Bill Gurley Is Leaving Uber’s Board(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Bill Gurley Is Leaving Uber’s Board
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/technology/uber-board-bill-gurley.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
169 comments
Exactly this. For those who weren't around in the first dot com bubble, he has a certain reputation which he has managed to bury. Benchmark used to be a much bigger firm back then, and due to poor fund performance, they had to scale back and "reboot" the firm. Along the way, he managed to bury his lesser know reputation. This was critical to getting deal flow in the current investing environment which is much more founder friendly given the increased availability of capital and competition for deals. Tolia also managed to rehab his reputation after lying about completing his Stanford degree and working for McKinsey (and teaming up with Gurley to screw over his other Epinions cofounders). He's now running NextDoor with significant investment from Gurley.
I've never heard of the guy, whats hew known for? Also what's wrong with angellist?
Everything you need to know is linked to on that page I linked to.
Nothing is wrong with AngelList. AngelList is great. It was Bill Gurley's slimey VC actions to conspire with Nirav Tolia against the other Epinions founders and early employees that led Naval Ravikant to found AngelList as an alternative to the VC system.
Nothing is wrong with AngelList. AngelList is great. It was Bill Gurley's slimey VC actions to conspire with Nirav Tolia against the other Epinions founders and early employees that led Naval Ravikant to found AngelList as an alternative to the VC system.
That article doesn't say much. Which link in it has the meat?
The first link which is the actual claim filed in a US court of law.
Yes, my first reaction was Bill did this solely to maximize his PR because he knew the press would make him look like a hero.
THIS. A million times this. Go ask pmarca too.
pmarca and gurley hate each other. pmarca is definitely the investor I would take money from. In fact, its funny you mention him. He's been hugely useful to Lyft (and his other investments) since he's "purchased" so much "goodwill" among The Who's Who of journalists covering Silicon Valley. As John Doerr once quipped, "No conflict, no interest", and pmarca has learned this lesson well. Every investment he's made in journalism companies is a conflict of interest that earns him interest. Investing in Silicon Valley's loudspeakers has given him a steady stream of positive submarine pieces in favor of him and A16Z and unfavorable pieces against those companies that compete with his investments.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I can't imagine Uber doesn't start raising prices and drop out of markets they aren't profitable in.
No way they can bring in more investments (although maybe they could get a loan). Given the changes and their runway, I honestly see Lyft managing to outpace Uber in the next 12 months.
No way they can bring in more investments (although maybe they could get a loan). Given the changes and their runway, I honestly see Lyft managing to outpace Uber in the next 12 months.
I'm no expert, but I have to believe that the next step has to be stabilize the patient.
- Cut back on actions and strategies that only make sense in the context of massive continued growth.
- Set prices to sustainable levels even though that means the buy-on-price segment of your customer base goes away. That's an ultimately unprofitable race-to-the-bottom segment you don't want anyway.
- At that point, potentially pull out of places where you don't have the critical mass to operate--especially in non-US markets where there are probably fixed costs to operate.
- Autonomous vehicles? That's going to happen over a decade or three timeframe that's utterly irrelevant to Uber even if a first mover advantage was defensible.
- And, yeah, the company is now far less valued to investors but it can potentially at least stay intact as a viable business.
- Cut back on actions and strategies that only make sense in the context of massive continued growth.
- Set prices to sustainable levels even though that means the buy-on-price segment of your customer base goes away. That's an ultimately unprofitable race-to-the-bottom segment you don't want anyway.
- At that point, potentially pull out of places where you don't have the critical mass to operate--especially in non-US markets where there are probably fixed costs to operate.
- Autonomous vehicles? That's going to happen over a decade or three timeframe that's utterly irrelevant to Uber even if a first mover advantage was defensible.
- And, yeah, the company is now far less valued to investors but it can potentially at least stay intact as a viable business.
Doesn't Uber operate in a ton of countries? Lyft operates only in the US, right? And even then, isn't Uber in more cities?
Lyft has no choice but to subsidize itself into extinction. If Uber pulled back entirely into the US alone then Lyft would be truly doomed. Only by spreading themselves thin does Lyft have a fair fight.
Lyft has no choice but to subsidize itself into extinction. If Uber pulled back entirely into the US alone then Lyft would be truly doomed. Only by spreading themselves thin does Lyft have a fair fight.
On the other hand, if they didn't spread themselves thin (and often into countries which don't actually need Uber), they likely wouldn't have received the amount of funding they have, and they'd be a more reasonably-sized competitor to Lyft.
Why do you think they can't get more investments? They just completed this report and now Travis is out; unless you have proof you can't say they didn't fix their issues. So not only have they shown concern to solving a major PR and culture issue but they're absolutely HUGE. If they IPO it could be an incredible exit.
Am I missing something? They seem far, far more investable now.
Am I missing something? They seem far, far more investable now.
Yes, you're missing that this is all wish fulfillment doomsdayism. People are nursing some recreational outrage because of the revelations regarding Uber's culture. So now they all have a pet theory that Uber will fail. They're working backwards from what they _want_ to happen though, so their "theory" can explain anything:
"Kalanick is a loose cannon who's going to run the company into the ground"
Kalanick steps down
"They have no leadership, they'll close their doors in a week"
etc.
you're acting like this is the start of the idea that perhaps the entire taxi industry is not worth what Uber is claiming, or that having a bunch of autonomous vehicles is probably hard for an iOS app company to manage, or that they ultimately have never proven they can keep drivers happy without subsidizing prices, or that they might not get huge backlash from legal action around driver status, or .....
There's an argument for Uber's eventual success, but there's a lot of stuff against it too. It's not an absurd theory.
There's an argument for Uber's eventual success, but there's a lot of stuff against it too. It's not an absurd theory.
[deleted]
They have three lawsuits that can sink the company, given their runway.
