A textbook case in workplace discrimination(backchannel.com)
backchannel.com
A textbook case in workplace discrimination
https://backchannel.com/ubers-leather-boys-fcdcf8dbac70
173 comments
> The title is, of course, godawful. Remember that most story authors don't get to pick their titles.
The author of this piece is the editor-in-chief. (the title edit by the mods is indeed an improvement)
The author of this piece is the editor-in-chief. (the title edit by the mods is indeed an improvement)
Honestly, the title led me to expect even more horrifying harassment stories plus a healthy dose of amateur kinkshaming.
I'm almost glad that the piece turned out to be about rather more banal evil than that (though, still, wtf at the level of callow thoughtlessness).
I'm almost glad that the piece turned out to be about rather more banal evil than that (though, still, wtf at the level of callow thoughtlessness).
Smart companies should start giving ethical puzzles to their management candidates. Many tech companies select from the pool of engineers by setting clever brainteasers to evaluate their problem-solving ability. How many do the same to evaluate supervisors' understanding of social technology and relations?
I know some firms have ethicists on staff, but they seem to be there more to guide and/or provide cover for working with potentially dangerous technology. I don't get the impression that they have much input into shaping the organization's culture beyond signing off on a list of diversity goals. I'd like to be wrong about this, though, can anyone shed more light on this question?
I know some firms have ethicists on staff, but they seem to be there more to guide and/or provide cover for working with potentially dangerous technology. I don't get the impression that they have much input into shaping the organization's culture beyond signing off on a list of diversity goals. I'd like to be wrong about this, though, can anyone shed more light on this question?
You know, a sufficiently smart person would probably most likely know when their actions are ethically questionable, despite feigning ignorance when caught. These people act the way they do not because they are unaware, but they know they can get away with it. So they are most likely able to fly through any ethics puzzles.
It is a difficult problem and I'm not sure what the solutions are. Perhaps that is why referalls are generally given so much weight by employers: I've always thought of that as a chain of trust starting with the founders and extending right down to lower-level employees. However, a colleague/friend that you know well to be amazing to you might still have rather questionable views on gender/race/nationality etc. which you don't know so even this chain of trust isn't unbreakable...
It is a difficult problem and I'm not sure what the solutions are. Perhaps that is why referalls are generally given so much weight by employers: I've always thought of that as a chain of trust starting with the founders and extending right down to lower-level employees. However, a colleague/friend that you know well to be amazing to you might still have rather questionable views on gender/race/nationality etc. which you don't know so even this chain of trust isn't unbreakable...
I am reminded of reading The Prince in college and hearing about virtù. Although you may think it's simply translated as "virtue", it's actually a very loaded concept in his works.
Machiavelli employs "virtù" to refer to the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and to “achieve great things,” the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be no equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian virtù. Machiavelli expects princes of the highest virtù to be capable, as the situation requires, of behaving in a completely evil fashion. The managers probably thought their actions were in the "raison d'État".
To extend Levy's simile from the article, the male engineers wore the leather jackets with the élan of fighter pilots and the virtù of The Prince.
Machiavelli employs "virtù" to refer to the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and to “achieve great things,” the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be no equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian virtù. Machiavelli expects princes of the highest virtù to be capable, as the situation requires, of behaving in a completely evil fashion. The managers probably thought their actions were in the "raison d'État".
To extend Levy's simile from the article, the male engineers wore the leather jackets with the élan of fighter pilots and the virtù of The Prince.
I think the solution requires to stop allowing harassers to get away with harassment and ensure punishment. Still there are many questions about how this can be organized and maintained.
No, no one actually thinks they can get away with it given the current media climate. Donglegate is a reminder for everyone that even the smallest comment can bring the heat on you
So you're claiming that a manager at Uber thought it was ok to buy jackets for the guys, but to not get anything for the women because there was no bulk discount?
What idiot thinks this line of thought:
"It would unfair to the men if we paid more for the women's jackets, so we'll just give the men jackets and the women nothing. That seems more fair, right guys"?
makes any sense?
What idiot thinks this line of thought:
"It would unfair to the men if we paid more for the women's jackets, so we'll just give the men jackets and the women nothing. That seems more fair, right guys"?
makes any sense?
It's the reasoning process rather than the conclusion that you're testing for - many good ethics puzzles admit of more than one answer.
I took a diversity week class and the ethics were eye opening.
One takeaway was either never give your team/entity anything or always give them exactly the same thing.
Money is always preferred
Examples in class were:
"Define fairness and equality."
"Mary's child is sick and requested to work from home for 2 months. " what do you do as boss and what do you think as coworker?
One takeaway was either never give your team/entity anything or always give them exactly the same thing.
Money is always preferred
Examples in class were:
"Define fairness and equality."
"Mary's child is sick and requested to work from home for 2 months. " what do you do as boss and what do you think as coworker?
Yep. It is legal to be a dick, as long as you are a dick to everyone.
I'd just prefer to keep legality and courts out of politeness levels. But this situation is better somehow. :/
I'd just prefer to keep legality and courts out of politeness levels. But this situation is better somehow. :/
Team events and clothing are usually done by a female administrator or HR for engineering teams
> It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences from essentially telling the very few women in his group — something that in and of itself should have been a prime concern to him — that they are not welcome in his organization.
Also, keep in mind that Fowler's original story noted that when she started 25% of the organization was women, and when she left it was 6%. Have so few women should be a concern, having so few and that's partially because 75% of them have left in roughly a year's time should have been an "all hands on deck, company emergency, we're likely to be sued by multiple parties!" situation.
Unless you have a really good explanation for why that is, chances are you've created an extremely hostile work environment. Even if you do have a good explanation, it's probably in your best interest to look at it with a more critical eye, because the stakes are so high.
I mean, nobody want's to be stuck with such a bad PR nightmare that they feel the need to hire a former attorney general to signal how serious you're taking it. At that point, you're already screwed.
Also, keep in mind that Fowler's original story noted that when she started 25% of the organization was women, and when she left it was 6%. Have so few women should be a concern, having so few and that's partially because 75% of them have left in roughly a year's time should have been an "all hands on deck, company emergency, we're likely to be sued by multiple parties!" situation.
Unless you have a really good explanation for why that is, chances are you've created an extremely hostile work environment. Even if you do have a good explanation, it's probably in your best interest to look at it with a more critical eye, because the stakes are so high.
I mean, nobody want's to be stuck with such a bad PR nightmare that they feel the need to hire a former attorney general to signal how serious you're taking it. At that point, you're already screwed.
It's hard to see when the numbers are small and can be ascribed to one-off cases for quite some time if the blindness is willful enough.
Let's say that the org started with 10 women out of 40, then two left the company for higher offers, one switched teams for a really good opportunity, another was fired for performing poorly, and then the last one is Fowler; meanwhile, a team of 30 men from a bought company was integrated into the org and of the five qualified women who came through the recruiting pipeline only one accepted her offer while 30 men did. Suddenly, there are 6 women out of 100.
Let's say that the org started with 10 women out of 40, then two left the company for higher offers, one switched teams for a really good opportunity, another was fired for performing poorly, and then the last one is Fowler; meanwhile, a team of 30 men from a bought company was integrated into the org and of the five qualified women who came through the recruiting pipeline only one accepted her offer while 30 men did. Suddenly, there are 6 women out of 100.
I agree it can be hard to see, but that's why I think it's good to force yourself to look at it more critically. In your example, even if the 6% was reached in a fairly natural way, it still may result in a workplace that's less inviting to women than it used to be just to how much of a minority they've then become. This isn't just a CYA thing either, as diversity (not just in gender) pays dividends. For example, I'll point you towards the accidentally racist videogame[1].
1: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/01/12/how-we-accidentally-made-...
1: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/01/12/how-we-accidentally-made-...
"it is not a stupid person ... It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences"
Jackets and sexual advances are likely just the symptoms. From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. Any employee can safely ignore another if that other employee is not politically tied to their personal advancement.
I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top.
I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. A political culture will eventually weed out those who are not.
Jackets and sexual advances are likely just the symptoms. From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. Any employee can safely ignore another if that other employee is not politically tied to their personal advancement.
I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top.
I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. A political culture will eventually weed out those who are not.
> From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest.
> I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically.
Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore.
Surprisingly (or not), running a business on Objectivist principles is a terrible idea. See the saga of Eddie Lampert who put Sears into a death spiral that way: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-... I for one will be delighted to watch Uber follow their lead.
> I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically.
Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore.
Surprisingly (or not), running a business on Objectivist principles is a terrible idea. See the saga of Eddie Lampert who put Sears into a death spiral that way: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-... I for one will be delighted to watch Uber follow their lead.
Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore.
Complicated. I happen to believe that, regardless of how one desires to spin it, everyone already acts in their own motivated self-interest. It's just a question of how wiling you are to see interest and where you draw your connections. For example it is in my personal interest to not harm others usually because harming others makes me feel more bad in many instances than whatever I would stand to gain. Generally speaking when people feel that way we call them good people, and when people don't feel that way we call them sociopaths. The problem isn't that Travis Kalanick believes that he should act in his own self interest. The problem is that Travis Kalanick doesn't feel bad when harming others.
Complicated. I happen to believe that, regardless of how one desires to spin it, everyone already acts in their own motivated self-interest. It's just a question of how wiling you are to see interest and where you draw your connections. For example it is in my personal interest to not harm others usually because harming others makes me feel more bad in many instances than whatever I would stand to gain. Generally speaking when people feel that way we call them good people, and when people don't feel that way we call them sociopaths. The problem isn't that Travis Kalanick believes that he should act in his own self interest. The problem is that Travis Kalanick doesn't feel bad when harming others.
It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them.
You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). I won't dispute that. Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that?
You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). I won't dispute that. Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that?
Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that?
A combination of genetics and upbringing, I suppose.
Slightly more concretely, it's a predictive model that by my experience always accurately describes what is happening. This could be exemplified by the classic question: "Would you do X (and get away with it) for Y dollars?" Where X can be anything the questioner wants, and Y is a number that starts astronomically high and decreases until the answer is no.
It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them.
Sometimes, yes. But I think not in this case. What exactly is the risk here? That at some very deep fundamental level beyond observation and understanding a religious philosopher might tell me that I'm wrong? Ok. So what?
You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways).
More completely what I said is that self-interest includes weighing negative and positive emotion. You willingly do things that make you feel more good than bad. The problem for people here is not Kalanick's self interest. The problem for people is that he doesn't seem to feel bad about hurting others in the same way or to the same degree that they think someone should.
A combination of genetics and upbringing, I suppose.
Slightly more concretely, it's a predictive model that by my experience always accurately describes what is happening. This could be exemplified by the classic question: "Would you do X (and get away with it) for Y dollars?" Where X can be anything the questioner wants, and Y is a number that starts astronomically high and decreases until the answer is no.
It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them.
Sometimes, yes. But I think not in this case. What exactly is the risk here? That at some very deep fundamental level beyond observation and understanding a religious philosopher might tell me that I'm wrong? Ok. So what?
You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways).
More completely what I said is that self-interest includes weighing negative and positive emotion. You willingly do things that make you feel more good than bad. The problem for people here is not Kalanick's self interest. The problem for people is that he doesn't seem to feel bad about hurting others in the same way or to the same degree that they think someone should.
> Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good.
The little I've read about Objectivism (and about Rand) sounds incredibly immature to me. The naive definition of 'self-interest', the stubborn insistence that 'rational' merely means 'doing whatever I want to'. There's no nuance, no depth of understanding.
The little I've read about Objectivism (and about Rand) sounds incredibly immature to me. The naive definition of 'self-interest', the stubborn insistence that 'rational' merely means 'doing whatever I want to'. There's no nuance, no depth of understanding.
Sears died the minute Jeff Bezos paid Network Solutions $50 to register amazon.com. They just didn't know it for a while. Blaming some random political philosophy you happen to disagree with isn't enlightening.
>I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top.
I'd be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any links, papers, or books you could point people to?
I'd be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any links, papers, or books you could point people to?
Happy to post some links below. I'd also by interested in more good reading in this direction, particularly from someone in political science field (I am not).
Iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy
Selectorate Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
The Dictators Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
The Logic of Political Survival: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival
Iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy
Selectorate Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
The Dictators Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
The Logic of Political Survival: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival
This is something that stood out to me in the original blog post as well. It is unfathomable to me that anyone in a leadership position could harbor such a myopic view.
If this were my team and I somehow faced (at a Director level?) some resistance to the cost for the 6 women's jackets, I would have paid out of my own pocket.
If this were my team and I somehow faced (at a Director level?) some resistance to the cost for the 6 women's jackets, I would have paid out of my own pocket.
Really? Uber won't pay full price for six jackets?
This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the services of contractor/employees.
Or both.
This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the services of contractor/employees.
Or both.
This is a combination of a) short-sighted unit cost calculations and b) an idiotic response to A.
Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men + 6 women, per the article). Let's say because you're buying 120 men's jackets, you get a 20% bulk discount. That's an $80 unit cost for men's jackets and a $100 unit cost for women's jackets (where you don't qualify for a volume discount).
The idiot manager says, "Wait a second, we said we were OK with an $80-ish per-employee cost... I can't go spending 25% more on some versus others!" This, on its face, is a fair statement.
But the real answer is, "We're buying equivalent goods and our per-employee unit cost is $80.95. Cool? Cool." ($80.95 = [$80 * 120 + $100 * 6] / 126)
So instead of doing the real per-employee math, they stopped at the per-item cost, where it looked out of whack.
Then they were even more idiotic. Let's say the per-employee cost argument was legitimate (remember: it's not). The right answer would then be, "OK, we need to find something equivalent for $80 unit cost." Instead, they opted for a $0 unit cost for women ("no jacket for you"), a 100% differential.
That's not bias or sexism or any of that... it's just idiocy. But it is discrimination, so lawsuit for you. Fire that idiot manager for being an idiot on both risk management and being incompetent.
Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men + 6 women, per the article). Let's say because you're buying 120 men's jackets, you get a 20% bulk discount. That's an $80 unit cost for men's jackets and a $100 unit cost for women's jackets (where you don't qualify for a volume discount).
The idiot manager says, "Wait a second, we said we were OK with an $80-ish per-employee cost... I can't go spending 25% more on some versus others!" This, on its face, is a fair statement.
But the real answer is, "We're buying equivalent goods and our per-employee unit cost is $80.95. Cool? Cool." ($80.95 = [$80 * 120 + $100 * 6] / 126)
So instead of doing the real per-employee math, they stopped at the per-item cost, where it looked out of whack.
Then they were even more idiotic. Let's say the per-employee cost argument was legitimate (remember: it's not). The right answer would then be, "OK, we need to find something equivalent for $80 unit cost." Instead, they opted for a $0 unit cost for women ("no jacket for you"), a 100% differential.
That's not bias or sexism or any of that... it's just idiocy. But it is discrimination, so lawsuit for you. Fire that idiot manager for being an idiot on both risk management and being incompetent.
I agree. There was a report in December that they had lost $800 million in the previous quarter. It seems like utter insanity that:
1. They'd even bat an eyelash at paying retail for the needed quantity, and 2. They'd think it's even remotely ok to exclude a section of the team completely due to any reason (sex, race, size, whatever)
Yes, it's just a jacket, but this definitely smells of a deep seeded cultural problem due to how ludicrous it is.
1. They'd even bat an eyelash at paying retail for the needed quantity, and 2. They'd think it's even remotely ok to exclude a section of the team completely due to any reason (sex, race, size, whatever)
Yes, it's just a jacket, but this definitely smells of a deep seeded cultural problem due to how ludicrous it is.
One must remember that individual managers have budgets much more stringent than the overall burn. That said, the manager didn't feel it necessary or acceptable to escalate what could clearly become an HR nightmare to ask for an expansion of budget. That such a request would expend enough political favor to make it a nonstarter, is indicative of an institutional problem.
This is sexist. No way around it. You could argue that it was not intentionally sexist, but the facts of the situation scream sexism.
> but the facts of the situation
The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another.
That's something we should all keep in mind.
The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another.
That's something we should all keep in mind.
Uber hasn't denied any allegations, all of which have an paper trail (otherwise known as "direct evidence")
It's common for an organization to stop to review facts (aka investigate) before taking action or issuing claims or a defense. That's the stage they're at right now.
