simmered since November 9. The announcement confirmed that Trump would be every bit as monstrous as they had imagined.

    That energy wasn’t squandered. Millions of people across the country rushed to airports and other places where immigrants seeking asylum might be turned away by the TSA, ICE, or other federal agencies. Thousands of lawyers arrived clad in neon yellow hats and T-shirts to offer pro bono legal advice to immigrants stuck in limbo. Throngs of protesters flooded baggage claim areas and TSA security lines with chants of outrage against Trump, carrying hastily written cardboard signs and posters with pro-immigrant messages.

    As the protests continued through Friday night and into Saturday morning, the Muslim community of taxi drivers in New York banded together to strike at the airport, in part to show solidarity, and also to give America a glimpse of the country without Muslim workers. “NO PICKUPS @ JFK Airport 6 PM to 7 PM today,” the New York Taxi Workers Alliance posted to its Twitter account shortly after 2:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon. “Drivers stand in solidarity with thousands protesting inhumane & unconstitutional #MuslimBan.”

    As taxi workers organized, employees in Uber’s New York office watched and began to worry. People were traveling to airports in droves, often using Uber to get there. JFK was slammed, its terminals were drawing one of the largest crowds in the country that weekend. If passengers kept Ubering to JFK in large numbers, Uber’s “surge pricing” would kick in. That meant people would be charged multiples of the base fare—two, three, four times as much or even greater—just to go and protest. Managers in New York and San Francisco could predict the negative headlines if surge pricing kicked in: big bad Uber fleecing honest citizens during a humanitarian protest.

    Uber didn’t need that headache now. A manager in San Francisco gave New York the all-clear to turn off surge pricing for Uber trips to JFK. Later that evening, @Uber_NYC sent a tweet: “Surge pricing has been turned off at #JFK Airport. This may result in longer wait times,” the tweet read. “Please be patient.”

    The tweet would end up costing Uber millions.

    O’Sullivan couldn’t believe what he was seeing.
    Election night had broken him. He wrote a final piece for the leftist magazine Jacobin on the Trump victory—a half-delirious meditation on Trumpism and the forces it took to bring America to propel such a man to victory—and subsequently swore off political writing for good. He wandered the empty streets of Chicago in a stupor after the race was called, sensing a deep depression coming on, one that would carry into 2017 and add another ten pounds to his frame.

    The swearing-in ceremony in January was painful to watch. He winced as the group of tycoons and robber barons surrounded Trump at the Capitol, celebrating the triumph of evil over good. The travel ban carried out less than a week later seemed sadistic to him. The cruel execution of the announcement perfectly symbolized Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon—two of Trump’s most xenophobic, nationalistic advisors—and their desire to inflict pain on immigrants.

    But O’Sullivan felt a glimmer of hope as the news reported crowds of people gathering at the airport to protest Trump’s unjust ban. Thousands of other people like him, fed up with fear and anger, were fighting the administration through protest, one of the most American acts there is. And as @Bro_Pair, he scanned his Twitter account and monitored chatter from reporters, newspapers, and his digital friends who, too, were speaking out against the president. As Saturday wore on, @Bro_Pair noticed a tweet from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance scroll through his Twitter feed, noting their strike on the JFK airport. He appreciated the solidarity.

    A few minutes later, he noticed another tweet—this one from Uber, claiming it was shutting off surge pricing at JFK.

    Up until that point, O’Sullivan had never really liked Uber. He had passively followed its various controversies; everyone in tech did. To the leftist O’Sullivan, Travis Kalanick was an avatar of Silicon Valley’s capitalist id, concerned only with user and revenue growth, not the lives of everyday workers like himself. He used Uber occasionally—it was, after all, a great product and very convenient—but always felt guilty afterwards.

    But at that moment, seeing Uber’s tweet pass through his feed, he saw it as an act of subversion—a betrayal of solidarity. O’Sullivan and others interpreted Uber’s tweet as company trying to profit off the backs of striking cab workers, a cash grab during a vulnerable public moment. Even beyond the immediate circumstances, the tweet reminded him of his larger ideological grievances towards Uber, and the core of how its business operates. The contract-based labor model that eschewed directly employing drivers. The campaigns against drivers who wanted to unionize. To him, this faceless, monolithic tech company would never defend its Muslim cab drivers. O’Sullivan couldn’t pinpoint whether it was his deep, familial ties to organized labor, the frustration he felt towards his shitty call center tech job, or the deep-seated need to fight back against Trump. He just snapped: he had had it with Uber.

    Sitting alone in his cold apartment in the dead of a Chicago winter, he started typing a response to Uber’s tweet, still fuming with anger. “congrats to @Uber_NYC on breaking a strike to profit off of refugees being consigned to Hell,” @Bro_Pair tweeted, “eat shit and die.” He quickly followed up with an idea for a hashtag, something people could add to their angry tweets about the company: “#deleteUber.”