They now have next to no leadership, and they still have no clear path to making money.
Their board is up in arms, their CEO stepped down, but still has full control.
If they want investment, it's going to be a down round. And their CEO will have to give up a significant chunk of the business. Even then, idk who else is left with the capital they'd need.
They now have next to no leadership, and they still have no clear path to making money.
Their board is up in arms, their CEO stepped down, but still has full control.
If they want investment, it's going to be a down round. And their CEO will have to give up a significant chunk of the business. Even then, idk who else is left with the capital they'd need.
All this shakeup at the top, but will it affect anything on the ground? I'm still going to take an Uber this weekend and no one not in tech that I know will even hear about any of this, let alone know who the CEO is.
Sounds like they are trying to cleanup their image, then will get back to expanding their already massive reach they have in their cities they are already in around the world.
Sounds like they are trying to cleanup their image, then will get back to expanding their already massive reach they have in their cities they are already in around the world.
Travis' resignation was the lead story on Nytimes.com and on the front page of the Washington Post. This isn't just a niche story anymore.
Sure, but is the company going to implode from this? I wouldn't think so. They are already massive and seem to be just cleaning house at the top to try and shed their lawbreaking image, and now move into phase two: become legitimate and grow even further while being more mindful and cooperative with city regulations, where it benefits them.
Second this,, why would any who uses Uber take into account the internal turmoil happening within the company when they decide to use the app or not?
The costs of Uber going up or decrease in availability of drivers should matter more.
Drivers only care about their bottom line which is rate per mile/time and frequency of riders.
The costs of Uber going up or decrease in availability of drivers should matter more.
Drivers only care about their bottom line which is rate per mile/time and frequency of riders.
>I honestly see Lyft managing to outpace Uber in the next 12 months.
Perhaps in the US. But Uber has a large presence in a number of other countries, while Lyft has none, AFAIK.
Perhaps in the US. But Uber has a large presence in a number of other countries, while Lyft has none, AFAIK.
I wonder if Kalanick saw the writing on the wall and is getting out of the way of the oncoming train wreck, in order to set up a Jobs-style comeback at some point...
Considering Kalanick was one of the people doing the writing I'm sure he did.
Wait so first he demands Kalanick resign, then he resigns? Did he burn all his bridges, or was there some strategy here?
I'm unsurprised. Kalanick has enough support on the board that I'd imagine they'd make it uncomfortable for Gurley to stay. The whole situation is fascinating as it has shown how important the soft power board members hold is. Strictly speaking, no one can force Kalanick or Gurley out, but out they are.
The reason they were fired was because this whole mess got a lot of publicity. If there was no publicity, nothing would have happened.
Ask Warren Buffett even he complains board members dont do much work they just blindly follow what the CEO says.
Ask Warren Buffett even he complains board members dont do much work they just blindly follow what the CEO says.
Maybe. There are also a couple lawsuits in the mix, and the harassment issue was a lot more than just press.
Yup. The Holder report seems scathing, too, from what little we've seen. I would think that everything we've seen would have lead to a significant down round if Kalanick hadn't resigned (we still probably will). Given Uber's lack of profits & burn rate, a down round could send them into a death spiral.
All that we've seen is a list of recommendations. How did you go from a list of recommendations with no explanation as to how each recommendation was arrived at to "seems scathing"?
[deleted]
Hm so Kalanick is still on the. Pars so heoretically he can make a triumphant return at a later date?
I remain flabbergasted by all of this upheaval at Uber. What's happening is the sort of housecleaning I would expect if the company had to file for bankruptcy or got caught flat out bribing judges or something. But really, what triggered all this was acting like jerks.
It seems to me, what should have happened (a long time ago) was that they got shut down for systematically breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. That would have made sense.
But instead they are getting flayed alive by not much more than bad press for being jerks. Makes no goddamn sense.
It seems to me, what should have happened (a long time ago) was that they got shut down for systematically breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. That would have made sense.
But instead they are getting flayed alive by not much more than bad press for being jerks. Makes no goddamn sense.
> by not much more than bad press for being jerks
The problem with being a jerk is that people will dislike you.
They might put up with you if you are rich, successful and powerful, but they certainly won't look to help you if you are in trouble and may even come along to help put the boot in.
> Makes no goddamn sense.
What's happening makes perfect sense. People don't like jerks, and enjoy bringing them down.
The problem with being a jerk is that people will dislike you.
They might put up with you if you are rich, successful and powerful, but they certainly won't look to help you if you are in trouble and may even come along to help put the boot in.
> Makes no goddamn sense.
What's happening makes perfect sense. People don't like jerks, and enjoy bringing them down.
He might have been a jerk, not all jerks get the same treatment of being covered in Front Page for every single issue. And that's what makes me believe it's inflated https://hackernoon.com/travis-kalanick-lost-today-hoping-to-...
See above about sticking in the boot when in trouble. Some of that might be opportunistically sticking in the boot, but there's a lot less boot sticking if the person involved is not a jerk.
See also:
http://www.paulgraham.com/mean.html
And
http://www.paulgraham.com/safe.html
See also:
http://www.paulgraham.com/mean.html
And
http://www.paulgraham.com/safe.html
They're currently being investigated by the Justice Department and fired dozens of people over sexual harassment. They also maybe knowingly stole self-driving tech. Seems like a few big deals.
And those are just the bigger issues, there are numerous issues with local municipalities and also issues with driver quality (someone in my state was raped by a driver who has since fled the country) and workforce satisfaction.
There are a series of issues that will be problematic for them as they approach the need for more funding. If they aren't triaged now they're going to have bigger issues in the near future.
Honestly this is the smartest thing they've done in a while.
And those are just the bigger issues, there are numerous issues with local municipalities and also issues with driver quality (someone in my state was raped by a driver who has since fled the country) and workforce satisfaction.
