I am an Uber survivor(medium.com)
medium.com
I am an Uber survivor
https://medium.com/@amyvertino/my-name-is-not-amy-i-am-an-uber-survivor-c6d6541e632f
840 comments
Maybe I've watched too much Suits and The Good Wife, but it just seems that it's all futile. They're a huge corp, if you file suit against them they'll hit back harder with bigger and badder lawyers, and you either settle out of court, or play the lotto with the court system and try your hand at a judgement with whatever lawyers you can afford. It's really sad how stacked the odds seem.
Why is this being modded down? It's the truth. Big companies almost always come out on top in trials because they can afford the best lawyers, and they can afford to game the system to bankrupt their opponents by filing never-ending motions to delay and other tactics which increase the legal costs to the opponent. You're almost never going to get a positive result if you're a rank-and-file employee; your best course of action is to leave the company and find something better.
I personally know someone who went through this (related to IP, not sexual harassment). I understand the lawsuit dragged on for about seven years. He finally got awarded about eight million dollars in damages but hasn't been able to collect a single cent of it.
When Peter Thiel says "single digit millionaires have no effective access to the legal system" [1] on the surface that sounds laughable and out-of-touch but I think there's a lot more truth to this than most people would like to admit.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.de/peter-thiel-hulk-hogan-gawker-...
When Peter Thiel says "single digit millionaires have no effective access to the legal system" [1] on the surface that sounds laughable and out-of-touch but I think there's a lot more truth to this than most people would like to admit.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.de/peter-thiel-hulk-hogan-gawker-...
How does that work: He got awarded the money but can't collect it?
Between appeals and that verdicts won't normally contain anything about how promptly payments must be made, things can drag on a while, then there's the simple honest stuff like, "the whole board must meet to approve expenditures over $X" and the settlement will be over that $X.
That's completely typical in the US court system. Winning a judgment is completely separate from actually collecting that judgment, and entails extra legal work to go after the assets of someone who refuses to pay the judgment.
"Why is this being modded down? It's the truth. Big companies almost always come out on top in trials because they can afford the best lawyers, and they can afford to game the system to bankrupt their opponents by filing never-ending motions to delay and other tactics which increase the legal costs to the opponent. You're almost never going to get a positive result if you're a rank-and-file employee; your best course of action is to leave the company and find something better.
"
You claim this is the truth. On what do you base any of this, other than TV?
You claim this is the truth. On what do you base any of this, other than TV?
It probably is quite different in the States but in my country, this is very true. If you are a lone individual fighting a legal case against a large organization, chances are you will be worn down by years of litigation that often appears endless. To dissuade litigants even further, cases are filed in far-off remote outposts that make such endeavors cost-prohibitive even further [1, for e.g.].
[1] http://www.livemint.com/Specials/13TE2UEtexMf1GDeEt5rCP/Mahe...
[1] http://www.livemint.com/Specials/13TE2UEtexMf1GDeEt5rCP/Mahe...
Add on top of this how easy it is to buy law enforcements here (including judges). It's like a very fair and open market. Whoever pays more gets the favour. That's exactly how he got that order passed in a district court (which is not even a high court - apex court of a state, let alone the Supreme Court - nation's apex court) by a judge who probably heard the word Internet for the sixth time in his entire life and the term "webpage" I am sure for the first time and was paid well for issuing the order.
"Why is this being modded down? It's the truth."
Since when has the truth been popular, or well received when it wasn't also what people wanted to hear?
Since when has the truth been popular, or well received when it wasn't also what people wanted to hear?
Agreed. Are down modders anonymous? Seems unfair they can take 4x the points of a contributing comment.
It's not just the best lawyers. Uber have already started contacting anyone who knows Susan Fowler, digging for dirt on her.
How can you be so sure it was Uber? Susan's tweet was intentionally vague [0].
You are forgetting that some past and present employees that could be directly implicated by Susan's evidence may also choose the smear campaign route to save their hide.
This could range from the women in HR* who might get thrown under the bus by Uber for aiding and abetting, to the men that perpetrated the actual harassment.
*Of course this scenario playing out is highly unlikely given Uber's history.
[0] https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833
You are forgetting that some past and present employees that could be directly implicated by Susan's evidence may also choose the smear campaign route to save their hide.
This could range from the women in HR* who might get thrown under the bus by Uber for aiding and abetting, to the men that perpetrated the actual harassment.
*Of course this scenario playing out is highly unlikely given Uber's history.
[0] https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833
Isn't uber known for this? I remember them responding to a lawsuit or something by hiring PIs to get dirt on people - stuff beyond the merits of the case.
They've always ended up looking
They've always ended up looking
Yes, they have threatened to dig up dirt on reporters and have even hired former CIA agents to go after information on someone who is suing them.
>Uber have already started contacting anyone who knows Susan Fowler, digging for dirt on her.
What a fantastic opportunity to send those assholes on a wild goose chase. Even better if they can somehow feed Uber bullshit that they later end up hanging themselves with.
What a fantastic opportunity to send those assholes on a wild goose chase. Even better if they can somehow feed Uber bullshit that they later end up hanging themselves with.
That's risky, they don't need the truth they just need to be able to defend a liable suit.