The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
None of this paper trail has been surfaced or aired in a public forum.
And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements.
Right now, this is trial by mob.
And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements.
Right now, this is trial by mob.
Pretty sure the evidence is that the women didn't get a jacket and the men did. The discussing was just about the complaint, but that core fact remains.
It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
> It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
You can only claim the presence of an object, not the absence of an object.
Now, if there were evidence besides the blog post that all the men got a jacket as part of the program (maybe a male Uber engineer can say "Hey, I got the jacket, the women didn't get one?" that would be some sort of evidence.
Right now, the claim is that men in a program got the jacket, and women did not. That claim is only made by one woman who was in the program. Corroboration would be great before you start talking about textbook cases and discrimination.
You can only claim the presence of an object, not the absence of an object.
Now, if there were evidence besides the blog post that all the men got a jacket as part of the program (maybe a male Uber engineer can say "Hey, I got the jacket, the women didn't get one?" that would be some sort of evidence.
Right now, the claim is that men in a program got the jacket, and women did not. That claim is only made by one woman who was in the program. Corroboration would be great before you start talking about textbook cases and discrimination.
Here's a question:
Would it be sexist if the women on the team were offered either the men's jacket, or an opportunity to purchase the women's jacket at a cost equal to the difference in cost between the two (i.e. Uber pays the same in both cases, but the women have to add a bit)?
Would it be acceptable to only be offered one of the two options, or would each woman have to be allowed to choose for themselves?
These questions also implicitly ask whether Uber should be considered to have given the men "a jacket", or "a value equal to the jacket".
Would it be sexist if the women on the team were offered either the men's jacket, or an opportunity to purchase the women's jacket at a cost equal to the difference in cost between the two (i.e. Uber pays the same in both cases, but the women have to add a bit)?
Would it be acceptable to only be offered one of the two options, or would each woman have to be allowed to choose for themselves?
These questions also implicitly ask whether Uber should be considered to have given the men "a jacket", or "a value equal to the jacket".
You've entirely missed the point. The dollar amount of the jacket doesn't matter.
The point of the jacket is that they're a part of SRE culture. To have the SRE jacket is to belong to an elite team within the company. And Uber is big enough for that distinction to matter.
If you're going to create a wearable indication of membership in an elite division of your company, you'd damn sure better ensure that every member of that division can actually wear it. Not only did Uber fail to do that, it failed in a way that specifically excluded women.
The jacket thing was less of a big deal to me before I read this story. With the SRE culture refresher, it rises to the level of "among the worst things Uber did".
The point of the jacket is that they're a part of SRE culture. To have the SRE jacket is to belong to an elite team within the company. And Uber is big enough for that distinction to matter.
If you're going to create a wearable indication of membership in an elite division of your company, you'd damn sure better ensure that every member of that division can actually wear it. Not only did Uber fail to do that, it failed in a way that specifically excluded women.
The jacket thing was less of a big deal to me before I read this story. With the SRE culture refresher, it rises to the level of "among the worst things Uber did".
I am reminded of the story of author Lois McMaster Bujold's sci-fi awards. She is a very successful author ("won the Hugo Award for best novel four times, matching Robert A. Heinlein's record") and sci-fi awards (and nominations) give tie pins. Because she could not wear the tie pins in the usual way, she had them made into a necklace. There are good photos with labels for what each one is: http://www.thebarflies.net/redshirts/unzipped/24_cryoburn/Ga...
> If you're going to create a wearable indication of membership in an elite division of your company, you'd damn sure better ensure that every member of that division can actually wear it.
I'd agree, but would also suggest not creating a wearable indication of membership. Create multiple wearable indications of membership, and everyone gets one of those indications. Maybe a choice of a jacket, a nice laptop case, a fancy scarf, or a sword with belt scabbard.
Of course we're talking about Uber, so if they did that it would probably be the leather jacket for the men and a string bikini for the women...
I'd agree, but would also suggest not creating a wearable indication of membership. Create multiple wearable indications of membership, and everyone gets one of those indications. Maybe a choice of a jacket, a nice laptop case, a fancy scarf, or a sword with belt scabbard.
Of course we're talking about Uber, so if they did that it would probably be the leather jacket for the men and a string bikini for the women...
I agree with this too! A special laptop cover or huge laptop sticker, a special phone case, something you can attach to you bag --- all seem like better ideas than jackets or shirts or bathrobes (which I guess was also a thing at Google?).
To be clear, I would not have done what Uber did, and I don't think it was a good idea. I am trying to figure out where the boundaries of discrimination lie; I thought I could have this kind of conversation on HN, but I was wrong.
Did the boundary I just laid out for you not make sense?
If you create some kind of badge or wearable emblem of belonging to an elite division inside your company, it's the obligation of the company to ensure that every member of that division can wear it, and it's further egregiously discriminatory if you structure it in such a way that women are actively discouraged from wearing it.
If you create some kind of badge or wearable emblem of belonging to an elite division inside your company, it's the obligation of the company to ensure that every member of that division can wear it, and it's further egregiously discriminatory if you structure it in such a way that women are actively discouraged from wearing it.
I think that what you laid out was a good framework, and good advice, but I don't think that failing to follow best-practices necessarily means that you are being discriminatory.
My two responses to this would be:
* The failure here transcends "best practices" and reaches the level of "teamicidal".
* While being teamicidal doesn't automatically make you bigoted, if your teamicidal action specifically targets a workplace minority, that does.
* The failure here transcends "best practices" and reaches the level of "teamicidal".
* While being teamicidal doesn't automatically make you bigoted, if your teamicidal action specifically targets a workplace minority, that does.
Yes, it looks like this episode definitely did permanent damage to the team. I've never heard of the term 'teamicide', but have "Peopleware" on order, and am looking forward to reading it.
I tried to avoid specifically passing judgement on whether or not Uber was discriminatory in my initial comment, as I don't want to be dragged into that morass, and I will not take a 'side' on this case.
I tried to avoid specifically passing judgement on whether or not Uber was discriminatory in my initial comment, as I don't want to be dragged into that morass, and I will not take a 'side' on this case.
Well no, they're allowing women to wear the jacket except it will be in men's sizing. It's a subjective opinion on whether this is exclusion or not.
Yes, in the same way it would be a bad idea to require employees needing larger sizes to pay for any extra cost. When you buy a lunch for employees, you don't charge people who might eat more an extra fee either. The whole point of these is to build community within the organization or team. Excluding certain groups is a horrible idea. Doing it based on sex, religion, or ethnicity is a whole extra level of bad and stupid rolled into one.
What if you went to a restaurant for a Friday lunch (on the company's dime), and everyone orders a sandwich, except one individual (who may be of different race, sex, or size) that orders a steak and lobster meal? Could you discriminate by denying the request, or asking them to pay out of pocket? Does coming up with a rule ahead of time remedy the potential discrimination?
Except the world isn't run by some computer blindly following a strict set of rules. Obviously if someone orders a steak and lobster meal, they might not deserve the same treatment. If someone orders a vegetarian meal, or a kosher meal, etc, then they probably _should_ be covered. It's a judgement call with shades of grey, yes, but it's not too difficult to see which side is "right"
Reading your post makes me think that we might need to have two standards: one that employees apply to their employers, and another that regulators apply to employers. I am reluctant to give broad discretionary powers to regulators with limited accountability and insight, but I think that employees make up a fairly good 'jury', as they experience the work environment every day. My next question is whether the employees should have some remedy or options outside of quitting. It seems that people's experiences with 'HR' are very mixed (and often negative), so companies might need some kind of arbitrator, panel, or other problem-solver.
edit: a now-deleted response to this comment said that an 'ombudsman' can fill the 'problem-solver' role. I am not familiar with how that would work, but that comment said that 'ombudsmen' were effective in their case.
edit: a now-deleted response to this comment said that an 'ombudsman' can fill the 'problem-solver' role. I am not familiar with how that would work, but that comment said that 'ombudsmen' were effective in their case.
HR is already supposed to be an arbitrator; adding another one, external but still economically dependent on one side of the dispute, is just papering over the cracks.
This is why employment laws, with all their warts, are necessary: because the justice system is (or rather, should be) completely independent from capital. The State is the only power that can force employers to act against their own self interest, because it does not rely on their welfare.