There are a series of issues that will be problematic for them as they approach the need for more funding. If they aren't triaged now they're going to have bigger issues in the near future.
Honestly this is the smartest thing they've done in a while.
It's interesting how you use downplaying language "acting like jerks" and hyperbolic language "getting flayed alive" in order to try to sway the reader to your position.
Myself, I'm finding it difficult to understand your position at all because you aren't describing any recognizable facts about the situation.
Myself, I'm finding it difficult to understand your position at all because you aren't describing any recognizable facts about the situation.
is the sort of housecleaning I would expect if the company had to file for bankruptcy
Uber is at a critical inflection point, and still remains a unsustainable company blowing through enormous amounts of cash. They desperately need to line up more, so unless they get their house in order they will not be an ongoing operation.
Uber is at a critical inflection point, and still remains a unsustainable company blowing through enormous amounts of cash. They desperately need to line up more, so unless they get their house in order they will not be an ongoing operation.
You're assuming the current board didn't have this planned for a long time. Let them break the law to get things done, then clean house after the stage was properly set. I STILL think that people are downplaying the Otto thing way too much, especially on this site.
It's easy to say that they're going to win in court... but this is GOOGLE - they're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and likely a decade trying to win this thing. Google isn't going to stop until they've exhausted literally every legal avenue possible. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a good portion of this isn't Uber's board trying to save the company from that legal battle - fire Kalanick, boot *Gurley, then license the tech from Waymo that was previously stolen.
It's easy to say that they're going to win in court... but this is GOOGLE - they're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and likely a decade trying to win this thing. Google isn't going to stop until they've exhausted literally every legal avenue possible. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a good portion of this isn't Uber's board trying to save the company from that legal battle - fire Kalanick, boot *Gurley, then license the tech from Waymo that was previously stolen.
And Google does not need to win. At the scale of Google v. Uber, getting injunctions, delays, and bogging down Uber's self driving car efforts are valuable on their own.
Not slow down, just not use what Google got through much more capital investment. That's where they should be, unless Uber prove that they are not using what was developed at Google.
I think you're onto something here. This seems like part of the plan (albeit hastened by the whole hostile workplace badness) - Misbehave as much as required to make it big, then axe a few prominent scapegoats to appease regulators and the mob. Meanwhile the ones pulling strings in the background carry on as usual.
Kalanick still had the majority. The board couldn't "plan" this without his consent.
They absolutely could plan it without his consent. Uber is still hemorrhaging money. They'd be lucky to make it through 2018 if those investors turned off the tap.
They absolutely could not put this plan into effect without his consent. Uber has plenty of sources for capital. The current board consists mainly of individuals who do not have funds to capitalize Uber anyways. Take a look at their funding history and you will realize that the lead in each round is a new investor.
Exactly. If you haven't made a profit you don't control shit, you get exactly as much control as the moneypurses allow you have and NO more.
Depends on how you define "consent" — others have noted that they need to raise a round within a little over a year, and they may have threatened to poison the well if Kalanick didn't step down.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You mean... Like the blatant obstruction of Justice a la Greyball? I'm sure the DoJ has gears in motion...
Probably variations of people taking advantage of the chaos to do things they weren't bold enough to do before. Whether resigning or forcing someone else out. Lots of grudges get settled during a riot.
I feel like it makes perfect sense. It's capitalism in action. They are free to act like jerks, and their users and stakeholders are free to punish them for it.
Hostile work environments are not "just bring jerks", it is illegal.
I guess how you read my comment might depend on how sensitive you are to the criticisms. All I mean to say is that bad business gets economically punished. Internal culture is part of a business' reputation. I do not condone hostile work environments and neither do most people. This is why they are being punished. Uber must obey the law, they are not exempt from it. But economics has actually been more swift at enacting change here. I just think it's an interesting observation.
There's lots of bad business in lots of industries that goes unpunished, especially if we only include punishment due to economic forces/social pressure. Want to take any bets on whether Kalanick (who holds a voting majority) would have been ousted if Uber was profitable and not depending on future funding rounds to merely survive?
That isn't freedom, it's privatized crime and punishment. It's the same as saying you're free to be homeless if you can't afford rent.
(Except this is good.)
(Except this is good.)
I don't really see how it's privatized crime and punishment. Being a jerk isn't illegal. And the "punishment" is economic, not forceful. I don't think your analogy works.
[deleted]
A jerk is someone who borrows your car and doesn't pay for the dent he puts in the bumper. What happened at Uber was the creation of one of the most insanely hostile work environments in living memory, where flouting not just the law, but also basic standards of human decency, was not only accepted but encouraged at all levels of the company.
Did you work there? This narrative is almost comically hyperbolic.
I know exactly one person who works at Uber. She joined as an engineer about a year ago. I asked; she says it is less sexist than every other place she has worked (especially after all the press), and she likes her job. She also says it's a big company and she doesn't know if it's different in other parts.
I know exactly one person who works at Uber. She joined as an engineer about a year ago. I asked; she says it is less sexist than every other place she has worked (especially after all the press), and she likes her job. She also says it's a big company and she doesn't know if it's different in other parts.
If 50% of women at Uber are perfectly happy at their jobs, and the other 50% are being subject to an illegal hostile work environment, that is not a good track record.
Even if that number was 10%, or 1%, that is still a horrible track record.
They have perhaps taken the criticism and news to heart and changed their ways, but nobody at all denies that there WERENT problems before.
Uber itself has admitted that there were serious problems, and says that they re going to fix them.
Even if that number was 10%, or 1%, that is still a horrible track record.
They have perhaps taken the criticism and news to heart and changed their ways, but nobody at all denies that there WERENT problems before.
Uber itself has admitted that there were serious problems, and says that they re going to fix them.