Not judging cause the facts aren't fully known yet, but..
Doesn't matter. Court of law !== Court of public opinion. In fact, courts sometimes suspiciously follow the public mood.
Seems there is some recent evidence, in sexual harassment matters:
--Single accuser, no-one believes you --20 accusers, no one believes the accused
The floodgates don't open until #1 goes public, and more follow.
Doesn't matter. Court of law !== Court of public opinion. In fact, courts sometimes suspiciously follow the public mood.
Seems there is some recent evidence, in sexual harassment matters:
--Single accuser, no-one believes you --20 accusers, no one believes the accused
The floodgates don't open until #1 goes public, and more follow.
Uber is sitting on billions of dollars of VC money. I'm sure that there are some very high-powered law firms out there salivating at the chance to represent these women in a class-action lawsuit.
Maybe the victims won't get as much recompense as they deserve (because so much of the judgement will go to attorneys), but I would not be so sure that Uber will have them outgunned in court. At the very least, it could teach Uber a lesson by putting an expensive crater in their VC runway.
Maybe the victims won't get as much recompense as they deserve (because so much of the judgement will go to attorneys), but I would not be so sure that Uber will have them outgunned in court. At the very least, it could teach Uber a lesson by putting an expensive crater in their VC runway.
I'm afraid you have a poor idea of what makes high-powered law firms salivate. When they see someone sitting on a pile of billions of dollars, they don't think "how can I piss that person and all his friends off?" They think "how can become that person's best buddy?"
Maybe so. But it arguably depends on firm type.
Costs and expenses (including experts) are typically only a few percent of recoveries. Unless recovery ended up being much smaller than expected, anyway. Fees over 20% require substantive justification.[0]
0) http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00392/_res/id=At...
0) http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00392/_res/id=At...
$3 billion is from the Saudi sovereign fund..
As others have pointed on, on top of all that, even if you win, you're going to have a very hard time getting a job in the same field because of the law suit.
At this scale of awfulness and given how much cash Uber has, I imagine some very good employment lawyers are going to be shaking the bushes looking for as many plaintiffs as they can find, and wouldn't think of charging them to participate.
agreed, watching "the good wife" has been uncomfortably educational about how the system works.
I've never seen a movie or television show that portrayed something I knew well, where it was accurate.
Every time I thought I learned something from a movie or tv show it was because they were portraying something I didn't know a lot about. I would be very slow to say any kind of entertainment like this is educational.
Every time I thought I learned something from a movie or tv show it was because they were portraying something I didn't know a lot about. I would be very slow to say any kind of entertainment like this is educational.
It's also a fantastic show, to boot.
A disappointing end though in my opinion
The good fight (which is like the sequel) is turning out to be quite good though!
Get Peter Thiel on your side. He used the courts to kill Gawker.
Thiel has called Uber the most ethically challenged company[1]. But I think he's a Lyft investor. So maybe that's why?
On the other hand they both seem to get along really well with the current US president.
[1] http://time.com/3593701/peter-thiel-uber/
On the other hand they both seem to get along really well with the current US president.
[1] http://time.com/3593701/peter-thiel-uber/
[deleted]
Not just any huge corp, but Uber - getting away with shady stuff is in their DNA
>"Great, retain a Chicago politician so you know you'll get the answer you're paying for."
Normally I don't care, but because I'm from Chicago and am officially very touchy about all the abuse the city catches, I'd like to correct the record as Eric Holder is from New York.
Normally I don't care, but because I'm from Chicago and am officially very touchy about all the abuse the city catches, I'd like to correct the record as Eric Holder is from New York.
It sounds like they're using 'Chicago politician' as a character description (valid or not). Similar to how people might use Nazi (e.g. Grammar Nazi, or "You're such a Nazi!") etc.
and has never run for elected office.
But Attorney General is a political position, e.g. appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the U.S. President.
So is Administrator of NASA. I don't think being appointed AG makes you a politician.
"You think – excuse me – if you’ll pardon me – do you think American Presidents reward virtue?
Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?
Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us ? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that." -Milton Friedman
Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?
Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us ? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that." -Milton Friedman
[deleted]
Agree. I've lived both places. Clearly, NYC has more slippery characters. /bash
I've also heard that he puts ketchup on his hotdog.
More interesting, I think, that Uber has a standing relationship with the law firm Holder works for. Holder has previously worked on Uber's behalf: http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/15/former-u-s-attorney-g...
He does have a credible image, but the announcement sort of co-opted that to make it seem like he might be somehow independent in his thinking. In reality, he's a lawyer being paid by Uber. As such, he isn't really inclined to find all the dirt...Depends on where said dirt is.
He does have a credible image, but the announcement sort of co-opted that to make it seem like he might be somehow independent in his thinking. In reality, he's a lawyer being paid by Uber. As such, he isn't really inclined to find all the dirt...Depends on where said dirt is.
Eric Holder certainly does already have an existing business relationship with Uber-
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/01685274cc944196af9016ad0a875...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/01685274cc944196af9016ad0a875...
Is it just me or are other people also constantly surprised by how many big names have their hands in the 'uber pot'?