    “Don’t like @Uber’s exploitative anti-labor policies & Trump collaboration, now profiting off xenophobia? #deleteUber,” he tweeted. O’Sullivan dug into Uber’s support pages on its website to figure out how to actually delete his Uber account, a feat that was surprisingly difficult and required filling out a form and sending it to engineers at the company. O’Sullivan started tweeting out screenshots and links to the online account deletion form, making it simpler for others to find it and delete their own accounts.

    The hashtag began to resonate. Others tweeted angrily at Uber, joining @Bro_Pair. People started adding #deleteUber to the end of their tweets. As seething Americans sought an outlet for their helpless rage, the idea that Uber was not just subverting the protest but actively trying to profit from it was maddening. Hundreds of people started replying and retweeting @Bro_Pair’s tweet, catching the attention of other angry onlookers. Hundreds turned to thousands, which turned to tens of thousands of people chanting, digitally: #deleteUber.

    To O’Sullivan’s amazement, people started tweeting their screenshots of their account deletions back to him. “You’re fascist colluding scabs,” one user’s screenshot said. “Taking advantage of the taxi strike in NYC is a disgusting example of predatory capitalism and collusion with an overtly fascist administration,” another user wrote, tweeting back at @Bro_Pair. Another person added: “Catch a rideshare to hell.”

    O’Sullivan was dumbstruck. Celebrities were tweeting him screenshots of themselves deleting Uber. The press started calling him for interviews. He had tapped into a rage shared by more people than he had realized. Most immediately, those who retweeted him expressed anger towards the Trump administration and its discriminatory actions. But deleting Uber went beyond that; it became something people could do, an action they could broadcast as part of their protest, a repudiation of tech culture, of fake news, of Silicon Valley—the industry that many believed duped Americans into electing Trump in the first place. To #deleteUber wasn’t just to remove a ride-hailing app from one’s phone. It was also to give a giant middle finger to greed, to “bro culture,” to Big Tech—to everything the app stood for.

    As O’Sullivan logged out of the @Bro_Pair account on Twitter and turned off his computer later that night, he felt a twinge of happiness for the first time in months. #deleteUber was trending across Twitter around the entire world. The press was covering the fallout, and Uber was scrambling to try and contain the damage.

    “Okay I have to go to bed,” @Bro_Pair tweeted. “But this has been the only good thing I’ve seen come from hashtags ever. thank you all, keep it going.”

    He signed his tweet with a hashtag: “#deleteUber.”

    All hell broke loose at 1455 Market Street.
    As the #deleteUber hashtag gained traction, engineers had account deletion requests flood in by the thousands from across the world. Up until that point, the company had received few deletion requests. Everyone loved the product, and those who didn’t merely erased the app from their phone without deleting their account. There was no automated mechanism in place to handle such requests. By the time @Bro_Pair’s protest spurred a mass revolt, Kalanick was forced to assign an engineer the task of implementing a system to process the flood of account deletions.

    Uber’s public relations team scrambled to try and convince reporters that Uber wasn’t breaking a strike but actually trying to help protesters get to the JFK protests by eliminating surge pricing. Kalanick had attempted a mealy-mouthed apology that weekend, noting that he planned to raise Uber’s issues with the travel ban the following week with President Trump in person. He was days away from the first meeting of Trump’s policy council of executives. But the statement had the opposite effect, instead reminding people that Kalanick was actively working with the administration. Outsiders saw Kalanick’s position as a tacit endorsement of Trump. Eventually, his own employees began to see it that way, too.

    “I understand that many people internally and externally may not agree with that decision, and that’s OK,” Kalanick said to employees in an email. “It’s the magic of living in America that people are free to disagree.”

    His thinking on keeping his seat on the council didn’t last long. In the span of a week, more than 500,000 people deleted their Uber accounts entirely, not counting the incalculable others who simply deleted the app from their phones. Uber’s all-important ridership growth curves—for years always hockey-sticking up and to the right—started turning downward. Kalanick began to sweat.

    Lyft, at that point running out of money and on the verge of surrender, benefitted enormously from the backlash. People began to ditch Uber and switch over to Lyft. (Protest felt good, but people still needed to be able to call a car sometimes.) Lyft’s executives then pulled a well-executed PR stunt, publicly donating $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union over four years, making themselves look like white knights while Uber was groveling before Trump.

    The resultant surge in ridership brought Lyft back from the brink of failure. At last showing positive signs of growth, Lyft soon attracted investment from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the private equity firm, buoying the ride-hailing company with more than a half-billion dollars in additional capital.

    Lyft’s fundraising sunk Kalanick’s spirits. He had spent the entire summer trying, and failing, to defeat his largest competitor in China. And now, just as the new year began, his chance to kill his strongest American opponent had slipped away as well. He was so close to rubbing John Zimmer’s nose in defeat. No longer.