Sure, but the claim is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence
By this point, it is clear that Eric Holder found at least some evidence.
Evidence of problems, yes. Evidence of "one of the most insanely hostile work environments in living memory, where flouting not just the law, but also basic standards of human decency, was not only accepted but encouraged at all levels of the company"?
You don't think it was extraordinary that David Bonderman interrupted Arianna Huffington to make a crude sexist remark about how he believes women on the board talk too much, during the all-hands meeting to unveil Uber’s plan for overhauling its corporate culture?
Yes, Uber board member David Bonderman said women talk too much at an all-hands meeting about sexism at Uber: https://www.recode.net/2017/6/13/15795612/uber-board-member-...
It's not fake news. It's not contested. He resigned in disgrace, because HE talked too much. You can listen to the audio yourself. It starts at 6:37.
LEAKED AUDIO: Uber's all-hands meeting had some uncomfortable moments: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-ubers-hands-meeting-tr...
Arianna Huffington: "And there is a lot of data that shows that when there is one woman on the board, it's much more likely that there will be a second woman on the board."
David Bonderman: "Actually what it shows is that it's much more likely to be more talking."
What he just did in front of the entire company at the worst possible moment is strong first hand evidence that speaks directly to the fact that the cause of Uber's horrible track record of sexism deeply pervades its board of directors. Making a remark like that at a time like that isn't just an anomaly out of the blue -- it reveals his true character and Uber's true culture.
It was nothing short of a vicious unfounded public personal attack on Arianna Huffington, Wan Ling Martello, and all of Uber's female employees.
David Bonderman Resigns From Uber Board After Sexist Remark: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/uber-sexual-ha...
"Mr. Bonderman’s original comments, according to experts, also lack merit.
Tali Mendelberg, professor of politics at Princeton University, and Christopher Karpowitz, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, conducted a study in 2012 concluding that men talked far more than women did at meetings. The professors convened 94 groups of five people and varied the number of men and women in the groups. Their study is in line with multiple others drawing similar conclusions — men talk more than women, and men interrupt more than women.
“The study shows that men will dominate the conversation if there are more men than women in the group, and they dominate by a lot,” Ms. Mendelberg said in an interview. “When you have just two women in the group, those women are much more silent than men are.”
Uber’s board of directors was composed entirely of men until 2016, when Ms. Huffington gained a seat. This week Uber said another woman had been added to the board: Wan Ling Martello, the executive vice president of Nestle in Asia."
Yes, Uber board member David Bonderman said women talk too much at an all-hands meeting about sexism at Uber: https://www.recode.net/2017/6/13/15795612/uber-board-member-...
It's not fake news. It's not contested. He resigned in disgrace, because HE talked too much. You can listen to the audio yourself. It starts at 6:37.
LEAKED AUDIO: Uber's all-hands meeting had some uncomfortable moments: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-ubers-hands-meeting-tr...
Arianna Huffington: "And there is a lot of data that shows that when there is one woman on the board, it's much more likely that there will be a second woman on the board."
David Bonderman: "Actually what it shows is that it's much more likely to be more talking."
What he just did in front of the entire company at the worst possible moment is strong first hand evidence that speaks directly to the fact that the cause of Uber's horrible track record of sexism deeply pervades its board of directors. Making a remark like that at a time like that isn't just an anomaly out of the blue -- it reveals his true character and Uber's true culture.
It was nothing short of a vicious unfounded public personal attack on Arianna Huffington, Wan Ling Martello, and all of Uber's female employees.
David Bonderman Resigns From Uber Board After Sexist Remark: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/technology/uber-sexual-ha...
"Mr. Bonderman’s original comments, according to experts, also lack merit.
Tali Mendelberg, professor of politics at Princeton University, and Christopher Karpowitz, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, conducted a study in 2012 concluding that men talked far more than women did at meetings. The professors convened 94 groups of five people and varied the number of men and women in the groups. Their study is in line with multiple others drawing similar conclusions — men talk more than women, and men interrupt more than women.
“The study shows that men will dominate the conversation if there are more men than women in the group, and they dominate by a lot,” Ms. Mendelberg said in an interview. “When you have just two women in the group, those women are much more silent than men are.”
Uber’s board of directors was composed entirely of men until 2016, when Ms. Huffington gained a seat. This week Uber said another woman had been added to the board: Wan Ling Martello, the executive vice president of Nestle in Asia."
Hmmm. I'm not quite sure I see your point.
Arianna Huffington: <Some female-positive remark>
David Bonderman: <Some female-negative remark>
Why are you carrying the water for a sexist pig like Bonderman by misrepresenting his crude sexist remark as "some female-negative remark" and attempting to make a false equivalence by claiming it's the same as Huffington making "some female-positive remark"?
You don't see Huffington resign in disgrace, because there was no reason for her to, but you do see Bonderman resign in disgrace, because there was a very good reason for him to, and he admitted it in his resignation letter, calling his actions "careless, inappropriate, and inexcusable" and adding "I need to hold myself to the same standards that we’re asking Uber to adopt. Therefore, I have decided to resign from Uber’s board of directors, effective tomorrow morning.".
Do you disagree with anything he himself said in his resignation letter? Can you explain why he resigned and she didn't, if their comments are equivalent, and he didn't disgrace himself? What precisely did Huffington say that you believe is disgraceful?
Huffington was INVESTIGATING sexism and attempting to CHANGE Uber's sexist culture. Bonderman was EXEMPLIFYING sexism and attempting to PERPETUATE Uber's sexist culture. Are you capable of seeing the difference?