It's like there's a massive list of investors and shareholders who are all riding this "sure thing" to big riches. Which makes me wonder two things: 1.) is uber too big too fail? are there so many rich and powerful people invested that they will make uber succeed no matter or 2.) this thing could be the biggest investor flop in recent memory.
It's like there's a massive list of investors and shareholders who are all riding this "sure thing" to big riches. Which makes me wonder two things: 1.) is uber too big too fail? are there so many rich and powerful people invested that they will make uber succeed no matter or 2.) this thing could be the biggest investor flop in recent memory.
After Theranos nothing really surprises me in terms of big names in the pot.
I have wondered about this several times. Amidst so many scandals, what would it take for a zenefits-esque meltdown to take place at Uber? The `too big to fail` ethos never works out well for the consumer.
Nothing really surprising. I would imagine with some thinking and maths one could come up with a number e.g 5,000(just a made up number) power elites controlling media, finance, law and business but may not keep public facing roles all the time.
I hope they end up like Theranos.
I want them to change instead of ending up like Theranos. If Uber went down, a lot of good people would be out of a job (both employees and drivers) and it would burn a lot investors, thus negatively affecting the funding landscape for years to come.
To reiterate, I wish Uber to change. I don't wish them to fail.
To reiterate, I wish Uber to change. I don't wish them to fail.
> If Uber went down, a lot of good people would be out of a job (both employees and drivers)
Employees yes, drivers not so much. There's plenty of competitors that would love to fill that hole.
> and it would burn a lot investors, thus negatively affecting the funding landscape for years to come.
Maybe letting investors know that company culture of how people are treated has real negative consequences would signal to them that they should pressure these companies to behave in an appropriate manner. Burning investors for ignoring the writing on the wall about Uber's behavior (there's been indications of problematic behavior of executives for years) is exactly what needs to happen.
Employees yes, drivers not so much. There's plenty of competitors that would love to fill that hole.
> and it would burn a lot investors, thus negatively affecting the funding landscape for years to come.
Maybe letting investors know that company culture of how people are treated has real negative consequences would signal to them that they should pressure these companies to behave in an appropriate manner. Burning investors for ignoring the writing on the wall about Uber's behavior (there's been indications of problematic behavior of executives for years) is exactly what needs to happen.
It's not so much pressuring founders to behave better, as choosing better founders. The "play hard", "meritocratic", "hashtag winning" douchebag seems to be a good choice because they work hard to appear to be a good choice and seem to have the drive to do big things. But if it all falls apart before they can achieve greatness because of the inherent douchefail, then that's a lesson investors need to learn. Don't bet on douchebags.
here here.
maybe voters will learn this too?
i was about to say that these events could make for a great teaching moment, but these are lessons we've been given many many many chances to learn. i'll settle for us once again avoiding eating ourselves alive as a species, and hopefully we avoid eating some scapegoat subset of us alive while we're at it.
maybe voters will learn this too?
i was about to say that these events could make for a great teaching moment, but these are lessons we've been given many many many chances to learn. i'll settle for us once again avoiding eating ourselves alive as a species, and hopefully we avoid eating some scapegoat subset of us alive while we're at it.
Nah they need to fail. Lyft or another competitor would soak up the drivers immediately, a huge number of them already drive for both.
Silicon valley alums of a top tech company are not going to be hurting for jobs in the near future.
It sets the example that bullshit like this is not workable and will bring you down. There are no net downsides to uber falling.
Silicon valley alums of a top tech company are not going to be hurting for jobs in the near future.
It sets the example that bullshit like this is not workable and will bring you down. There are no net downsides to uber falling.
> There's plenty of competitors that would love to fill that hole.
Maybe in the US. Elsewhere (e.g. Toronto), it's Uber or taxi.
Maybe in the US. Elsewhere (e.g. Toronto), it's Uber or taxi.
But that's because new companies can't compete with the incredible amount of VC funding Uber (and Lyft) have received. Down here in Austin, after Uber and Lyft left, about a half dozen different competitors popped up in about a month. My favorite, Ride Austin, is a non-profit that takes a significantly smaller cut than Uber or Lyft and donates a ton of money to charity.
Nope. Speaking from India it's Ola or "Uber or something else" in big cities and Ola or something else in other cities or towns.
In fact there are many smaller startups that keep coming and going. Bikes, autos, cabs. In fact there was a bus startup too that failed just because it didn't have money to play against the system.
There are rumours of a huge business house (with pretty much endless supply of money and extremely easy access to the central Govt - in fact the PM on a personal level) entering the market.
In fact there are many smaller startups that keep coming and going. Bikes, autos, cabs. In fact there was a bus startup too that failed just because it didn't have money to play against the system.
There are rumours of a huge business house (with pretty much endless supply of money and extremely easy access to the central Govt - in fact the PM on a personal level) entering the market.
I think they need to fail because the attitude needs to die. It's easier if they take it with them.
They brought a very Wall Street-esque aggressively cheat your way into becoming too big to fail, at any cost attitude into software. They were chummy with top-dollar lobbyists to get around pesky small-town regulations and unions. Some of those entrenched interests were bad, but even in defeating them, they weren't precisely taking from the rich and giving to the poor either.