    Less than a week later, at the Tuesday all-hands meeting, multiple employees confronted Kalanick for keeping his position on Trump’s advisory council. Two different engineers asked him what it would take for him to step down from the position, a question he repeatedly dodged. But by Thursday, with ridership losses mounting and employees fast losing faith in their leader, Kalanick acceded.

    With less than twenty-four hours before he was scheduled to be at his first advisory council meeting at the White House, a call was arranged between Kalanick and President Trump so he could tell him he was withdrawing from his position.

    The call was brief and awkward; Kalanick apologized and gave a pitiful explanation. Trump grumbled through it. The two men had never met before, but Kalanick ended the call knowing that he had annoyed the president of the United States.

    Later that day, he wrote a conciliatory email to staff, noting he had left the council, though for many both inside and outside of Uber, the concession felt too little, too late. It didn’t stop the downturn of Uber’s growth numbers, either, as ill will toward the company continued to damage the brand and overall ridership. But for the moment, Kalanick had neutralized the immediate threat and knocked Uber’s name out of negative headlines.

    For the moment.

    #capitalisme #USA #boycott #taxi

  • »Uber ist eine Gefahr für das Taxigewerbe«
    https://jungle.world/artikel/2019/03/uber-ist-eine-gefahr-fuer-das-taxigewerbe

    17.01.2019 - Small Talk mit Andreas ­Komrowski von der »AG Taxi« der Gewerkschaft Verdi über den Widerstand gegen das Unternehmen Uber

    Das Unternehmen Uber ist bekannt für aggressives Marketing und seinen Kampf gegen rechtliche Beschränkungen seiner angeblich nur vermittelnden Tätigkeit in der Personenbeförderung. Jüngst hat Uber eine Werbekampagne in Berlin begonnen. Andreas Komrowski, Mitglied der AG Taxi in der Berliner Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ­Verdi, sprach mit der Jungle World über den Widerstand der gewerkschaftlich organisierten Taxifahrer

    Small Talk von Peter Nowak

    Uber hat Mitte Dezember erneut eine juristische Niederlage hinnehmen müssen. Warum wirbt das Unternehmen zurzeit in Berlin?

    Vor Gericht gab es Erfolge gegen Uber Pop und Uber Black, die jetzt verboten sind. In Berlin ist jedoch bereits seit längerem Uber X ­aktiv, Mietwagen aus dem Umland werden unserer Ansicht nach gesetzeswidrig in Berlin bereitgestellt. Gerichtsurteile beziehen sich immer nur auf ein »Produkt«. Uber X ist angeblich ein anderes, neues »Produkt« und deshalb nicht vom Urteil betroffen. Mit der Werbung will das Unternehmen sein angeknackstes Image aufpo­lieren und die Zielgruppe technikaffiner Menschen unter 35 Jahren erreichen, vor allem die zahlreichen Party-Touristen.

    Kann das eine Konkurrenz für Taxifahrer werden?

    Im Gegensatz zu kleinen bis mittelständischen Taxiunternehmen kann Uber mit milliardenschwerem Kapital operieren, um Märkte zu erobern. Das Unternehmen vermittelt taxiähnlichen Verkehr zu Dumpingpreisen am Rande des Erlaubten. Uber ist nicht nur eine Konkurrenz, sondern eine Gefahr für den Bestand des Taxigewerbes geworden. Taxis müssen rund um die Uhr verfügbar sein, haben Tarif- und Beförderungspflicht – Uber hat das nicht. Hat Uber eine Stadt erobert, werden die Fahrer und Fahrerinnen des Unternehmens extrem ausgebeutet. Sie müssen bis zu 25 Prozent der Einnahmen als Provision an Uber zahlen.

    Was stört Sie an der Uber-Werbung?

    Die Werbung suggeriert, dass Profis die Fahrgäste durch Berlin befördern würden. Richtig ist hingegen, das Uber-Fahrer keine Ortskundeprüfung für Berlin ablegen müssen. Sie sind oft bei Mietwagenfirmen mit Briefkastenadresse im Berliner Umland angestellt. Die Mietwagen müssen nach jeder Fahrt dorthin zurückkehren, was sie natürlich nicht tun.

    Wie geht die AG Taxi dagegen vor?

    Wir haben eine Plakatkampagne entwickelt, die den dreisten Behauptungen von Uber in knappen Losungen die Realität entgegenstellt. Mit QR-Codes und Verlinkungen verweisen wir auf unsere Website und auf Zeitungsartikel, die die Parolen unterfüttern. Diese Plakate haben wir zusammen mit unserem Newsletter an über 100 Kollegen am Berliner Hauptbahnhof verteilt. Die Resonanz war bei fast allen Fahrern positiv. Weitere Aktionen werden folgen.