While you're at it, do you care to also carry the water for rtx's sexist remark: "It's a fact that women can speak more than men. But not sure why that is important during board meeting." -rtx
You don't see Huffington resign in disgrace, because there was no reason for her to, but you do see Bonderman resign in disgrace, because there was a very good reason for him to, and he admitted it in his resignation letter, calling his actions "careless, inappropriate, and inexcusable" and adding "I need to hold myself to the same standards that we’re asking Uber to adopt. Therefore, I have decided to resign from Uber’s board of directors, effective tomorrow morning.".
Do you disagree with anything he himself said in his resignation letter? Can you explain why he resigned and she didn't, if their comments are equivalent, and he didn't disgrace himself? What precisely did Huffington say that you believe is disgraceful?
Huffington was INVESTIGATING sexism and attempting to CHANGE Uber's sexist culture. Bonderman was EXEMPLIFYING sexism and attempting to PERPETUATE Uber's sexist culture. Are you capable of seeing the difference?
While you're at it, do you care to also carry the water for rtx's sexist remark: "It's a fact that women can speak more than men. But not sure why that is important during board meeting." -rtx
It's a fact that women can speak more than men. But not sure why that is important during board meeting.
Speak for yourself. But you'd be much better off if you kept your mouth shut about sexist opinions like that. Just like Bonderman.
Extraordinary evidence such as basically every C level executive being ousted?
Extraordinary evidence, such as the company itself doing a thorough investigation, finding lots of problems, and then publishing those problems?
Uber itself has shouted to the world that the problems existed, and that they are working to fix them.
I am not sure what other kind of evidence you could get, that is better than the company itself saying that there is a problem.
Extraordinary evidence, such as the company itself doing a thorough investigation, finding lots of problems, and then publishing those problems?
Uber itself has shouted to the world that the problems existed, and that they are working to fix them.
I am not sure what other kind of evidence you could get, that is better than the company itself saying that there is a problem.
And David Bonderman interrupting Arianna Huffington with a sexist remark and personifying that problem on stage during the all-hands meeting. It doesn't get more extraordinary than that!
Perhaps there is something else they are taking the focus away from. (Otto/Google)
> he says it is less sexist than every other place she has worked (especially after all the press), and she likes her job
I'm sure you're paraphrasing, but these things are not equal.
I'm sure you're paraphrasing, but these things are not equal.
[deleted]
> one of the most insanely hostile work environments in living memory
> encouraged at all levels of the company
Do you have any sources for this? There have been a few blog posts and some independent investigations to my knowledge but nothing to suggest it is/was "one of the most insanely hostile work environments"--especially worldwide.
> encouraged at all levels of the company
Do you have any sources for this? There have been a few blog posts and some independent investigations to my knowledge but nothing to suggest it is/was "one of the most insanely hostile work environments"--especially worldwide.
I have yet to find a place that can maintain "basic standards of human decency" yet still be aggressive enough in its endeavors to push the limits without people getting hurt.
Listen, Uber gets lots of flak for being a nasty work environment, but maybe all it ever did was play very, very hard ball. People think the solution is to, figuratively speaking, play nice, but maybe the real solution is for the other side of the team to play just as hard, if not harder. Meaning for employees to not just own the assigned work, but also the work environment, to blow the whistle when they see something wrong, to dig up the hatchet when things get unfair, and most importantly to never be accepting of status quo just for political reasons or for lack of perseverance, but to confront every thing they disagree with, for the very simple reason of "communication" more than anything else.
The idea is not to punish but to make points known and push evil back into its hiding spot.
Listen, Uber gets lots of flak for being a nasty work environment, but maybe all it ever did was play very, very hard ball. People think the solution is to, figuratively speaking, play nice, but maybe the real solution is for the other side of the team to play just as hard, if not harder. Meaning for employees to not just own the assigned work, but also the work environment, to blow the whistle when they see something wrong, to dig up the hatchet when things get unfair, and most importantly to never be accepting of status quo just for political reasons or for lack of perseverance, but to confront every thing they disagree with, for the very simple reason of "communication" more than anything else.
The idea is not to punish but to make points known and push evil back into its hiding spot.
I think you have an overly optimistic view of what the deep end of hostile work environments looks like (not that Uber was not notably bad).
So basically all investment banking divisions should be treated with the same regard?
I find it strange that we seem to give finance a pass when they've engaged in this sort of behavior for decades.
I find it strange that we seem to give finance a pass when they've engaged in this sort of behavior for decades.
We shouldn't give them a pass either. That's a non sequitur.
Do we actually give the finance industry a pass? The fact that "Wall st" is a pejorative these days is some indication that's not the case.
The fact that there are never any real consequences to Wall St actually tends to prove the opposite.
Wall St has deeply and thoroughly captured all of the regulatory agencies charged with overseeing it, as well as most of the powerful organs of government, and thus sits comfortably above the law.
But not above the ire of the media. The media is just as money-corruptible as every other business enterprise and it found a shiny new toy to play with with Uber. There are likely orders of magnitude more workplace culture issues in finance, yet the media has largely moved past lambasting financial firms for that because it doesn't earn them enough eyeballs. Uber is only getting more attention for something many many many businesses are guilty of (and to a far greater degree) because no other company is as lucrative to write about.
Yeah, we definitely give finance a pass. We say "huh, well, bankers will be bankers, can't expect folks to behave around that much money", put in place some ineffectual "controls" and start the whole cycle again.
Whataboutism. The stronger argument is "So basically the White House should be treated with the same regard?" but the answer is still "We shouldn't give them a pass either. That's a non sequitur."
Maybe bankers get a pass. What does that have to do with this situation? It's an insidious line of argument.
The culture in finance is a lot more professional (and less sexist) than what was going on in Uber.
Good grief. Yes, the press are the bad guys in all this.
> caught flat out bribing judges or something.
I mean, pretty close: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-gre...
They also have that Otto thing: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-fight-uber-takes-turn-...