The grass is always greener, but they do not resemble software heroes like Carmack or Stallman or (idiosyncratic pick) Newmark at all. When it comes to anti-authoritarianism and civil disobedience, I think Snowden not Kalanick. Even if you want a Randian libertarian, Jimmy Wales over Travis Kalanick.
They brought a very Wall Street-esque aggressively cheat your way into becoming too big to fail, at any cost attitude into software. They were chummy with top-dollar lobbyists to get around pesky small-town regulations and unions. Some of those entrenched interests were bad, but even in defeating them, they weren't precisely taking from the rich and giving to the poor either.
The grass is always greener, but they do not resemble software heroes like Carmack or Stallman or (idiosyncratic pick) Newmark at all. When it comes to anti-authoritarianism and civil disobedience, I think Snowden not Kalanick. Even if you want a Randian libertarian, Jimmy Wales over Travis Kalanick.
Uber being too big to fail is delusion. Let the market work itself out.
That's a compelling argument, but I'm not actually sure I want that.
Uber's endgame is self-driving cars, which will put a lot more good people (Uber drivers and non-Uber drivers) out of a job. That's only feasible because of Uber's aggressive attitude to growth and crushing competition in long-term-unsustainable ways in the hope that the technology will materialize soon. If they change enough that this isn't their endgame or they don't pull it off in time, I don't know if they're financially viable.
I think that that goal and that pressure is part of why Uber is as rotten as it is (see how HR repeatedly doesn't want to fire abusive people who are allegedly high performers; even if the rest of their team would do better without them, Uber can't afford to figure that out).
Meanwhile, if they fail outright, it seems like basically all Uber drivers also drive for Lyft, and the engineering staff can get good jobs at lots of other places. It'll also be a good precedent for future companies not to try the strategy Uber has, and hopefully prevent more problems along these lines.
Uber's endgame is self-driving cars, which will put a lot more good people (Uber drivers and non-Uber drivers) out of a job. That's only feasible because of Uber's aggressive attitude to growth and crushing competition in long-term-unsustainable ways in the hope that the technology will materialize soon. If they change enough that this isn't their endgame or they don't pull it off in time, I don't know if they're financially viable.
I think that that goal and that pressure is part of why Uber is as rotten as it is (see how HR repeatedly doesn't want to fire abusive people who are allegedly high performers; even if the rest of their team would do better without them, Uber can't afford to figure that out).
Meanwhile, if they fail outright, it seems like basically all Uber drivers also drive for Lyft, and the engineering staff can get good jobs at lots of other places. It'll also be a good precedent for future companies not to try the strategy Uber has, and hopefully prevent more problems along these lines.
Many of them also drive for Lyft, so probably not.
I don't think Uber should go down but the guilty must be punished even the CEO if found guilty shouldn't be spared.
[deleted]
>"Great, retain a Chicago politician so you know you'll get the answer you're paying for."
right. regardless of where you stand on his performance as attorney general, hiring eric holder is a political move. if uber actually cared about investigating this, they wouldn't have hired a politician.
right. regardless of where you stand on his performance as attorney general, hiring eric holder is a political move. if uber actually cared about investigating this, they wouldn't have hired a politician.
Eric Holder was AG. AG is not a political office, and he's not a politician. What you should be concerned with is the fact that he was associated with them previously and is a proponent of theirs.
> AG is not a political office, and he's not a politician.
AG is a Presidential appointment with Congressional confirmation. While those appointed are not necessarily politicians, it is most certainly a political position.
AG is a Presidential appointment with Congressional confirmation. While those appointed are not necessarily politicians, it is most certainly a political position.
It is most certainly not. By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'. That term has a real meaning in the circles which matter (i.e., politics), and AG is not considered a political position. That's not to say an AG is completely separate from political realities, but the office is (supposed to be) non-partisan.
> By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'.
Direct Presidential appointees are absolutely political; cabinet members more than most.
> That term has a real meaning in the circles which matter (i.e., politics), and AG is not considered a political position.
It actually has a fairly vague and shifting meaning even within politics, but by virtually any of them the Attorney-General is very much a political position.
Direct Presidential appointees are absolutely political; cabinet members more than most.
> That term has a real meaning in the circles which matter (i.e., politics), and AG is not considered a political position.
It actually has a fairly vague and shifting meaning even within politics, but by virtually any of them the Attorney-General is very much a political position.
> That's not to say an AG is completely separate from political realities, but the office is (supposed to be) non-partisan.
That must be why Trump fired Sally Yates then...
/s
Really, it's about as political as it gets. Or did you think Jeff Sessions would so much as be looked at under a Democratic president?
That must be why Trump fired Sally Yates then...
/s
Really, it's about as political as it gets. Or did you think Jeff Sessions would so much as be looked at under a Democratic president?
I'm from DC and used to work in politics. Everyone I know from that realm considers political appointees to be political positions, and call them such. The political positions are rough, because churn is pretty much guaranteed every 4-8 years.
They may be political positions, but are the office holders "politicians"? When they never ran in an election? That was the original question.
> By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'
Yes, exactly. The appointee is appointed to implement the administration's policies, which are political. During George W. Bush's administration, state Attorneys General were directed to pursue investigations of voter fraud. The eight who did not were fired in 2004 and replaced, which was very unusual.