    Es gab in der jüngsten Zeit in verschiedenen Ländern Proteste ­gegen Uber. Sehen Sie die Aktion der AG Taxi in diesem Kontext?

    Uber ist ein international agierendes Unternehmen und insofern sind auch internationale Aktionen gegen sein von rücksichtsloser Gewinnmaximierung getriebenes Geschäftsmodell nötig, um es zu stoppen. Die Protestformen und -traditionen sind in den diversen Ländern verschieden. Aus manchem können wir lernen. In Deutschland kommen Sozialproteste oft schwer in Gang.
    Für die Aktion wird der Hashtag #deleteuber, also »Uber ­löschen«, genutzt. Was steckt dahinter?
    Der Hashtag #deleteuber wird vor allem in den USA von Kritikern und Kritikerinnen von Uber genutzt, die verschiedene Motive haben. Dazu gehört zum Beispiel eine Initiative von Frauen, die zahlreiche sexuelle Übergriffe durch Uber-Fahrer beklagen. Das Ziel des Hashtags ist vor allem, dass Nutzer die App löschen und auf andere Beförderungsmöglichkeiten ausweichen. Er dient auch dazu, die eigenen Aktionen bekannt zu machen und von denen anderer zu erfahren. Wir finden es richtig, auf dieses moderne Medium zurückzugreifen.

    #Berlin #Taxi #Uber

  • Ahead of IPO, Uber’s Losing Less—but Growing Less Too | WIRED
    https://www.wired.com/story/ubers-losing-less-moneybut-growing-less-too

    THE YEAR OF the gig economy IPO continues, as Uber on Thursday made public its first bit of official paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a sign that the firm is preparing to list its shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The filing shows a sprawling transportation business with operations in 63 countries and 700 cities, providing 5.2 billion rides in 2018—roughly one for every person in Europe and Asia.

    Uber pulled in $11.3 billion in revenue in 2018, a 42 percent jump over the year before. And though its operating losses are still heavy—$3 billion in 2018—the company has slowed the bleeding, at least a bit, bringing operating losses down from $4.1 billion in 2017. Uber had 91 million active users at the end of 2018, 23 million more than a year earlier. Revenue growth, however, fell by half in 2018. This is due in part to the increasing might of Lyft, which is now snapping up users faster than its larger rival, but also because of tightening competition in meal delivery, where Uber’s big success story, Eats, is no longer growing as quickly.

    Still, the company is reportedly expected to go public at a valuation of $90 billion to $100 billion, which would make it the largest US tech IPO in the past half-decade. (Facebook went public in 2012 at a $104 billion valuation.)

    Uber is ride-hail; Uber is e-scooters and ebikes; Uber is a burgeoning delivery business; Uber is trucking and logistics software; Uber wants to build a fully functional self-driving car. And Uber only wants to get bigger: “Today, Uber accounts for less than 1 percent of all miles driven globally,” CEO Dara Khosrowshahi wrote in a letter included in the filing. “Because we are not even 1 percent done with our work, we will operate with an eye toward the future.”

    But the filing also depicts a company struggling to recover from its messy past. The company said it lost “hundreds of thousands” of customers in early 2017, when its drivers continued to operate in airports during protests against the Trump administration’s immigration restrictions on visitors from Muslim countries; that led to the #DeleteUber campaign. The filing notes reams of bad press stemming from accusations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and a then-toxic company culture. It also references, obliquely, investigations into its Greyball tool, software that attempted to circumvent regulation in cities that did not want the company operating on its roads. These events prompted, if not presaged, today’s tech-lash. And from a business standpoint, the company says that history has made it more difficult for Uber to retain users, stay on the right side of important city and federal regulators, and to avoid writing very large checks to lawyers, who are representing Uber in lawsuits and investigations around the world.

    Now, as it prepares to go public, Uber faces critical questions. What happens if the company fails to achieve profitability … ever? Uber believes it will need to invest in finding new users, be they riders, drivers, restaurants, or shippers—and use incentives, discounts, and promotions to do it. (More than $3 billion, over a third of total operating costs, went to sales and marketing last year.) It will need to pour money into new markets and operations. It will need to keep finding new employees and drivers. It will have to write checks for expensive “flying taxi” and autonomous vehicle research along the way. (The company acknowledges in the filing that it expects a competitor such as Waymo, General Motors/Cruise, Tesla, Apple, or Zoox to “develop such technologies before us.”)

    “Many of our efforts to generate revenue are new and unproven, and any failure to adequately increase revenue or contain the related costs could prevent us from attaining or increasing profitability,” the company writes in its filing.