This is why employment laws, with all their warts, are necessary: because the justice system is (or rather, should be) completely independent from capital. The State is the only power that can force employers to act against their own self interest, because it does not rely on their welfare.
[deleted]
That's great except these women didn't choose to be women. Picking a sandwich is a trivial decision and not the basis of who you are. It's telling that your immediate response to this is to concoct some specious argument to show how there maybe wasn't bias.
Lets not rush to judgement, please. The gp might just be playing Devil's Advocate here. To be sure, you hear these kinds of arguments all the time and your answer is very helpful and not something I recognized immediately (perhaps I am a little misogynistic? Definitely horrified by that thought and do want to change/learn more).
Fair enough. I think unconscious bias like this is incredibly frustrating for people who can see it and feel its effects.
When you're on the other side and aren't affected by these issues, it's easy to critique legitimate concerns somewhat academically, ignoring how insensitive it looks to others.
When you're on the other side and aren't affected by these issues, it's easy to critique legitimate concerns somewhat academically, ignoring how insensitive it looks to others.
I am not trying to show whether there was or was not bias, as I don't find Uber's particular case very interesting. I am more interested in finding what the limits of discrimination and accommodation are, and I thought that thinking out loud on HN might allow others to share their insights. I was apparently wrong to do so.
I really think this is the sort of thinking you could have done not out loud. It seems obvious to me that someone who orders a jacket that fits them did not choose the shape of their body, and someone who orders a steak and lobster meal usually (in the absence of some medical condition) did choose to want a steak and lobster meal, and that there's a fundamental difference between being inclusive to people of all body shapes and being inclusive to people of all lunch preferences.
I make this comment out loud because I might be wrong, and if there's some insight here about how this train of thought does not occur to you, I'm genuinely curious.
I make this comment out loud because I might be wrong, and if there's some insight here about how this train of thought does not occur to you, I'm genuinely curious.
I agree that there is a difference, but I'll bet that larger people (in height, weight, or both) order larger meals, so you could make a case that not paying for the larger meal was discriminatory.
I agree that the meal analogy is not a great one, but I am using it because it was in the article, and another commenter replied to me with it. I try to avoid 'fighting the hypothetical' by changing the example.
I agree that the meal analogy is not a great one, but I am using it because it was in the article, and another commenter replied to me with it. I try to avoid 'fighting the hypothetical' by changing the example.
this isn't equivalent. In your scenario the single employee is choosing to take advantage of the company's hospitality and I think their manager would be right to either deny that or speak to them afterwards.
You probably think you're being clever by coming up with all of these "But... but what if!" scenarios, but you're not. You're just looking like you're trying to excuse their behavior.
A sane manager will pick a restaurant with entrees of a reasonable price, or let the team know beforehand what items might be off limits.
Trading pennies for pennies is just not something a mature, reasonable person does. "Buy everyone a jacket" is as far as the thinking needs to go. If someone wants to debate the costs of jackets on the basis of sex (rather than, say, size) then they're being sexist about it.
Equality isn't about balancing the checkbook. It's about making sure everyone has the ability to make equally good decisions. Which means giving your team the support they need to be cohesive ("everyone gets a jacket") and allowing them to focus on being an effective member of that team rather than petty and superficial issues ("don't worry about insignificant cost differences.")
Equality isn't about balancing the checkbook. It's about making sure everyone has the ability to make equally good decisions. Which means giving your team the support they need to be cohesive ("everyone gets a jacket") and allowing them to focus on being an effective member of that team rather than petty and superficial issues ("don't worry about insignificant cost differences.")
My post is not about my preferred option; I am trying to 'triangulate' where the limits of discrimination are.
Not a lawyer, but that sounds like it touches on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
If you have a rule that is neutral in theory, but has disparate impact on a protected class in practice, it is not a neutral rule.
If you have a rule that is neutral in theory, but has disparate impact on a protected class in practice, it is not a neutral rule.
I agree that disparate impact analysis could be applied here, but you would first have to decide what the 'benefit' was (i.e. money-equivalent, same garments, or similarly well-fitting garments).
i think the article attempts to address this question by this hypothetical:
> Can you imagine what would have happened if Uber decided, because men gobble more food than women, that only women should get free catering in the company’s cafe, and men would have to reach into their wallets?
> Can you imagine what would have happened if Uber decided, because men gobble more food than women, that only women should get free catering in the company’s cafe, and men would have to reach into their wallets?
Would it be remedied if the company offered to provide the same number of calories to each person (regardless of gender), with the obvious implication that women would be more satiated than men? What if Uber offered to provide the men their required calories at some additional charge?
My questions don't directly address what happened at Uber, but I'm trying to figure out where the boundaries lie.
My questions don't directly address what happened at Uber, but I'm trying to figure out where the boundaries lie.
There is very clear precedent on this from the way IRS treats perks as either deductible or wage compensation. Basically if your perks are not universal to all of your employees they cease to be deductible perks and start being treated as wage payments to those certain employees and therefore subject to Social Security and income tax withholding.
With cafeteria food you can either provide free food to all of your employees, or run a cafeteria that charges for food at-cost (the cafeteria cannot operate at a loss).
Having an executive cafeteria used to be a thing in companies. This is discrimination based on employee rank. The IRS treats executive cafeterias as wage compensation. Discriminating between employees of the same rank based on things like race would be racism, sex would be sexism, etc.
The jackets were not provided to certain employees, therefore they are not a perk and their value is wage compensation according to the IRS. So this is exactly like denying all the women SREs a bonus because they are women.
BTW it is very likely that those jackets were deducted as perks so this decision is not just overt discrimination by Uber but also breaking tax law.
With cafeteria food you can either provide free food to all of your employees, or run a cafeteria that charges for food at-cost (the cafeteria cannot operate at a loss).
Having an executive cafeteria used to be a thing in companies. This is discrimination based on employee rank. The IRS treats executive cafeterias as wage compensation. Discriminating between employees of the same rank based on things like race would be racism, sex would be sexism, etc.
The jackets were not provided to certain employees, therefore they are not a perk and their value is wage compensation according to the IRS. So this is exactly like denying all the women SREs a bonus because they are women.
BTW it is very likely that those jackets were deducted as perks so this decision is not just overt discrimination by Uber but also breaking tax law.
>Having an executive cafeteria used to be a thing in companies.
Well, yeah. When you have 90% marginal tax rates and the IRS hasn't caught up with taxing non-cash compensation/perks, then you tend to look for every possible perk you can give such employees! Anything short of "okay, what would you spend your next $X of take-home pay on? Tada! That's a perk for you now!"
Well, yeah. When you have 90% marginal tax rates and the IRS hasn't caught up with taxing non-cash compensation/perks, then you tend to look for every possible perk you can give such employees! Anything short of "okay, what would you spend your next $X of take-home pay on? Tada! That's a perk for you now!"
Interestingly, if the women's jackets were more expensive than the men's, would that not be equivalent to having different 'cafeterias' depending on status (specifically gender)? I suppose that one solution would be to ask the garment supplier to put all the jackets on one invoice line, at the average cost, but that seems obfuscatory and possibly fraudulent.
In this case they were more expensive but not more valuable, since it was just the difference between bulk and individual prices. If the company buys every employee the same chocolate bar, it doesn't matter if Brad's cost $0.10 because it was part of a bulk order whereas Jane's cost $1.50 because it was bought at the retail price.
Seems to me that, if you can afford to offer free catering but not for people who eat too much, that you can't actually afford to offer free catering. If the extra cost for the few is too much, you can't afford the whole.
Same way with the jackets. If you can't spring for the extra $ for the womens's jackets, you really probably shouldn't be buying jackets for everyone at this time...
Same way with the jackets. If you can't spring for the extra $ for the womens's jackets, you really probably shouldn't be buying jackets for everyone at this time...
I doubt the issue was "can't" so much as "won't".
Yes, it would be sexist. If the company is doing their employees a courtesy, it's a courtesy to all or a courtesy to none.
I am trying to ask what the 'courtesy' is; is it the value of the jacket, the sense of belonging, or the protection from the weather?
It's the sense of belonging... employees didn't get jackets because they were cold and asked the company to buy one for them...
