8 comments

[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] thread
Because they like working there. The few cases that didn't succeeded in making a large stink because of the media echo chamber - the media feeds on controversy.
It says a lot when a person likes to cast the reporting of issues as the biggest problem, and not the actual issues themselves.

When in reality, If certain people at Uber, had of watched how they conducted themselves, instead of acting like they were lords sent from Hubristan, then its safe to say there would not have been legal, nor journalistic interest in such issues.

Certainly, the companies and managements are at fault. But is a constant unending stream of opinion and analysis to support opinions really reporting?
As new facts emerge, and things develop, so does the story.

I mean, should the press only be allowed to do a power point presentation, once, for posterity when a story breaks and then never revisit it?

I'm failing to see what your gripe is here.

Because Uber drivers are marginalised people who don't understand employment law and figure if they politicians haven't stepping in it must be legal.
I wouldn't bulk classify Uber drivers as marginalized people. I've had some that worked for pharmaceutical companies, retired teachers, etc.
(comment deleted)
Really, Who has the cash for a legal fight with any large corporation, let alone Uber?

In Ubers case, add in an alleged toxic employment environment for some employees/staff, and what motivation is there?

Like many other investment vehicles, Uber has truckloads of other peoples money to spend, to protect the investment, and those lawyers are only to happy to help them spend, regardless of the rights or wrongs.