    What happens if regulators decide Uber’s drivers are no longer independent contractors, but employees entitled to benefits and more intense oversight? Today, Uber faces litigation and driver protests challenging its core business model all over the globe. The filing notes that more than 60,000 drivers have entered into (or expressed interest in entering into) arbitration over employee misclassification, which the company writes “could result in significant costs to us.” The company also expects to spend significant money recruiting and retaining drivers in the years ahead.

    #Uber #disruption #Börse #Spekulation #IPO

  • Blog: #deleteuber ǀ Ihr könnt nach Hause gehen — der Freitag
    https://www.freitag.de/autoren/peter-nowak/protest-gegen-uber-auch-in-berlin
    https://www.freitag.de/autoren/peter-nowak/protest-gegen-uber-auch-in-berlin/@@images/a05b4234-b4c1-45f3-af6c-4a39ef33ca6c.jpeg

    Weiterziehn oder nach Hause? Große weiße Plakate mit dieser Frage finden sich seit einigen Tagen an Berliner Hauswänden in der Nähe des Hermannplatzes oder der Warschauer Brücke. Das sind Orte, an denen sich viele Menschen nach dem Besuch einer Party oder eines Clubs nach Transportmöglichkeiten umsehen. Auch an größeren S-und U-Bahnhöfen kann man die Uber-Werbung finden. Auf den Plakaten bietet der US-Fahrdienstvermittler seine Dienste an. „Uber vermittelt Beförderungsaufträge an professionelle und kompetente Mietwagenunternehmer“. Ausdrücklich wird auf den Plakaten betont, dass Uber selbst keine Beförderungsdienstleistungen anbietet. Das Landgericht Berlin hatte Uber nach einer Klage der Taxi-Vereinigung, einer Interessenvertretung von Berliner Taxi-Unternehmen, verboten in Berlin „taxiähnlichen Verkehr zu betreiben“. Weiter erlaubt waren Uber die Vermittlungstätigkeiten, die Uber bereits seit 2016 tätigt. Die aktuelle Werbekampagne sowie die Einrichtung eines Uber-Büros in der Brunnenstraße zeigten, dass das Unternehmen in Berlin expandieren will. Doch dagegen regt sich Widerstand. Die Berliner Taxi-AG, in der sich in der Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft organisierte Taxifahrer*innen zusammengefunden haben, mobilisiert gegen die Pläne des US-Konzerns. Dabei nutzt sie #deleteuber, einen internationale Hashtag von Uber-Kritiker*innen, der in den USA aufgekommen war.

    Fakten gegen die Uber-Werbung
    „Wir stellen den frechen Behauptungen der Uber-Werbung geprüfte Fakten entgegen, knallig formuliert, mit Link zur Quelle als Text und QR-Code“, erklärt Andreas Komrowski von der Taxi-AG. So verweist der Link unter den Slogan „Uber zahlt keine Krankenversicherung“ auf einen Artikel in der Wochenzeitung „Die Zeit“. Wer sich über den Wahrheitsgehalt der Aussage „Uber verliert Deine Daten“ informieren will, kann in einen FAZ-Artikel vom September 2018 weiterlesen, wo über ein großes Datenleck bei dem US-Konzern berichtet wird. Zu der Behauptung „Uber riskiert Deine Haftpflicht“ wird auf einen juristischen Blog verwiesen. Wer den Wahrheitsgehalt der Feststellung „Uber zahlt kein Urlaubsgeld“ überprüfen will, findet als Quelle den Tageszeiger. Da die Taxi-AG nicht den Werbe-Etat von Uber zur Verfügung, setzt sie auf Selbstorganisation. Die Anti-Uber-Schlagzeilen können unter (http://www.ag-taxi.de/anti-uber-werbung.html) ausgedruckt und verbreitet werden. Daran können sich natürlich auch Menschen beteiligen, die nicht im Taxigewerbe arbeiten, aber mit den dort Beschäftigten solidarisch sind.

    Der Kampf gegen Uber ist auch ein Klassenkampf innerhalb der GiG-Ökonomie, wie die Branche genannt wird, in der Aufträge von Freiberufler*innen oder geringfügig Beschäftigten erledigt werden und deren Organisierungsgrad oft nicht sehr hoch ist. Hier bedarf es neuer Strategien, um erfolgreich zu sein. Das ist ein Suchprozess und die unterschiedlichen Gewerkschaften unterstützen das manchmal. Die Taxi-AG ist bei ver.di assoziiert. Die Deliverunion, in der sich Fahrradkurier*innen in verschiedenen Ländern organisieren, wird in Deutschland von der Basisgewerkschaft FAU (https://berlin.fau.org/kaempfe/deliverunion) unterstützt. Zwischen der Taxi-AG und der Deliverunion (https://deliverunion.fau.org) in Berlin wurden bereits Grußadressen ausgetauscht. Das heißt, die Kolleg*innen beziehen sich solidarisch aufeinander, auch wenn sie in unterschiedlichen Gewerkschaften organisiert sind. Dass ist genau so wichtig, wie die Selbstorganisation der Betroffen vor Ort. Die Aktion der Taxi-AG in Berlin kann ein kleiner Baustein dazu sein. Vielleicht organisieren die unterschiedlichen Initiativen gegen Uber mal zu einer bestimmten Zeit eine weltweite Akton unter dem Motto „Hupen gegen Uber“. Das wäre ein Zeichen eines transnationalen Kampfes gegen Uber und Co.