Yes, exactly. The appointee is appointed to implement the administration's policies, which are political. During George W. Bush's administration, state Attorneys General were directed to pursue investigations of voter fraud. The eight who did not were fired in 2004 and replaced, which was very unusual.
[deleted]
> AG is not a political office
Anything involving the law is political.
Any time two people interact, politics comes up.
Anything involving the law is political.
Any time two people interact, politics comes up.
One doesn't retain Eric Holder to investigate. When a company has a race problem they pay a high profile member of that race some dough to appear to set things right. Does anyone know of such a case in which things were actually set right? I'm willing to believe that I've never heard the story because it's boring news, but still
As skeptical as I am with Uber, I'm still hoping that something will come up with the investigation. It also encourages me that more people are speaking up. The more bad press they get, the more pressure they'll have to have their "investigations" result in some discipline.
I work at Uber. What happened to Susan Fowler and Amy is terrible.
To give another side of the Uber story, I've seen nothing but respect on my team of ~25 engineers. Only a few of us are women, but also only a few of us are the "white male" stereotype that you see in the press. Everyone I've talked to on my team is aware of and upset about the lack of female engineers in tech.
I saw Uber's CTO (Thuan Pham, a Vietnamese refugee) downstairs at Uber the day Susan Fowler posted her article. A woman who works at Uber came up to him, and asked him how he's doing. He said, "It's a tough time, but we'll get through it." She told him, "I'm sorry, I know how much you care", and gave him a hug.
Arianna Huffington is on Uber's board of directors. She's in charge of helping Uber employees "lead healthier lives". In response to Susan Fowler's article, Arianna has been holding personal discussions with employees about what we're going to do to stop this type of thing from ever happening again.
It's easy to stereotype a company, but at the end of the day you're talking about ~12,000 individuals. Many if not most of whom came from Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I'm hopeful that these decisions didn't come from the top. It really may have been just a couple of individuals who did messed up things, and should/will be fired.
To give another side of the Uber story, I've seen nothing but respect on my team of ~25 engineers. Only a few of us are women, but also only a few of us are the "white male" stereotype that you see in the press. Everyone I've talked to on my team is aware of and upset about the lack of female engineers in tech.
I saw Uber's CTO (Thuan Pham, a Vietnamese refugee) downstairs at Uber the day Susan Fowler posted her article. A woman who works at Uber came up to him, and asked him how he's doing. He said, "It's a tough time, but we'll get through it." She told him, "I'm sorry, I know how much you care", and gave him a hug.
Arianna Huffington is on Uber's board of directors. She's in charge of helping Uber employees "lead healthier lives". In response to Susan Fowler's article, Arianna has been holding personal discussions with employees about what we're going to do to stop this type of thing from ever happening again.
It's easy to stereotype a company, but at the end of the day you're talking about ~12,000 individuals. Many if not most of whom came from Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I'm hopeful that these decisions didn't come from the top. It really may have been just a couple of individuals who did messed up things, and should/will be fired.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, Arianna's former chief of staff and managing editor, Jimmy Soni, was accused of exactly this sort of behavior [1]. In my circle there, those allegations were considered to be highly credible. And given the hush-hush departure, it doesn't seem to me like there was any real accountability.
http://gawker.com/top-huffington-post-editor-was-investigate...
http://gawker.com/top-huffington-post-editor-was-investigate...
Thanks for sharing that -- I think it's a good reminder to not stereotype an entire company. Also, it's also a reminder that this scandal is unfortunate for all of those at Uber who aren't like this and still have to deal with the barrage of bad press and accusations from everyone from the media to those around them (friends, neighbors).
If this article is truthful, then the problem is coming from the top, not just one manager being abusive.
Exactly. It's not an independent investigation if you hire the investigators.
Who else could hire the investigators?
It's a tricky problem, but ultimately you rely on the investigators caring more about their reputation than any one contract. If it gets out that firm X doesn't do objective reviews, then future companies in hot water won't hire them.
The real challenge here is that these investigators are not independent. Eric Holder has done prior work on behalf of Uber, which means he could reasonably be biased towards the company.
It's a tricky problem, but ultimately you rely on the investigators caring more about their reputation than any one contract. If it gets out that firm X doesn't do objective reviews, then future companies in hot water won't hire them.
The real challenge here is that these investigators are not independent. Eric Holder has done prior work on behalf of Uber, which means he could reasonably be biased towards the company.
Yes, the investigator's _reputation_ is put at stake. But, reputation in the eyes of whom?
1. The public at large, who want to see standards of civic probity upheld? Or, 2. Future clients, who will want value for their money?
Delivering #2 requires writing up a designed narrative, in magisterial rhetoric. A narrative that hides all the dirt that isn't likely to come out anyway, and redirects culpability toward low-ranking dispensables, whether guilt or not.
1. The public at large, who want to see standards of civic probity upheld? Or, 2. Future clients, who will want value for their money?
Delivering #2 requires writing up a designed narrative, in magisterial rhetoric. A narrative that hides all the dirt that isn't likely to come out anyway, and redirects culpability toward low-ranking dispensables, whether guilt or not.
Eric 'too big to fail' Holder defined his career on #2.