Oh and yeah, and with the push to #deleteuber and the massive amount of cash Uber's burning (or was), I can't imagine they wont be bankrupt soon[1].
[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/uber-is-losing-an-ins...
I mean, pretty close: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-gre...
They also have that Otto thing: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-fight-uber-takes-turn-...
Oh and yeah, and with the push to #deleteuber and the massive amount of cash Uber's burning (or was), I can't imagine they wont be bankrupt soon[1].
[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/uber-is-losing-an-ins...
> and the massive amount of cash Uber's burning (or was), I can't imagine they wont be bankrupt soon
let's wait and see what the q2 numbers look like before we start declaring the patient dead.
The (for some reason) publicly reported q1 losses of 700m, were (was?) ~33% better than q4 2016 (1b). if the (presumably) publicly reported q2 numbers are in the neighborhood of 500m, you'd be looking at real growth.
Quarter ends in 2 weeks and the q1 numbers were (for some reason) released right when q1 ended, so maybe we don't have to wait too long.
let's wait and see what the q2 numbers look like before we start declaring the patient dead.
The (for some reason) publicly reported q1 losses of 700m, were (was?) ~33% better than q4 2016 (1b). if the (presumably) publicly reported q2 numbers are in the neighborhood of 500m, you'd be looking at real growth.
Quarter ends in 2 weeks and the q1 numbers were (for some reason) released right when q1 ended, so maybe we don't have to wait too long.
Part of that is seasonal, cold = more taxis.
It's these types of comments that demonstrate how ignorant the doomsayers are about Uber's business. The doomsayers start with their desired failure outcome and work their way back to the present instead of seeing the myriad ways they could not be more wrong.
In this case, Uber is an international business that operates in the northern and southern hemisphere and many places with other relevant weather patterns like rainy seasons and dry seasons. The seasonality at this point is likely almost entirely smoothed out by the sheer number of places they operate in globally. The US market might be larger and more mature, but many international markets have largely caught up now.
In this case, Uber is an international business that operates in the northern and southern hemisphere and many places with other relevant weather patterns like rainy seasons and dry seasons. The seasonality at this point is likely almost entirely smoothed out by the sheer number of places they operate in globally. The US market might be larger and more mature, but many international markets have largely caught up now.
to back up your point:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/technology/uber-limits-lo...
> The company said Wednesday that it lost $708 million over the first three months of the year on revenue of $3.4 billion, not counting expenses like employee stock compensation. That is a narrowing of the previous quarter’s loss of $991 million, on revenue of $2.9 billion.
revenue grew by ~500M, losses fell by ~300M. this isn't just more butts in seats trying to avoid the rain. this is about increased efficiency; each trip costing less in incentives and efficiency doesn't depend on the weather, or the hemisphere.
anyway, if the trend continues, we'll know more in a week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/technology/uber-limits-lo...
> The company said Wednesday that it lost $708 million over the first three months of the year on revenue of $3.4 billion, not counting expenses like employee stock compensation. That is a narrowing of the previous quarter’s loss of $991 million, on revenue of $2.9 billion.
revenue grew by ~500M, losses fell by ~300M. this isn't just more butts in seats trying to avoid the rain. this is about increased efficiency; each trip costing less in incentives and efficiency doesn't depend on the weather, or the hemisphere.
anyway, if the trend continues, we'll know more in a week.
How much of that income comes from the southern hemisphere? The Northern one is where all the money is.
I think a lot of the maneuvering that's happening now is prompted more by TK's seeming unwillingness to make sincere changes (and that's always worse than the initial mistake), but more importantly Uber's financials are still utter garbage right now and changes need to occur for that to be fixed in time for them to find the next Saudi Arabia that'll invest another $3.5B for them to keep the lights on for another year.
Sexual harassment and retaliation against employees for reporting it is not "just being jerks".
It is illegal.
It is illegal.
Perhaps it should be actually illegal, like criminally punishible, but it is not.
It is a tort, civil violation, etc...but nobody is going to jail.
It is a tort, civil violation, etc...but nobody is going to jail.
From the civil rights act of 1964:
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.
Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.
Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of the site, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.
The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
I have to reply to your comment, since I don't find his comment to be political at all, more pointing to the semantical point of things being illegal.
Second, I've browsed through the comments and their submitters comments. I find it striking some people's accounts have been banned on the basis of very few comments.
Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me. Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?
Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me. Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?
I also have no idea what was wrong with that comment. I wonder if dang replied to the wrong commentator?
I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.
I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.
I think I should have been more clear. I really wasn't trying to nitpick.
Just thought some people might be surprised that the retaliation was not criminal, and at best results in injunctions, fines, civil liability, etc.
Because I didn't word it better, I find myself in the odd position of arguing with people who probably share my high level opinion on the matter.
Just thought some people might be surprised that the retaliation was not criminal, and at best results in injunctions, fines, civil liability, etc.
Because I didn't word it better, I find myself in the odd position of arguing with people who probably share my high level opinion on the matter.
Denny Crane
[deleted]
Sigh. Arguing logic of proper behavior on these matters on HN always results in apologists making excuses as to how it should have been handled.
Well, no. I specifically pointed out that perhaps it should be criminal. I felt it worth noting not for pedantry, but because we have a fair number of readers that might wonder why nobody was being prosecuted if it is indeed a crime.
... and always results in holier-than-thou ideologues trying to shut down any discussion through shaming tactics and pedantry.
What's your point?
What's your point?
No it is not. The word "illegal" gets thrown around way too much; it has a very specific definition in law, and nothing you described is illegal.
Huh? Sexual harassment and retaliation are both illegal under the Civil Rights Act.
[deleted]
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
Words are defined by how people use them, and this fits the common usage of the word illegal.
Nobody cares what pedantic definition a lawyer would use to describe this, because nobody made lawyers the language police.
http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/
Words are defined by how people use them, and this fits the common usage of the word illegal.