Here's another hypothetical: suppose a manager makes a practice of emailing all their male reports every week with "Just wanted to say that we appreciate your work at this company. Your work this week on ___ was fantastic," and not their female reports.
Then there is no question of cost or value or function, other than the five seconds required to figure out something the female reports worked on this week.
Would this be an acceptable thing for the manager to do?
Then there is no question of cost or value or function, other than the five seconds required to figure out something the female reports worked on this week.
Would this be an acceptable thing for the manager to do?
That seems like it would be discriminatory, because the message contains no sex or gender-specific language, and sending the same message to the women would take no more time (per employee) than the men. Modifying the message to contain gender-specific language would mean that the manager would have to have two templates, but intentionally creating a gender-specific template for the purpose of excluding one group would itself be discriminatory.
No. Neither of those is acceptable, either.
Do those who got a large or XL or XXL jacket have to pay the difference between that and a small?
Do those who got a large or XL or XXL jacket have to pay the difference between that and a small?
As a fat guy it's really common to miss out on swag that we didn't get in my size.
None of it was like a badge of office, though.
None of it was like a badge of office, though.
I think its entirely reasonable that if the company said ahead of time, we are covering cost X, anything outside cost X is on the employee. (thats obviously not what happened)
Who wants to work for someone that cheap?
Who wants to work for someone that cheap?
Well, by definition, it's the former, whether as a byproduct of the latter or for whatever other root cause.
Interestingly, you could also make the case that buying "women's" jackets for the women on the team is sexist, as it does involve treating them differently on the basis of sex. The only non-sexist way to give out these jackets is to ask people which 'sex' of jacket they want, along with their size.
Interestingly, you decided to frame this as "treating [the women] differently on the basis of sex". Why not "treating [the men] differently on the basis of sex"?
That's a good point, and I suppose that I did so because the blog post focused on the impact on the women of the team. It is also possible that I have some subconscious bias, and framed it as a 'women's issue' because of that, but I cannot be certain.
Women have objectively measurable differences in body measurements from men. This requires that garments for women be constructed differently than garments for men, in exactly the same way that a garment for a bear-shaped man must be constructed differently than a similar garment for a scarecrow-shaped man.
In principle, the opportunity for unfair discrimination is the same as if the company got a discount for their S, M, L, and XL jackets, but did not get a discount for the XS jackets, and actually had to pay extra for the XXL and XXLT jackets.
By offering males their choice of sizes, even if it was just between L or XL, Uber already obviated that argument. If you give garments to all your employees, you really need to have a lot of checkboxes:
There's nothing inherently female about size 8-10, or inherently male about size XL. They are simply different sizes. Statistically, those sizes were standardized to fit the greatest number of potential buyers with the fewest variations in pattern parameters. There is a great set of US Army recruit measurement data out there if you wanted to try to design different size categories (for non-obese individuals, due to the inherent military bias), but I think you would have a difficult time doing so.
In principle, the opportunity for unfair discrimination is the same as if the company got a discount for their S, M, L, and XL jackets, but did not get a discount for the XS jackets, and actually had to pay extra for the XXL and XXLT jackets.
By offering males their choice of sizes, even if it was just between L or XL, Uber already obviated that argument. If you give garments to all your employees, you really need to have a lot of checkboxes:
[_] XS [_] XL [_] 0 [_] 8-10 [_] Other:
[_] S [_] XLT [_] 2 [_] 12-14 Chest ____ Neck ____ Torso ____
[_] M [_] XXL [_] 4 [_] 16-18 Waist ____ Sleeve ____
[_] L [_] XXLT [_] 6 [_] 20-22 Hips ____ Cuff ____
There's nothing inherently female about size 8-10, or inherently male about size XL. They are simply different sizes. Statistically, those sizes were standardized to fit the greatest number of potential buyers with the fewest variations in pattern parameters. There is a great set of US Army recruit measurement data out there if you wanted to try to design different size categories (for non-obese individuals, due to the inherent military bias), but I think you would have a difficult time doing so.
Totally. So, next time the whole team with 6% of women in it will get female t-shirts. To be even more equal, they will be all designed to hold breasts size D.
Otherwise said, guys went to fitting and got just right size of jacket. Nothing sexist about buying women just right size of jacket too.
Otherwise said, guys went to fitting and got just right size of jacket. Nothing sexist about buying women just right size of jacket too.
Unless you're buying "one-size-fits-all" jackets, "gender" is usually included in "size". "Men's size 30" is different than "women's size 30".
[deleted]
Still, you could ask employees to specify cut+size instead of just size (inferring cut from their gender). So I'd put down "men's small" or whatever.
Guys, all went to fittings. Jackets were right size for whoever was wearing. Fat guys did not got thin guy jackets and thin guys did not got maxi-XXL jackets.
I think if you were being obsessively "fair" then yes you would have to do that (personally, I don't really want a leather jacket its not my thing .. but I could choose one for my SO or my sister or my dad or something)
No, you absolutely can not.
Why not? I've known women who wear male, or male-ish clothes. I've not known men who wear women's clothes, but I know they're around. And there's gender identity, which we as a country are currently struggling over.
Wouldn't it be most equitable to just ask which sex clothes you want?
Wouldn't it be most equitable to just ask which sex clothes you want?
Yeah obviously, but I don't think the blog post was really suggesting otherwise. Of course if a man wants a women's jacket or vice versa than they can have it. But from a logistical point of view it's safe to assume that most of the men will want a men's cut and most of the women will want a women's cut.
Penny-wise and pound foolish.
Quite a lot of this scenario reminds me of a local case that got a bit of press, and it's analogous, as in bad thinking:
Drunk guy takes a cab to hotel, doesn't want to pay cab driver $40, so he punches the cab driver and runs into the hotel. Cab driver follows, has hotel staff call Police. Police get info for drunk guy's room and knock. Drunk guy's friend answers and lets the Police in. Police discover bag after bag after bag full of Tax Return ID theft evidence. Multiple arrests, leading to other arrests in other states. Multi-million dollar bust...over a $40 cab fare...
Yet another instance where "Do unto others" as a basic "Hmm is this fair" moment of reflection can be very enlightening. Other side of the fence type thing. I've been on both sides enough to understand it's not everybody's skill, but, eh, for management it's rather fundamental...
Quite a lot of this scenario reminds me of a local case that got a bit of press, and it's analogous, as in bad thinking:
Drunk guy takes a cab to hotel, doesn't want to pay cab driver $40, so he punches the cab driver and runs into the hotel. Cab driver follows, has hotel staff call Police. Police get info for drunk guy's room and knock. Drunk guy's friend answers and lets the Police in. Police discover bag after bag after bag full of Tax Return ID theft evidence. Multiple arrests, leading to other arrests in other states. Multi-million dollar bust...over a $40 cab fare...
Yet another instance where "Do unto others" as a basic "Hmm is this fair" moment of reflection can be very enlightening. Other side of the fence type thing. I've been on both sides enough to understand it's not everybody's skill, but, eh, for management it's rather fundamental...
The last line of the article is something that has been blazing out to me since the first few negative media articles started appearing about Uber's work practises.
For all the continual PR damage control that the CEO utters, the problem is the CEO and the board. All the bad business practises that are leaking out aren't 'oversights', a generic 'management/process' problem, or actions of an isolated 'bad apple' - it's ingrained culture established by what the CEO allows explicitly or implicitly (through omission of action).
The problem is at the very top of Uber.
For all the continual PR damage control that the CEO utters, the problem is the CEO and the board. All the bad business practises that are leaking out aren't 'oversights', a generic 'management/process' problem, or actions of an isolated 'bad apple' - it's ingrained culture established by what the CEO allows explicitly or implicitly (through omission of action).
The problem is at the very top of Uber.
So a note on Google's leather jackets that is completely tangential to the article: They source theirs from Golden Bear, who make amazingly high quality jackets (on par with Schott). They are actually quite expensive at retail unless you buy them in bulk, which Google does.
Since you seem to be quite familiar with the products, I'm interested to know -- can you estimate the difference between bulk and retail? Looks like ~$200 retail for the first jacket I clicked online.
Would be interesting to estimate what percentage of the total spend Uber were short-changing their female employees over.
Would be interesting to estimate what percentage of the total spend Uber were short-changing their female employees over.
