Everything Uber has done is pretty standard for a lot of big companies, people just love to bash Uber for some reason, probably people with ties to the utterly corrupt Taxi industry.
No. The behavior described in the article is not "standard." When you identify a law in a big company that forbids you from doing a business practice, you stop and obey the law. There is no alternative approach, particularly in a big company.
The conduct described in the article is basically reckless win-at-any-cost nonsense that reflects Uber's very survival was forbidden by law. The politicians who prevented subordinates from enforcing the law should be called out one-by-one and made to explain themselves. The lesson from the parent comment is not the correct lesson.
I see no reason to be a staunch defender of bullshit unjust laws meant to stifle innovation and uphold monopolistic behaviors. The executives can hold their heads high at their acts of corporate level civil disobedience.
No, serious executives cannot do that. If an executive acknowledges a business practice violates law, the action item is not 'do it anyway'. There is no corporate level civil disobedience. This is not correct and not reflective of the way this actually goes in real life corporate America.
It is. If every business followed every law perfectly as a standard practice it would be very difficult for many businesses to survive. Law has to be fudged when appropriate.
Look, the most aggressive folks have reasoned positions they feel comfortable taking to judges and counterparties. If your position is "I'm illegal and I don't care, see if you can fashion a remedy that makes me regret it", judges and counterparties will oblige.
