I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.
Even ignoring that, by that standard, he is among the worst human being ever with around -80 billions of "profit" so far...
...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard
tools of corporate governance...
...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets.
It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.
>Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market.
Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