There's a curious parallel with a certain class of business managers who "extract brand value" by slowly debasing quality, then folding up shop. For example, Hollywood movie sequels, or for-profit colleges.
For a big name like Holder, "folding up shop" would mean something like a beachfront retirement, in Malibu.
For a big name like Holder, "folding up shop" would mean something like a beachfront retirement, in Malibu.
With a functional regulatory framework, you wouldn't need private entities handling this; public ones could.
[deleted]
Who else could hire the investigators?
The independent directors on a company's board should hire the investigators, who then should report back to those directors.
Of course, in most startups, just like in many public companies, "independent" directors often aren't.
The independent directors on a company's board should hire the investigators, who then should report back to those directors.
Of course, in most startups, just like in many public companies, "independent" directors often aren't.
Yes, now get me some AAA rated bonds.
The board, to decide if it's time to fire Travis.
Independent only means independent of the company's staff. Whether objective or partial to the company is a different story.
It seems that Uber has strong correlation between "abusive" and "seen as high performer".
One wonders if something from the investors world view went into uber..
I'm really happy she felt comfortable doing this. What an incredibly brave and strong person—I can't imagine what she must be feeling.
What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.
We cannot rely on the abused to stand up for themselves; for every one who does there are thousands who cannot. It is on every one of us to report abhorrent behaviour, even if we think someone else has/will.
Change comes from those in power, from people who could very rationally not care, but who go out of their way to do the right thing. It isn't an economic decision, a business decision, or a political decision. It is a personal decision on the world one wants to live in.
We can do better. We must do better. Enough is enough.
What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.
We cannot rely on the abused to stand up for themselves; for every one who does there are thousands who cannot. It is on every one of us to report abhorrent behaviour, even if we think someone else has/will.
Change comes from those in power, from people who could very rationally not care, but who go out of their way to do the right thing. It isn't an economic decision, a business decision, or a political decision. It is a personal decision on the world one wants to live in.
We can do better. We must do better. Enough is enough.
> What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.
It sounds like the abuse is pretty universal, from the article: "It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved."
The 20 other men on her team were probably as concerned with keeping their job and not being abused. The big difference is that they can appear to fit in because they're men; women have a much more difficult job of it. But whenever everyone is keeping their head down, it's hard to notice that other people's issues.
The whole psychology of bullying comes into play and that is pretty complex. Yes, if everyone stood up against the bully they would win but how often does that happen in real life? Most people in this situation would likely just quit than put up with that environment so you're already left with those who can't or won't.
I'd like to think I wouldn't let that stuff happen around me but honestly I'm pretty unlikely to work in that environment in the first place. Where I do work, the culture is great and we are near 30-40% women in IT/Dev without even trying to hire for diversity.
It sounds like the abuse is pretty universal, from the article: "It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved."
The 20 other men on her team were probably as concerned with keeping their job and not being abused. The big difference is that they can appear to fit in because they're men; women have a much more difficult job of it. But whenever everyone is keeping their head down, it's hard to notice that other people's issues.
The whole psychology of bullying comes into play and that is pretty complex. Yes, if everyone stood up against the bully they would win but how often does that happen in real life? Most people in this situation would likely just quit than put up with that environment so you're already left with those who can't or won't.
I'd like to think I wouldn't let that stuff happen around me but honestly I'm pretty unlikely to work in that environment in the first place. Where I do work, the culture is great and we are near 30-40% women in IT/Dev without even trying to hire for diversity.
>It sounds like the abuse is pretty universal, from the article: "It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved."
Full disclosure, I work at Uber.
I have been staying out of this until now, but this point particularly grinds my gears.
If I heard anything remotely like what was discussed in this article you bet your ass I'm going to speak up. I know people do not speak of me, but watching my entire company be vilified is a bit difficult and hard to not take personally. I work with a lot of fantastic engineers that would not tolerate anything remotely like the behavior outlined in this article for a second. That's the problem with gigantic companies though, things often happen in dark corners that aren't apparent to the rest of the organization. People want to conflate specific incidents with the state of the entire company.
I had one opportunity to speak up when my female teammate was being discriminated against, and I took it. It wasn't even blatant either, the guy could easily defend himself and say it's not a sexism thing, but that's what it was. He's a massive jackass too, but you can't fire people on the spot for being a massive jackass without a lot of evidence to back it up. I did my part.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but I can tell you in my corner of the Uber world I take this shit very seriously, and so does everybody else I work with. The bullshit that is going on is not representative of my team, and it's very very hard to not take this personally.
The problem I have is that everybody wants to chime in with how awful Uber is like they know something I don't. Now I'll admit, there's a lot I don't know about working at Uber, as I only know my corner of the company. If I'm saying that what does that say about everybody else? Do these people think for a second that I would have stuck around and stuck it out if I saw this bullshit going on first hand?
I'm not going to be the one that stands up and defends leadership, or HR, or whomever else, they can speak for themselves just as I speak for myself.
Full disclosure, I work at Uber.
I have been staying out of this until now, but this point particularly grinds my gears.
If I heard anything remotely like what was discussed in this article you bet your ass I'm going to speak up. I know people do not speak of me, but watching my entire company be vilified is a bit difficult and hard to not take personally. I work with a lot of fantastic engineers that would not tolerate anything remotely like the behavior outlined in this article for a second. That's the problem with gigantic companies though, things often happen in dark corners that aren't apparent to the rest of the organization. People want to conflate specific incidents with the state of the entire company.