I can't speak for jackets but I do help run a convention that bulk orders t-shirts. If you want one custom t-shirt, it's $20+/shirt. If you bulk order, it's $3/shirt for 300. We also get t-shirts for our staff, those are $9/shirt for 20-40.
For screenprinted shirts there is a very substantial setup portion of the cost though, the actual shirts are dirt cheap in any case but the setup for the print run can take a worker a couple of hours for multiple screens. The result is that for small runs the setup cost dominates. Leather jackets are just expensive to begin with, so I would expect the item cost to dominate even for small order sizes, resulting in a much shallower discount curve.
And even if the jackets were customized they were probably embroidered or had embroidered patches applied - the machines used for this are computer-controlled and there is essentially no setup cost involved (besides some time to prepress the art).
And even if the jackets were customized they were probably embroidered or had embroidered patches applied - the machines used for this are computer-controlled and there is essentially no setup cost involved (besides some time to prepress the art).
Not sure on bulk but retail was around $400
Good to see so many people here are agog with disbelief at this story, which understandably didn't get as much talk as the more disturbing harassment charges. I am assuming by Uber's lack of a counter narrative to the jacket story that it is accurate. To be sure I did write Uber asking if Fowler's account was correct, but they did not reply.
I spoke with a recruiter from the Uber "money" team a few weeks back. They are investing 2 Billion per year just for that team.
>Instead he replied that if Uber paid a little more for the women’s jackets, they would have been beneficiaries of special privilege. This is standard bigot’s code for denying people protection from discrimination because of their gender, race, religion, or sexual preference.
I think the jacket issue has Uber clearly in the wrong, but it's a huge stretch to claim that opposition to giving a minority group special privileges is always "standard bigot's code".
I think the jacket issue has Uber clearly in the wrong, but it's a huge stretch to claim that opposition to giving a minority group special privileges is always "standard bigot's code".
I'm curious now. What do companies that give out company shirts or jackets do when everyone is male so there is no male/female style problem, but some of the males are fat enough or tall enough to need a big & tall size, and those sizes are not available or are a special order for the shirt/jacket they've chosen?
There is enough basis in fact for the fat programmer stereotype that this surely must come up now and then.
Another one I've seen is giving out food. My employer gave out hams one Christmas. There was one vegetarian, but he was a vegetarian for health reasons, not moral reasons, and was OK with getting that gift and then giving it to a friend of his who liked ham and everyone was happy.
But what if we'd had someone who was vegetarian for religious reasons? Or someone who was not vegetarian but could not eat ham for religious reasons? Could giving out that ham be construed as discriminating against them on religious grounds? And would it matter that it was given out for Christmas, which is nominally a religious holiday, as opposed to if it had been given out for, say, President's Day, which is completely non-religious?
There is enough basis in fact for the fat programmer stereotype that this surely must come up now and then.
Another one I've seen is giving out food. My employer gave out hams one Christmas. There was one vegetarian, but he was a vegetarian for health reasons, not moral reasons, and was OK with getting that gift and then giving it to a friend of his who liked ham and everyone was happy.
But what if we'd had someone who was vegetarian for religious reasons? Or someone who was not vegetarian but could not eat ham for religious reasons? Could giving out that ham be construed as discriminating against them on religious grounds? And would it matter that it was given out for Christmas, which is nominally a religious holiday, as opposed to if it had been given out for, say, President's Day, which is completely non-religious?
> and those sizes are not available or are a special order for the shirt/jacket they've chosen?
you get the special order, or get some other style and get the embroidering or whatever, or pick a different thing to get
you get the special order, or get some other style and get the embroidering or whatever, or pick a different thing to get
I'm pretty sure this issue has come up before, since I worked at a defense contractor that (I assume) wanted to buy employees a thanksgiving turkey, but had apparently converted it to "here's a $10 gift card for a major grocer that sells them" so you could get something else if turkey wasn't your thing.
I am confused why the jackets would be different in the first place. And the discount argument makes zero sense. If anything, this is a reason to find a different supplier, it's not like there is only one company making jackets.
Even if it was precisely the same configuration of zips/pockets/etc. there's still the fact that a female cut garment can need to have different amounts of material to accommodate bust and hips.
I accidentally bought a women's cut top at a goth festival once; the extra material across the chest was noticeable when wearing it (though other people didn't notice from just looking, so I happily wore that top for years anyway).
I accidentally bought a women's cut top at a goth festival once; the extra material across the chest was noticeable when wearing it (though other people didn't notice from just looking, so I happily wore that top for years anyway).
Women's jackets tend to have small changes, like shorter length and zippers on the left. The small changes make the jacket fit and look better.
It gives some background to jacket thing. From all the complaints in the original article, I found this one puzzling. I understood that it was annoying, I did not understood why would someone pick that one as an example for article.
Do private equity firms audit their investments' processes/practices? What at astonishing way expose themselves to liability and destroy their brand while alienating talent at the same time.
cleverness of management at ueber (or anywhere else for that matter) is overrated. this story is typical example of idiocy that rules above certain level in each organization. janitors are the only ones that do honest and useful job. it is all downhill from there.
And yet- as much as I'd like to be wrong, as much as I wish it were different, their investors don't care (except one wrote a medium.com post), their board doesn't care, and their business will most likely survive this short blip and continue as before. In 6 months, will this dustup matter?
There are two basic allegations in Fowler's blog post:
1. There is a horrifying amount of sexual harassment going on at Uber, far more than you'd expect from "a large organization will eventually hire some people who are douchebags," and that sexual harassment is institutionally tolerated at least.
2. Uber has a management culture of politics, infighting, and undercutting each other.
From a moral perspective, #1 is a bigger deal than #2. But from a bloodless amoral "can we get our money out of Uber" perspective, I'd expect investors to be much more concerned about #2.
#1 is pretty easy to deal with. Fire a dozen people in a high profile way, re-instruct HR, and then probably even if you have two dozen (or more) sexual harassers still in your organization, they will be good enough about hiding their tracks that you'll be able to go long enough for the furor to die down. And since large numbers of people just don't want to sexually harass other people, even if they're given lots of opportunity, you probably won't have to fire such large numbers of people that your organization will trip up.
#2 on the other hand: If that culture really is pervasive throughout the management, then they'll have driven all the non-political managers away. What do you do about that? You can't fire everyone between your execs and your ICs. You can't survive long-term with a management culture of backstabbing and empire building -- especially when you're trying to go through a super painful and disciplined process of weaning your company off multi-billion-dollar expenses towards a very distant line of profitability.
1. There is a horrifying amount of sexual harassment going on at Uber, far more than you'd expect from "a large organization will eventually hire some people who are douchebags," and that sexual harassment is institutionally tolerated at least.
2. Uber has a management culture of politics, infighting, and undercutting each other.
From a moral perspective, #1 is a bigger deal than #2. But from a bloodless amoral "can we get our money out of Uber" perspective, I'd expect investors to be much more concerned about #2.
#1 is pretty easy to deal with. Fire a dozen people in a high profile way, re-instruct HR, and then probably even if you have two dozen (or more) sexual harassers still in your organization, they will be good enough about hiding their tracks that you'll be able to go long enough for the furor to die down. And since large numbers of people just don't want to sexually harass other people, even if they're given lots of opportunity, you probably won't have to fire such large numbers of people that your organization will trip up.
#2 on the other hand: If that culture really is pervasive throughout the management, then they'll have driven all the non-political managers away. What do you do about that? You can't fire everyone between your execs and your ICs. You can't survive long-term with a management culture of backstabbing and empire building -- especially when you're trying to go through a super painful and disciplined process of weaning your company off multi-billion-dollar expenses towards a very distant line of profitability.
I don't think #1 is as easy to deal with as you may think. In any other normal company, sexual harassment normally stems from isolated individuals, or at worst a particular department.
But from Fowlers account, it sounds like the culture is well and truly embedded through the whole company. Heck, even HR is burying the issue.
Company culture (what is enabling both #1 and #2 issues) is established by the CEO and board through what they explicitly and implicitly (through omission of action) allow. That means, the problem is at the CEO-level - that's not an easy problem to solve.
Sure you can fire the CEO ... but now #1 is as big a concern to investors as #2.
But from Fowlers account, it sounds like the culture is well and truly embedded through the whole company. Heck, even HR is burying the issue.