    Peter Nowak

    #Berlin #Taxi #Uber

  • Kampfzone Taxi-Gewerbe « Peter Nowak
    https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5555456&s=Taxi-Gewerbe&SuchRahmen=Print
    http://peter-nowak-journalist.de/2018/12/26/kampfzone-taxi-gewerbe

    Die Berliner Taxi-AG antwortet mit einer Online-Kampagne auf Werbung des Konkurrenten Uber

    „Weiterziehn oder nach Hause?“ Große weiße Plakate mit dieser Frage finden sich seit einigen Tagen an Hauswänden in der Nähe des Neuköllner Hermannplatzes oder der Warschauer Brücke in Friedrichshain. An Orten also, an denen sich viele Menschen nach dem Clubbesuch nach Transportmöglichkeiten umsehen. Auch an größeren S- und U-Bahnhöfen kann man die Werbung des Mitfahrdienstes Uber finden. Auf den Plakaten bietet der US- amerikanische Konzern seine Dienste folgendermaßen an: „Uber vermittelt Beförderungsaufträge an professionelle und kompetente Mietwagenunternehmer.“ Die Berliner Taxi-AG, ein gewerkschaftlicher Zusammenschluss von TaxifahrerInnen, bringt das schon lange auf die Palme. Auf ihrer Website mobilisieren sie nun mit einer neuen Kampagne gegen den Konzern: „Wir stellen den frechen Behauptungen der Uber-Werbung geprüfte Fakten entgegen, knallig formuliert, mit Link zur Quelle und QR-Code“, erklärt Andreas Komrowski von der Taxi-AG der taz.
    Komrowski und seine MitstreiterInnen nutzen für ihre Online-Kampagne den von Uber- KritikerInnen in den USA initiierten Hashtag #deleteuber. Außerdem haben sie eine umfangreiche Linksammlung angelegt, die vor allem auf Medien-Recherchen verweist. Eine der „knallig“ formulierten „Schlagzeilen“ der Taxi- AG lautet zum Beispiel: „Uber verliert Deine Daten“. Wer darauf klickt, landet bei einer Recherche der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung über ein großes Datenleck bei dem US-Konzern. Andere verlinkte Artikel beschäftigen sich unter anderem mit den prekären Arbeitsbedingungen bei dem Mitfahrdienst.

    #Berlin #Taxi #Uber #Werbung

  • Lyft Is Not Your Friend
    http://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/the-myth-of-the-woke-brand-uber-lyft-capitalism

    10.25.2018 BY MEAGAN DAY #UNITED_STATES #CAPITAL #CONJECTURES #LIBERALISM

    Lyft is the latest brand trying to build market share by posing as a “progressive” corporation. But the fight can’t be good corporations against bad ones — it’s working people against capitalism.
    In early 2017, liberals hit on a new strategy to resist the nascent Trump administration: #DeleteUber.

    It started when New York City’s taxi drivers refused to service JFK airport to protest Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and Uber was spotted leveraging the ensuing crisis for profit. Then Uber CEO Travis Kalanick came under fire for accepting an appointment to Trump’s economic advisory council. He announced his resignation from the council, but only weeks later a video leaked of Kalanick reprimanding a driver for his company.

    Amid various ensuing scandals, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber, but by then millions of consumers had turned on the brand in protest, deleting the Uber app from their phone and opting instead for the rideshare giant’s rival Lyft.

    Lyft leaned in, eagerly branding itself as the progressive alternative to Uber by pledging a $1 million donation to the ACLU and trotting out celebrities to promote it as a company committed to “doing things for the right reasons.” Lyft, of course, operates on the same labor model as Uber — its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, and are therefore denied all the benefits and protections that workers receive under more ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, a new refrain rang out across liberaldom: “I don’t use Uber, I use Lyft.”

    What socialists understand that liberals don’t is that brands are corporate enterprises, and corporate enterprises are fundamentally motivated by the pursuit of profit — even in their ostentatious acts of charity and wokeness.

    Three surefire ways to maximize profit are: suppressing labor costs by paying workers as little as you can get away with, lobbying the state for deregulation and lower taxes, and opening new markets by finding new things to commodify and sell. Businesses will always pursue these avenues of profit maximization where they can. It’s not a matter of ethics but of market discipline: if they don’t, they run the risk of losing out to the competition and eventually capsizing.