I had one opportunity to speak up when my female teammate was being discriminated against, and I took it. It wasn't even blatant either, the guy could easily defend himself and say it's not a sexism thing, but that's what it was. He's a massive jackass too, but you can't fire people on the spot for being a massive jackass without a lot of evidence to back it up. I did my part.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but I can tell you in my corner of the Uber world I take this shit very seriously, and so does everybody else I work with. The bullshit that is going on is not representative of my team, and it's very very hard to not take this personally.
The problem I have is that everybody wants to chime in with how awful Uber is like they know something I don't. Now I'll admit, there's a lot I don't know about working at Uber, as I only know my corner of the company. If I'm saying that what does that say about everybody else? Do these people think for a second that I would have stuck around and stuck it out if I saw this bullshit going on first hand?
I'm not going to be the one that stands up and defends leadership, or HR, or whomever else, they can speak for themselves just as I speak for myself.
I had a similar experience at a previous company I worked at, and a similar reaction. When people heaped criticism on them for sexism I essentially said "no way, I've never seen any of that, this is outrageous, you're slandering the good guys".
Well, as it turns out, they weren't. A female engineer I knew in passing wound up writing an essay similar to this one describing her horrible treatment at the hands of one of her coworkers and HR. I was shocked, but I also knew her well enough to know that she wouldn't make up something like that. She shared that story as her goodbye email from the company.
Even now, I'm baffled and angry about the response the company made. I don't know why it was handled that way, and I don't know why her coworker acted so wretchedly. It boils my blood, and mixed in with that and the bewilderment is a certain sense of shame that I had misplaced my trust so badly.
Anyways, I guess all of that is just a long way of saying that I hear where you're coming from and hope your experience ends better than mine did.
Well, as it turns out, they weren't. A female engineer I knew in passing wound up writing an essay similar to this one describing her horrible treatment at the hands of one of her coworkers and HR. I was shocked, but I also knew her well enough to know that she wouldn't make up something like that. She shared that story as her goodbye email from the company.
Even now, I'm baffled and angry about the response the company made. I don't know why it was handled that way, and I don't know why her coworker acted so wretchedly. It boils my blood, and mixed in with that and the bewilderment is a certain sense of shame that I had misplaced my trust so badly.
Anyways, I guess all of that is just a long way of saying that I hear where you're coming from and hope your experience ends better than mine did.
Thanks, this is pretty much exactly what I'm going through, especially because I personally know Susan. It is outrageous to hear what has happened to her, and has affected me quite personally.
It's great to hear that Susan's experience is not the case on every team.
Uber clearly does a lot of things very well, and although I posted in a different comment that perhaps Travis should go I think that the best outcome would be that the company can learn from these events and become better as a result.
Uber clearly does a lot of things very well, and although I posted in a different comment that perhaps Travis should go I think that the best outcome would be that the company can learn from these events and become better as a result.
> It's great to hear that Susan's experience is not the case on every team.
What? No it's not. If it was like that on every team, you would basically be describing hell. "Better than absolute hell" is nothing to celebrate.
What? No it's not. If it was like that on every team, you would basically be describing hell. "Better than absolute hell" is nothing to celebrate.
> "Better than absolute hell" is nothing to celebrate.
Well I think that it's useful in the midst of stories like this to realize that yes, most people are nice, kind, etc. Perhaps most Uber employees are like that. It should give hope to anyone who is working somewhere that should be better who is inclined simply to quit vs trying to make it better.
Well I think that it's useful in the midst of stories like this to realize that yes, most people are nice, kind, etc. Perhaps most Uber employees are like that. It should give hope to anyone who is working somewhere that should be better who is inclined simply to quit vs trying to make it better.
It's useful for people who are not under assault, for whom the worst aspect of this situation is that their egos are being threatened.
For people dealing directly with harassment it's a pointless distraction. Of course there are good people. Anyone who is dealing with harassment knows their are good people, because shitty people are harassing them. The difference is not an academic one for them, it's a material one.
For you, the scariest thing about this thread is apparently that someone might think everyone on earth is bad? No that can't be. Your priority is ensuring we all remember not all Uber employees are bad? You're worried about the reputations of non-harassing Uber employees?
Sorry, I'm struggling here. What's useful about reminding people amidst a harassment crisis that not everyone ja bad?
For people dealing directly with harassment it's a pointless distraction. Of course there are good people. Anyone who is dealing with harassment knows their are good people, because shitty people are harassing them. The difference is not an academic one for them, it's a material one.
For you, the scariest thing about this thread is apparently that someone might think everyone on earth is bad? No that can't be. Your priority is ensuring we all remember not all Uber employees are bad? You're worried about the reputations of non-harassing Uber employees?
Sorry, I'm struggling here. What's useful about reminding people amidst a harassment crisis that not everyone ja bad?
Thank you Eric for replying here. I agree that 'better than hell' is not a reason to celebrate. This is my first time creating an account on hacker news and posting because i felt compelled to agree with you. Too many people are still sound complacent about the state of things. Why does everyone's bloo d not boil reading this and Susan's account? Why is everyone not prompted to take one step to make the workplace better for women in tech no matter how small.