Nobody cares what pedantic definition a lawyer would use to describe this, because nobody made lawyers the language police.
Every large organization has instances of this, including Facebook, Google, and the Vatican. It's not right, but it's reality. The only thing is that every other company has done a great job of covering it up, like Amit Singhal who was fired from Google for sexual harrassment, but no one knew that before he joined Uber.
You're right that, statistically speaking, the odds of a company facing a sexual harassment problem approaches unity over time.
But this goes off the rails on the next part. On one hand, you have a company presumably following the legal process[1] of getting through a harassment accusation being accused of a "cover up" in order to implicitly draw an equivalence with a company that apparently had a policy of shielding specific employees from harassment claims.
[1] I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, but haven't seen any suggestions of impropriety.
But this goes off the rails on the next part. On one hand, you have a company presumably following the legal process[1] of getting through a harassment accusation being accused of a "cover up" in order to implicitly draw an equivalence with a company that apparently had a policy of shielding specific employees from harassment claims.
[1] I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, but haven't seen any suggestions of impropriety.
You are presuming that Google followed the proper legal process based on what? Did you even bother doing the research?
http://gizmodo.com/former-google-engineer-blasts-companys-hr...
According to multiple sources and internal notes read to me, after discussing the claims of an alleged encounter between Singhal and a female employee first with former Google HR head Laszlo Bock and also Google CEO Sundar Pichai in late 2015, he denied those claims at the time. He also apparently stated a number of times that there were two sides to every story.
A former Google employee I spoke to has described the search giant’s HR as “a nasty mess.” They are not alone. Monday afternoon, former Google engineer Kelly Ellis shared some of her own experiences with at the company in light of the news surrounding Singhal’s departure. Ellis previously tweeted about sexual harassment she faced at Google back in 2015.
Sounds eerily familiar. My point being the exact same as what I said. Uber isn't right for letting this happen, but companies like Google have allowed this to happen, you just don't hear about it.
That said, your bias against Uber is blinding you.
http://gizmodo.com/former-google-engineer-blasts-companys-hr...
According to multiple sources and internal notes read to me, after discussing the claims of an alleged encounter between Singhal and a female employee first with former Google HR head Laszlo Bock and also Google CEO Sundar Pichai in late 2015, he denied those claims at the time. He also apparently stated a number of times that there were two sides to every story.
A former Google employee I spoke to has described the search giant’s HR as “a nasty mess.” They are not alone. Monday afternoon, former Google engineer Kelly Ellis shared some of her own experiences with at the company in light of the news surrounding Singhal’s departure. Ellis previously tweeted about sexual harassment she faced at Google back in 2015.
Sounds eerily familiar. My point being the exact same as what I said. Uber isn't right for letting this happen, but companies like Google have allowed this to happen, you just don't hear about it.
That said, your bias against Uber is blinding you.
> But really, what triggered all this was acting like jerks.
If you trivialise illegal activity as "acting like jerks", then none of this really holds much water. They've been jerks the whole time.
If you trivialise illegal activity as "acting like jerks", then none of this really holds much water. They've been jerks the whole time.
What's striking and weird is that flagrant illegal activity as a core part of their business model never seemed to matter, but now this huge upheval is happening in response to a small amount of (sure, illegal) personal behaviour.
I'm not sure how the Uber fallout is a surprise to anyone. As an analogy, take every major political scandal you can think of - Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Iran Contra, Chappaquiddick, etc - and imagine a single elected official perpetrating them all within the course of a year. How do you think they would be treated?
... with a red carpet to the White House?
I suspect Huffington is behind a lot of this.
I bet Travis will ultimately be back. They are parking him for 1-2 years (and he's willing) because there is such a negative culture in the place it pervades everything.
Putting in some stability for a while makes sense, but a some point they will probably want to start running hard again.
Putting in some stability for a while makes sense, but a some point they will probably want to start running hard again.
Actually, I think TK responded to the letter from the investors by saying "you want me out, fine, kick Gurley to the curb and I'm gone", knowing full well he can vote himself back in when he wants to.
Though there is nothing terrible about your comment in itself, the fact that it is the most highly upvoted in this thread really shows how toxic this community can be. People here really seem to think that a company culture that tolerates or encourages sexual harassment is acceptable as long as it's not illegal.
The laws they were breaking are employment laws. Financial institutions are rooting for these kind of rebels.
Making profits without employees is the holy grail of finance. They are willing to look away on law violations if you blind them with that dream. By the way, in my opinion, a similar sentiment is driving the hype in deep learning funding.
Making profits without employees is the holy grail of finance. They are willing to look away on law violations if you blind them with that dream. By the way, in my opinion, a similar sentiment is driving the hype in deep learning funding.
Housecleaning indeed, though some departures were voluntary. 8 top level execs and two board members so far. Link contains a visual of who has left the building, 2 incoming execs and vacant C Suite spots.
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/14/15794816/uber-charge-leader...
I'm surprised Thuan Pham (CTO) survived the carnage since he was mentioned in Susan Fowler's post. As an aside my dark horse candidates for CEO or COO are Thomas Staggs former Disney COO and Susan Wojcicki (Current YouTube CEO)
I'm surprised Thuan Pham (CTO) survived the carnage since he was mentioned in Susan Fowler's post. As an aside my dark horse candidates for CEO or COO are Thomas Staggs former Disney COO and Susan Wojcicki (Current YouTube CEO)
Why on Earth would Susan leave Alphabet to go to Uber? Serious question...I think she probably has more money than she needs now, why would anyone subject themselves to what running Uber is going to be like?
Staggs I can see, he's made it pretty clear he's looking for a big job -- and as a former I-banker and public company corp fin / M&A guy, he very well may have an itch to prove he can hack it in startup-land (a la Anthony Noto).