    Sometimes corporations do things for publicity that make it seem like their interests are not fundamentally misaligned with those of the working-class majority, who rely on decent wages and well-funded public services. But those efforts are meant to sustain public confidence in a given corporation’s brand, which is occasionally necessary for keeping up profits, as Uber’s losses in 2017 demonstrate. When corporate profits come into direct conflict with active measures to improve people’s wellbeing, corporations will always select the former. Case in point: Lyft just donated $100k to the campaign against a ballot measure that would create a tax fund to house the homeless in San Francisco, where the company is based.

    Why did the progressive alternative to Uber do this? Well, because the company doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. Because high taxes imperil profits, and profits are the point. Another likely rationale is to build stronger bonds with pro-business advocacy groups in San Francisco, so that the company will have allies if the city decides to implement regulations against ride-sharing services, which is rumored to be a possibility.

    Lyft has already mastered the art of suppressing labor costs and opening new markets. Next on the wish list, low taxes and deregulation. It’s pretty formulaic when you get down to it.

    San Francisco is home to an estimated 7,500 homeless people. Proposition C would tap the large corporations that benefit from the city’s public infrastructure to double the city’s homelessness budget in an attempt to resolve the crisis. The corporations opposing Proposition C say that the move would imperil jobs. This is not an analysis, it’s a threat. What they’re saying is that if the city reaches too far into their pockets, they’ll take their business elsewhere, draining the region of jobs and revenue as punishment for government overreach. It’s a mobster’s insinuation: Nice economy, shame if something happened to it. Meanwhile thousands of people sleep in the streets, even though the money to shelter them is within the city’s borders.

    Of course, in every struggle over taxes and industry regulation there may be a few canny corporate outliers looking to ingratiate their brand to the public by bucking the trend. In the case of Proposition C, it’s Salesforce, whose CEO Marc Benioff has made a public display of support for the ballot measure. But before you rush to praise Benioff, consider that only two months ago he lauded Trump’s tax cuts for fueling “aggressive spending” and injecting life into the economy.

    You could spend your life as an engaged consumer hopping from brand to brand, as liberals often do, pledging allegiance to this one and protesting that one to the beat of the new cycle drum. You could delete Lyft from your phone the same way you did with Uber, and find another rideshare app that you deem more ethical, until that one inevitably disappoints you too.

    Or you could press pause, stop scrambling for some superior consumption choice to ease your conscience, and entertain the socialist notion that deep down all corporations are objectively the same. They all exist to maximize return on investment for the people who own them. They are all in competition with each other to plunder our commons most effectively, with the lowest overhead, which means compensating the least for employees’ work. And when the rubber meets the road, they will all prioritize private profits over the wellbeing of those who own no productive assets, which is the vast majority of the people on the planet. They will demonstrate these priorities on a case-by-case basis, and on a massive global scale so long as capitalism prevails.

    “We’re woke,” said Lyft CEO John Zimmerman at the height of the Uber scandal. It was horseshit — it always is. And until liberals stop believing than any brand can be truly “woke,” or can offer a genuine alternative to the predatory behavior they observe in other “unwoke” brands, they’ll be unable to mount a meaningful resistance to anything.

    Whether we want to ensure clean drinking water for the residents of Flint or to shelter the homeless of San Francisco, we have to draw clear battle lines that are up to the challenge. The fight can’t be good corporations against bad corporations. It has to be working people against capitalism.

    #USA #transport #disruption #Lyft

  • Lyft Is Not Your Friend
    http://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/the-myth-of-the-woke-brand-uber-lyft-capitalism

    BY MEAGAN DAY
    Lyft is the latest brand trying to build market share by posing as a “progressive” corporation. But the fight can’t be good corporations against bad ones — it’s working people against capitalism.

    In early 2017, liberals hit on a new strategy to resist the nascent Trump administration: #DeleteUber.

    It started when New York City’s taxi drivers refused to service JFK airport to protest Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and Uber was spotted leveraging the ensuing crisis for profit. Then Uber CEO Travis Kalanick came under fire for accepting an appointment to Trump’s economic advisory council. He announced his resignation from the council, but only weeks later a video leaked of Kalanick reprimanding a driver for his company.

    Amid various ensuing scandals, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber, but by then millions of consumers had turned on the brand in protest, deleting the Uber app from their phone and opting instead for the rideshare giant’s rival Lyft.

    Lyft leaned in, eagerly branding itself as the progressive alternative to Uber by pledging a $1 million donation to the ACLU and trotting out celebrities to promote it as a company committed to “doing things for the right reasons.” Lyft, of course, operates on the same labor model as Uber — its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, and are therefore denied all the benefits and protections that workers receive under more ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, a new refrain rang out across liberaldom: “I don’t use Uber, I use Lyft.”

