Why I Quit Uber
I deleted my Uber account this week. It has been a popular move in response to the some murky positions from the company in how they respond to a Trump presidency. I’ve gotten lots of questions about why I did it, so I wanted to go through my thinking.
There are two main issues people are citing as reasons for deleting Uber:
- Uber dropped surge pricing in what was interpreted as an effort to break a NYC taxi strike against Trump’s muslim ban. Vox breaks this down in a good balanced way.
- Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has joined Trump’s business advisory group, saying, “we’ll partner with anyone in the world as long they’re about making transportation in cities better, creating job opportunities, making it easier to get around, getting pollution out of the air and traffic off the streets.”
My issue is with the second of those two points. The problem is Kalanick fails to apply a basic test of equality as part of his statement.
Let’s look at “making it easier to get around” as an example. Trump has talked about rebuilding American infrastructure, which would certainly work toward helping people get around. But Trump barred refugees from entering the country, instituted an unconstitutional ban against muslims from certain countries, and proposed instituting stop-and-frisk. So for some people a Trump presidency would make it easier to get around, but for some — including some of the world’s most vulnerable people — a Trump presidency makes it much harder or impossible to get around.
If Kalanick would apply a test of equality to his statement, then he’d certainly not work with Trump, since Trump is working against the goal of making it easier for everyone to get around.
If he were to apply what I consider a reasonable moral lens, Kalanick’s statement should have been something like:
“We’ll partner with anyone in the world as long they’re about making transportation in cities better for everyone, creating equal opportunity jobs, making it easier for everyone to get around, getting pollution out of the air and traffic off the streets.”
He’d then see a Trump administration actually works against these aims. Kalanick would oppose the administration, rather than work with them.
By deleting my accont I hope to send a message that I find it indefensible to work with a Trump administration, and hopefully shift Uber’s behavior to oppose Trump and his discriminatory policies. Indeed, that’s what I wrote to Uber when they asked why I was deleting my account.
I’ll summarise the three main questions I received in response to deleting my account, and my thoughts on each.
Do you think it will make a difference?
Yes. Uber’s behavior shows we’re already having and impact: “After #DeleteUber, CEO pledges $3 million for drivers affected by immigration ban”
Any collective action isn’t about the impact of an individual, but the impact we all have together. An individual donation the ACLU does near nothing. But all of us donating together meant they received more than $24 million in one weekend, and that’s certainly enough to help fund their efforts in a significant way.
The same is true for consumer choice. Uber won’t notice or really care I left. But if a significant number of people take action, it might just have an impact and the company will need to take action to improve their behavior in the eyes of their customers or risk significant financial harm.
Couldn’t Kalanick push for reform from the inside?
The most charitable reading of Kalanick’s actions would be he’s a sort of mole, earning Trump’s trust in order to able shift his opinions and behavior down the road. Even if this is true, I find it a poor strategy.
The ‘reform from the inside’ argument makes sense for institutions who have strayed from core mission but have some inherently salvageable goodness and a unique ability to achieve good. The UN is a good example of such an institution. It’s certainly got it’s flaws, but it’s an amazing multi-latteral public institution with massive potential to achieve good for the world.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is founded on discrimination and hate. At the very launch of his campaign he referred to immigrants from a neighboring nation as rapists and murderers. He’s only gotten worse from there. This is not an regime full of good intent but with some flaws. It’s intent is division and a betray of core American values, it should be resisted rather than reformed.
Google are also supporting Republicans. Isn’t it hypocritical to keep using their services?
This is an interesting challenge. In these past elections, Google gave more to Republican congressional candidates and funds conservative think-tanks. So it is fair to apply the same logic: I should stop using their service. To keep using Google services is an endorsement, or at least permissive acceptance, of their behavior.
Ideally we’d all like to always be the purest embodiment of our moral convictions. It’s a challenge Peter Singer articulates well in his book The Life You Can Save. Singer argues if you choose a luxury purchase over a live-saving charitable donation, then you value the luxury more than someone’s life. He holds up as examples of moral people who only live off basic necessities and give the rest to charity.
I try to have a positive impact on the world, but certainly make decisions where I fail to have the greatest impact possible. I’m guilty of it a million times over. I don’t have a Fairphone, I often fail to buy carbon offsets for my flights, and I periodically eat meat and often eat dairy products.
Perhaps because I’m guilty, I don’t see the failure to live the purest embodiment of morals as reason not to try. I don’t donate the maximum amount I possibly could to charity, but I don’t see failing to do so as hypocrisy. Living our convictions to their fullest extent is challenging. Quitting Uber is easier than quitting Google, and thus is a clear first step for me to take if I want to use consumer choice as a way to send a message to companies that it isn’t okay to work with the Trump administration.