Company culture (what is enabling both #1 and #2 issues) is established by the CEO and board through what they explicitly and implicitly (through omission of action) allow. That means, the problem is at the CEO-level - that's not an easy problem to solve.
Sure you can fire the CEO ... but now #1 is as big a concern to investors as #2.
Well, their business won't survive, but yes, probably not for this reason.
these misogynist women-hating lunks turn my stomach. They need to terminated immediately, be humiliated on social media and have their careers ruined forever. They can wear their stupid war jackets while they cry.
Ranty comments do your passion no service regardless of the strength of your conviction.
I'm afraid controlled rationality has lost its cause sometime ago. Action and anger are now necessary.
Uber seems like a really trashcan company from her post.
hollyrolly(4)
soperj(1)
Is this actually real? This is utterly ridiculous. Sounds like a company run by a bunch of privileged entitled amateurs with zero consequences for their actions. This culture needs to be punished severely. Name and shame the director involved.
> Sounds like a company run by a bunch of privileged entitled amateurs with zero consequences for their actions.
Yep. That's at least 90% of all startups.
Not that they're all sexist specifically, but when you have an entire economic sector based on "these kids say they can write a program that will revolutionize industry X, let's give them $10 million," you're gonna wind up with what you said.
Yep. That's at least 90% of all startups.
Not that they're all sexist specifically, but when you have an entire economic sector based on "these kids say they can write a program that will revolutionize industry X, let's give them $10 million," you're gonna wind up with what you said.
That's not how access journalism works.
I think that the company which sold the leather jackets is the one in the wrong, if the facts are correct in this example. If you are paying a bulk rate for jackets, that bulk rate must apply to male and female jackets. They don't have to be the same price at the end, but the discount has to apply to the entire order.
I also, however, think that the facts are probably misrepresented in this article.
I also, however, think that the facts are probably misrepresented in this article.
> If you are paying a bulk rate for jackets, that bulk rate must apply to male and female jackets. They don't have to be the same price at the end, but the discount has to apply to the entire order.
Group buys in fashion are very common, and this is never how they work. Two leather jackets of a different size but the same model will use the same materials and labor. A different jacket model (yes, even a female version), requires different cuts and maybe even different materials.
This isn't uncommon at all, except for the part where Uber thought this made it okay to buy nothing for the women.
Edit: Not even fashion, but anywhere really. If I want 10,000 of one IC, and 5 of another, I will not get a unit discount as if I had bought 10,005 of a generic item. I get a discount on the first IC, and full price on the latter.
Group buys in fashion are very common, and this is never how they work. Two leather jackets of a different size but the same model will use the same materials and labor. A different jacket model (yes, even a female version), requires different cuts and maybe even different materials.
This isn't uncommon at all, except for the part where Uber thought this made it okay to buy nothing for the women.
Edit: Not even fashion, but anywhere really. If I want 10,000 of one IC, and 5 of another, I will not get a unit discount as if I had bought 10,005 of a generic item. I get a discount on the first IC, and full price on the latter.
I'm sorry but none of this story makes any sense at all and I feel like I'm living in some kind of weird alternate reality. Sit down, look at the world around you, and ask yourself if the account seems plausible at all. The number of people not just indifferent but actually full to the brim with malice for this to have gone down at claimed is staggering. Literally dozens of people would have be outright evil - to no benefit of their own, just caricatures of masculine evil - for even half of it to be true as-written. It's just such a cartoonish version of villainy it's what a collective Tumblr mind would spit out as a novella.
Sounds like someone who has never worked in this industry or talked to any woman working in this industry. These people are not "evil" even though their behaviors are extremely harmful and reprehensible. What is happening here are extremely privileged and ignorant people (generally white, straight men) operating within a context where there are no consequences for bad behavior.
Your reaction here is also a part of the problem—these kinds of behavior have been extensively documented inside and outside this industry for nearly a hundred years now. You deny and belittle these people's lived experiences with no data of your own to back it up besides banal theories and "cartoonish" ideas of how people operate in the world.
Another thing for you to think about before you respond to this with your poorly researched screed is that there are literally no upsides to Susan for reporting this stuff. All the data we have show that women who report these kinds of behavior get blacklisted from the industry, shunned by their peers, and perhaps face legal action. This doesn't even count the tidal wave of harassment, death threats and worse that comes along with exposing men in power for doing bad things (depression, suicide, paranoia, etc). Think about how awful your own situation would need to be to open yourself up to that sort of thing. No one does this lightly and without cause, and yes this stuff happens all the time and even worse.
Another good read to improve your ignorance of the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
Your reaction here is also a part of the problem—these kinds of behavior have been extensively documented inside and outside this industry for nearly a hundred years now. You deny and belittle these people's lived experiences with no data of your own to back it up besides banal theories and "cartoonish" ideas of how people operate in the world.
Another thing for you to think about before you respond to this with your poorly researched screed is that there are literally no upsides to Susan for reporting this stuff. All the data we have show that women who report these kinds of behavior get blacklisted from the industry, shunned by their peers, and perhaps face legal action. This doesn't even count the tidal wave of harassment, death threats and worse that comes along with exposing men in power for doing bad things (depression, suicide, paranoia, etc). Think about how awful your own situation would need to be to open yourself up to that sort of thing. No one does this lightly and without cause, and yes this stuff happens all the time and even worse.
Another good read to improve your ignorance of the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
>All the data we have show that women who report these kinds of behavior get blacklisted from the industry, shunned by their peers, and perhaps face legal action.
Things are far, far better for people who speak out in the contemporary tech industry as opposed to fields like banking, finance, big law, big pharma, and oil. Being blacklisted from a company in one of those industries is a death sentence for your career. That simply isn't true for tech (as of right now). The deeply entrenched connections that exist in the aforementioned industries between competing firms and also with the government simply aren't there in tech.
I personally know three women who have been unfairly blacklisted in some of those industries, and it's not right or fair for you to use that as a talking point here, because the consequences are so much more severe when you are unfairly blamed in those cases.
Massive support networks exist for women in tech, and the powerful people in tech don't have the influence necessary to completely bury things like this under the rug. You can still stand up to a company like Uber or Airbnb without them crushing you and everyone who supports you underfoot.
Things are far, far better for people who speak out in the contemporary tech industry as opposed to fields like banking, finance, big law, big pharma, and oil. Being blacklisted from a company in one of those industries is a death sentence for your career. That simply isn't true for tech (as of right now). The deeply entrenched connections that exist in the aforementioned industries between competing firms and also with the government simply aren't there in tech.
I personally know three women who have been unfairly blacklisted in some of those industries, and it's not right or fair for you to use that as a talking point here, because the consequences are so much more severe when you are unfairly blamed in those cases.
Massive support networks exist for women in tech, and the powerful people in tech don't have the influence necessary to completely bury things like this under the rug. You can still stand up to a company like Uber or Airbnb without them crushing you and everyone who supports you underfoot.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>these kinds of behavior have been extensively documented inside and outside this industry for nearly a hundred years now
Holy crap computers have been around for 100 years?
> (generally white, straight men)
Citation needed. Also, think about this. What other sort of adjective used to describe people or sexual orientation would be acceptable to describe people fitting a bad image? If you said the same thing about hispanic bisexual women, would that be socially acceptable?
Holy crap computers have been around for 100 years?
> (generally white, straight men)
Citation needed. Also, think about this. What other sort of adjective used to describe people or sexual orientation would be acceptable to describe people fitting a bad image? If you said the same thing about hispanic bisexual women, would that be socially acceptable?
> Holy crap computers have been around for 100 years?
I'm guessing you weren't able to read the "and outside" part of the sentence you glibly quoted. If anything, claiming that it's less than 100 years is the major failure of that statement.
> If you said the same thing about hispanic bisexual women, would that be socially acceptable?
Can you name an environment where hispanic bisexual women are extremely privileged?
I'm guessing you weren't able to read the "and outside" part of the sentence you glibly quoted. If anything, claiming that it's less than 100 years is the major failure of that statement.
> If you said the same thing about hispanic bisexual women, would that be socially acceptable?
Can you name an environment where hispanic bisexual women are extremely privileged?