    What socialists understand that liberals don’t is that brands are corporate enterprises, and corporate enterprises are fundamentally motivated by the pursuit of profit — even in their ostentatious acts of charity and wokeness.

    Three surefire ways to maximize profit are: suppressing labor costs by paying workers as little as you can get away with, lobbying the state for deregulation and lower taxes, and opening new markets by finding new things to commodify and sell. Businesses will always pursue these avenues of profit maximization where they can. It’s not a matter of ethics but of market discipline: if they don’t, they run the risk of losing out to the competition and eventually capsizing.

    Sometimes corporations do things for publicity that make it seem like their interests are not fundamentally misaligned with those of the working-class majority, who rely on decent wages and well-funded public services. But those efforts are meant to sustain public confidence in a given corporation’s brand, which is occasionally necessary for keeping up profits, as Uber’s losses in 2017 demonstrate. When corporate profits come into direct conflict with active measures to improve people’s wellbeing, corporations will always select the former. Case in point: Lyft just donated $100k to the campaign against a ballot measure that would create a tax fund to house the homeless in San Francisco, where the company is based.

    Why did the progressive alternative to Uber do this? Well, because the company doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. Because high taxes imperil profits, and profits are the point. Another likely rationale is to build stronger bonds with pro-business advocacy groups in San Francisco, so that the company will have allies if the city decides to implement regulations against ride-sharing services, which is rumored to be a possibility.

    Lyft has already mastered the art of suppressing labor costs and opening new markets. Next on the wish list, low taxes and deregulation. It’s pretty formulaic when you get down to it.

    San Francisco is home to an estimated 7,500 homeless people. Proposition C would tap the large corporations that benefit from the city’s public infrastructure to double the city’s homelessness budget in an attempt to resolve the crisis. The corporations opposing Proposition C say that the move would imperil jobs. This is not an analysis, it’s a threat. What they’re saying is that if the city reaches too far into their pockets, they’ll take their business elsewhere, draining the region of jobs and revenue as punishment for government overreach. It’s a mobster’s insinuation: Nice economy, shame if something happened to it. Meanwhile thousands of people sleep in the streets, even though the money to shelter them is within the city’s borders.

    Of course, in every struggle over taxes and industry regulation there may be a few canny corporate outliers looking to ingratiate their brand to the public by bucking the trend. In the case of Proposition C, it’s Salesforce, whose CEO Marc Benioff has made a public display of support for the ballot measure. But before you rush to praise Benioff, consider that only two months ago he lauded Trump’s tax cuts for fueling “aggressive spending” and injecting life into the economy.

    You could spend your life as an engaged consumer hopping from brand to brand, as liberals often do, pledging allegiance to this one and protesting that one to the beat of the new cycle drum. You could delete Lyft from your phone the same way you did with Uber, and find another rideshare app that you deem more ethical, until that one inevitably disappoints you too.

    Or you could press pause, stop scrambling for some superior consumption choice to ease your conscience, and entertain the socialist notion that deep down all corporations are objectively the same. They all exist to maximize return on investment for the people who own them. They are all in competition with each other to plunder our commons most effectively, with the lowest overhead, which means compensating the least for employees’ work. And when the rubber meets the road, they will all prioritize private profits over the wellbeing of those who own no productive assets, which is the vast majority of the people on the planet. They will demonstrate these priorities on a case-by-case basis, and on a massive global scale so long as capitalism prevails.

    “We’re woke,” said Lyft CEO John Zimmerman at the height of the Uber scandal. It was horseshit — it always is. And until liberals stop believing than any brand can be truly “woke,” or can offer a genuine alternative to the predatory behavior they observe in other “unwoke” brands, they’ll be unable to mount a meaningful resistance to anything.

    Whether we want to ensure clean drinking water for the residents of Flint or to shelter the homeless of San Francisco, we have to draw clear battle lines that are up to the challenge. The fight can’t be good corporations against bad corporations. It has to be working people against capitalism.

    #USA #Lyft #Uber #Arbeit

  • Tech’s terrible year : how the world turned on Silicon Valley in 2017
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/22/tech-year-in-review-2017

    From the #DeleteUber campaign to fake news, the industry found itself in the crosshairs this year – and it was a long time coming, experts say When Jonathan Taplin’s book Move Fast and Break Things, which dealt with the worrying rise of big tech, was first published in the UK in April 2017, his publishers removed its subtitle because they didn’t think it was supported by evidence : “How Facebook, Google and Amazon cornered culture and undermined democracy.” When the paperback edition comes out (...)

    #Apple #Google #Microsoft #IBM #Amazon #Facebook #Snapchat #Uber #YouTube #Twitter #algorithme #manipulation #publicité #discrimination #GAFAM (...)

    ##publicité ##harcèlement