Staggs I can see, he's made it pretty clear he's looking for a big job -- and as a former I-banker and public company corp fin / M&A guy, he very well may have an itch to prove he can hack it in startup-land (a la Anthony Noto).
I think the board is just covering their asses now for what they should have done at least a year ago.
> they are getting flayed alive
What unjust consequences are they experiencing, exactly?
Bad press – and the associated bad reputation – seem warranted and acceptable, no? Uber always had a terrible reputation as a place to work, as far as I could tell (worked in the same building for a year).
Employees leaving – also seems like a reasonable consequence for a negative work environment, and the press tables turning on a company that many joined because it was "hot".
CEO getting fired – a key part of the job of a CEO is crisis management. He didn't manage "crises" well (eg; top execs left). Whether the crises were real or inflated is irrelevant.
What unjust consequences are they experiencing, exactly?
Bad press – and the associated bad reputation – seem warranted and acceptable, no? Uber always had a terrible reputation as a place to work, as far as I could tell (worked in the same building for a year).
Employees leaving – also seems like a reasonable consequence for a negative work environment, and the press tables turning on a company that many joined because it was "hot".
CEO getting fired – a key part of the job of a CEO is crisis management. He didn't manage "crises" well (eg; top execs left). Whether the crises were real or inflated is irrelevant.
I wonder if Travis resigning was contingent on Bill Gurley leaving the board. As Bill seems to be the main anti-Travis actor on the board.
It's unclear if Gurley actually wants to leave the board. Part of me thinks that he knows something really bad is coming down the pipes (e.g. potential criminal liability re: Otto, etc) and he wants to distance himself now. It's half a conspiracy theory, but makes you think ...
It's got to be the Otto lawsuit, that's obviously coming, after Levandowski dropped the ball with that "plead the Fifth" stuff.
Even the Google network forensics team have him bang to rights[1] taking data while on-site at the campus, Google would be mental to not launch a volley and destroy a potential competitor in the process.
And you don't drop $680m on an acquisition without going through board approval first, surely? Somebody's definitely complicit.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/googles-waymo-just-dropped-exp...
Even the Google network forensics team have him bang to rights[1] taking data while on-site at the campus, Google would be mental to not launch a volley and destroy a potential competitor in the process.
And you don't drop $680m on an acquisition without going through board approval first, surely? Somebody's definitely complicit.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/googles-waymo-just-dropped-exp...
This was the same thing that popped my mind when I read this news.
Also: if he leaves before something really bad happens to the company, he might claim he left because the unethical behaviour of the company didn't align with his ideals, perhaps not hurting his future prospects at the boards of other companies.
Also: if he leaves before something really bad happens to the company, he might claim he left because the unethical behaviour of the company didn't align with his ideals, perhaps not hurting his future prospects at the boards of other companies.
I wondered the same. Or whether Gurley is exhausted with the whole thing and viewed now as a good time to hand the baton to someone else at Benchmark.
Uber is now more popcorn worthy than both HoC and Trump administration combined.
Meanwhile all of the rank and file employees keep the lights on and the ship afloat. Wishing their on-call teams all the best.
Finally! After years of assholes being assholes because it's not illegal to be assholes, now finally they are finding that there are repercussions.
if you piss off everyone, then you better hope like hell that you don't fall and need someone's help.
tldr: assholes.
if you piss off everyone, then you better hope like hell that you don't fall and need someone's help.
tldr: assholes.
Unfortunately, it seems the true lesson is "after years of being assholes, they get to go home with more money than many of us will ever see".
[deleted]
that person has been elected president.
Would you please not take HN threads on generic political tangents? They lead to flamewars and trainwrecks, as seen below. We're hoping for better than that here.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14609910 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14609910 and marked it off-topic.
pardon?
can you help me understand how my reply was off-topic given the question:
> As an analogy, take every major political scandal you can think of - Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Iran Contra, Chappaquiddick, etc - and imagine a single elected official perpetrating them all within the course of a year. How do you think they would be treated?
can you help me understand how my reply was off-topic given the question:
> As an analogy, take every major political scandal you can think of - Monica Lewinsky, Watergate, Iran Contra, Chappaquiddick, etc - and imagine a single elected official perpetrating them all within the course of a year. How do you think they would be treated?
It's a matter of degree. At least the parent comment was loosely tied to the original topic, where yours went off the moorings altogether.
It's often a judgment call where to clip these threads, sort of like the temperature at which to save a boiling frog.
It's often a judgment call where to clip these threads, sort of like the temperature at which to save a boiling frog.
exclusiv(1)
How well is Garret Camp doing with running Expa?
"Hey, anyone remember how this company is supposed to run? Anybody? Wasn't ANYBODY here before? Hey, we're still worth $70 billion right?"
Did he resign in a show of support for David Bonderman, because he thinks women talk too much too?
Could someone please explain to me how come Uber has 12,000 employees? Drivers are not employees, there is no content to curate, no brick & mortar operations, the app and tech stack is pretty much developed and stable. Sure the Otto and UberEATS are part of that number but still. Did I miss something?
Could someone please explain to me how come Uber has 12,000 employees
Because they can afford it and desperately want to grow. Let's say Uber operates in about 300 cities around the world and have their eyes on another 100. Dedicate an average of 3-4 people to grow and market your services in each city plus another 3 to handle local staffing, admin and regulatory issues and you're already at ~2500.
Because they can afford it and desperately want to grow. Let's say Uber operates in about 300 cities around the world and have their eyes on another 100. Dedicate an average of 3-4 people to grow and market your services in each city plus another 3 to handle local staffing, admin and regulatory issues and you're already at ~2500.
The Ravikant v. Tolia (and Bill Gurley) Lawsuit: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/02/ravika...