> I'm guessing you weren't able to read the "and outside"
I guess then it's just a rhetorical flourish for no added benefit? 100 years ago there was no inside or outside of the industry - what's the point of that statement?
I guess then it's just a rhetorical flourish for no added benefit? 100 years ago there was no inside or outside of the industry - what's the point of that statement?
> If you said the same thing about hispanic bisexual women, would that be socially acceptable?
Your PC censorship won't work on this forum. It doesn't matter if it's "socially acceptable" as long as it's true. It's true that it's white, straight men that are generally privileged and ignorant here, and (speaking as a non-white straight man) it's relevant, because the way you're ignorant about things is not having to care about them. I'm much more aware of how my race affects how I interact with the world than about how my gender does.
Your PC censorship won't work on this forum. It doesn't matter if it's "socially acceptable" as long as it's true. It's true that it's white, straight men that are generally privileged and ignorant here, and (speaking as a non-white straight man) it's relevant, because the way you're ignorant about things is not having to care about them. I'm much more aware of how my race affects how I interact with the world than about how my gender does.
> because the way you're ignorant about things is not having to care about them.
Bear in mind this discussion is all about people leaping to action on the unsubstantiated claims of one person on their personal blog.
Exactly. As a non-white person, you don't have to care about calling other groups racist, privileged or ignorant. And if somebody is a woman, you don't have to care about calling other people sexist.
And censorship is a strong word. If you want free speech and no censorship, all opinions should be welcomed, and you should not be able to shut down arguments by using identity politics and privilege.
For instance, if you were a male, would your unsubstantiated blog post have had similar impact? That is privilege in a nutshell, that who you are determines how much attention and belief you get.
Bear in mind this discussion is all about people leaping to action on the unsubstantiated claims of one person on their personal blog.
Exactly. As a non-white person, you don't have to care about calling other groups racist, privileged or ignorant. And if somebody is a woman, you don't have to care about calling other people sexist.
And censorship is a strong word. If you want free speech and no censorship, all opinions should be welcomed, and you should not be able to shut down arguments by using identity politics and privilege.
For instance, if you were a male, would your unsubstantiated blog post have had similar impact? That is privilege in a nutshell, that who you are determines how much attention and belief you get.
when Hispanic bisexual women take over this world and start abusing their privilege like the cishetero patriarchy then we will criticize them. Until then, please sit down.
There are people right in this thread who seem to be arguing that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Edit: the definitive comedy sketch on the subject "Are we the bad guys?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Edit: the definitive comedy sketch on the subject "Are we the bad guys?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Yes, 100% this kind of thing happens all the time. I think the split is in attributing it to "masculine evil", what I've seen firsthand is more like simple neglect or thoughtlessness.
I attended a small local conference a couple years ago that had forgotten/didn't bother to order any women's t-shirts. It wasn't like the organizers had a meeting and said: "lets exclude women" - they just kind of assumed that everybody could wear the same mens cut of shirt and it would be fine.
To their credit, they were fairly mortified when it was pointed out.
I attended a small local conference a couple years ago that had forgotten/didn't bother to order any women's t-shirts. It wasn't like the organizers had a meeting and said: "lets exclude women" - they just kind of assumed that everybody could wear the same mens cut of shirt and it would be fine.
To their credit, they were fairly mortified when it was pointed out.
The point of the article is that the managers at Uber were very aware of what they were doing. And that it is a symptom of the culture there.
When I first watched a movie about the slavement of africans and their marine trade, I was just as flabbergasted as you seem to be about this story.
I kept asking myself: how could something like that (people being transported on the basement of a ship, chained to one another) possible?
For someone who was not part of that culture and time, seems impossible that so many people could act in such an evil way.
A community culture can shape peoples minds. A company is just a community.
Gender discrimination is real. Very real. What makes this story appear unbelievable is that very few women will risk their careers to speak up against it.
I kept asking myself: how could something like that (people being transported on the basement of a ship, chained to one another) possible?
For someone who was not part of that culture and time, seems impossible that so many people could act in such an evil way.
A community culture can shape peoples minds. A company is just a community.
Gender discrimination is real. Very real. What makes this story appear unbelievable is that very few women will risk their careers to speak up against it.
There's a world of difference between
1) being captured by your neighbors, sold to some tribe of slave traders, then resold to ship-owning slave traders, then resold at auction on a different continent, and finally landing on a plantation where the intentional and systematic removal of your human dignity is completed over years in squalid conditions, and
2) not having your company buy you a leather jacket while you're being paid a salary that puts you somewhere in the top 2% of all of humanity.
It's this sort of hyperbole that makes the problem less likely to be solved, since it makes it all seem relatively trivial.
1) being captured by your neighbors, sold to some tribe of slave traders, then resold to ship-owning slave traders, then resold at auction on a different continent, and finally landing on a plantation where the intentional and systematic removal of your human dignity is completed over years in squalid conditions, and
2) not having your company buy you a leather jacket while you're being paid a salary that puts you somewhere in the top 2% of all of humanity.
It's this sort of hyperbole that makes the problem less likely to be solved, since it makes it all seem relatively trivial.
Just out of curiosity, were you really "flabbergasted" by learning of a particular instance of a practice which had existed in almost every society since prehistory (as even a semi-educated person would have known)?
Not the commenter above, but as a kid I knew about slavery, and about "people owning other people". I even knew about how long it had gone on for, and that slaves were transported in ships around the Mediterranean.
That said, I was wholly unprepared for the brutality of the Atlantic slave trade. Due to the higher round trip times, and lack of mid-trip provisioning, there was a requirement to be more "efficient" than the slave trade across land or sea previously.
That said, I was wholly unprepared for the brutality of the Atlantic slave trade. Due to the higher round trip times, and lack of mid-trip provisioning, there was a requirement to be more "efficient" than the slave trade across land or sea previously.
At least speaking for myself, my compulsory education only really focused on slavery as an American institution and didn't really address it in a broader context. I obviously picked up a little here and there, particularly since I took Latin all through high school and learned a little bit about Roman culture, but it was only recently I learned how widespread slavery really was.
As an example, it was news to me that slavery was still practiced in parts of the Middle East until the 60s, and probably still exists in a less obvious manner today. I was really horrified to learn that tons of slaves left Africa via the Eastern trade routes, and the brutality of those owners is why there's little to no visible evidence of slavery in those parts of the world. Evidence meaning descendants of said slaves.
As an example, it was news to me that slavery was still practiced in parts of the Middle East until the 60s, and probably still exists in a less obvious manner today. I was really horrified to learn that tons of slaves left Africa via the Eastern trade routes, and the brutality of those owners is why there's little to no visible evidence of slavery in those parts of the world. Evidence meaning descendants of said slaves.
Slavery still exists in essence in India and East Asia, with domestic servants working for families as soon as they're old enough to wash dishes.
Everything is new to somebody at some time.
You weren't aware of the cruelties of African enslavement until... you first watched a movie?
This is what's wrong with American education.
This is what's wrong with American education.
There are two options:
1. Everyone is lying about their experiences just for pageviews / attention
2. You haven't experienced the described culture first hand, and are rejecting something you haven't seen as "weird alternate reality".
Is it that implausible that a manager would not want to pay $200 for women's jackets when he is getting the the men's jackets for $100 (numbers made up obviously). That's not Tumblr novella cartoon evil, it's not even "evil", it's just stupidity.
1. Everyone is lying about their experiences just for pageviews / attention
2. You haven't experienced the described culture first hand, and are rejecting something you haven't seen as "weird alternate reality".
Is it that implausible that a manager would not want to pay $200 for women's jackets when he is getting the the men's jackets for $100 (numbers made up obviously). That's not Tumblr novella cartoon evil, it's not even "evil", it's just stupidity.
I just want to point out that 150 years ago, a huge number of Americans thought that slavery was perfectly moral. That is not very many years ago.
"A lot of people need to be evil for this story to make sense" is not an Occam's-razor counterargument, it is the unfortunate truth.
"A lot of people need to be evil for this story to make sense" is not an Occam's-razor counterargument, it is the unfortunate truth.
Makes sense to me. Looks like discrimination against women.
[deleted]
I'm not sure any of this is going to be newsworthy to HN commenters, but, solidly written.
The title is, of course, godawful. Remember that most story authors don't get to pick their titles.