>I had one opportunity to speak up when my female teammate was being discriminated against
>He's a massive jackass too, but you can't fire people on the spot for being a massive jackass without a lot of evidence to back it up.
The implication of this is that you also have experience at Uber working with somebody who is unfireable despite being a "massive jackass" and engaging in sex discrimination against at least one female employee there, while you were around as a witness. It's good that you spoke up when he acted like that, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or your coworkers specifically. But your anecdote here reads like one more story confirming issues with Uber's management/HR, even though you've intended it otherwise.
>He's a massive jackass too, but you can't fire people on the spot for being a massive jackass without a lot of evidence to back it up.
The implication of this is that you also have experience at Uber working with somebody who is unfireable despite being a "massive jackass" and engaging in sex discrimination against at least one female employee there, while you were around as a witness. It's good that you spoke up when he acted like that, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or your coworkers specifically. But your anecdote here reads like one more story confirming issues with Uber's management/HR, even though you've intended it otherwise.
He clearly mentioned "It (sexism) wasn't even blatant either..".
In every company there are 'Jackasses' (selfish egotist managers, politically malevolent colleagues etc.) who can never be fired for their specific ways of 'jackassery'. In this Uber narrative it was not anyway implied that this person was always sexist jackass.
I'm just being respectful of the anonymous Uber engineers who are speaking up. This would only lead to goodness for the existing female employees who are there in Uber and other companies.
In every company there are 'Jackasses' (selfish egotist managers, politically malevolent colleagues etc.) who can never be fired for their specific ways of 'jackassery'. In this Uber narrative it was not anyway implied that this person was always sexist jackass.
I'm just being respectful of the anonymous Uber engineers who are speaking up. This would only lead to goodness for the existing female employees who are there in Uber and other companies.
Thanks for speeaking up for me, this is exactly what I meant. It is really hard to stand up by myself against the deluge of negativity, thanks.
It is funny.
Here you are perhaps doing the same (vocalizing on behalf of silent majority of good individual engineers at Uber) and the HN crowd is piling on to you; perhaps no different behavior than what they are trying to preach against.
Here you are perhaps doing the same (vocalizing on behalf of silent majority of good individual engineers at Uber) and the HN crowd is piling on to you; perhaps no different behavior than what they are trying to preach against.
After reading about the egregious violations of privacy, threats against journalists, flagrant violations of the law in many countries and cities around the world and the fact that the top man of Uber was willing to serve under a Trump presidency, I don't think you can be too surprised about all the negative comments!
I feel like you didn't really read my post. You don't fire somebody the first, or even second, time they mess up. There are plenty of people at plenty of companies that /should/ be fired, but have not yet because you generally don't fire somebody without overwhelming evidence. This is not a problem exclusive to Uber.
Despite the fact I pretty clearly explained the problem, you still read into it the way you wanted the narrative to be read.
Despite the fact I pretty clearly explained the problem, you still read into it the way you wanted the narrative to be read.
Just because you don't think someone should be fired without "overwhelming evidence" (California is at-will, of course you can fire someone for being a massive jackass that makes/made sexist comments), doesn't mean your anecdote doesn't corroborate the sentiments of this article. Despite the fact that you felt like you dealt with the situation, it still shows that this type of thing happens at Uber, even in "your corner of the company", and that it likely happens more than you know -- when you aren't around, around others who are less likely to speak up, etc.
>(California is at-will, of course you can fire someone for being a massive jackass that makes/made sexist comments)
There are more considerations like whether you're willing to pay unemployment, or open yourself up to a lawsuit depending on the circumstances.
There are more considerations like whether you're willing to pay unemployment, or open yourself up to a lawsuit depending on the circumstances.
So basically, Uber is LESS willing to risk a lawsuit for firing bad/sexist/asshat employees and MORE willing to risk a lawsuit from employees who bear the brunt of the abuse.
Oh yea thats right. As other have discussed, its because Uber is a juggernaut corp who will out-spend the legal competition anyway, so Uber doesn't care.
I appreciate your defense that "it isn't everyone" and "I am an Uber engineer and I stand up for women/gays/minorities", but I'm not sure we are getting at the larger picture here.
Its the movers and shakers at the top who need to start setting the right example instead of protecting their golf buddy who is making 6 figures. You have done your part, but this needs to go all they way up to the top.
You'd think they would at the very least care about the bad press in terms of quarterly/yearly earnings and the potential loss of customers/drivers because of the PR fallout.
Oh yea thats right. As other have discussed, its because Uber is a juggernaut corp who will out-spend the legal competition anyway, so Uber doesn't care.
I appreciate your defense that "it isn't everyone" and "I am an Uber engineer and I stand up for women/gays/minorities", but I'm not sure we are getting at the larger picture here.
Its the movers and shakers at the top who need to start setting the right example instead of protecting their golf buddy who is making 6 figures. You have done your part, but this needs to go all they way up to the top.
You'd think they would at the very least care about the bad press in terms of quarterly/yearly earnings and the potential loss of customers/drivers because of the PR fallout.
[deleted]
If the "mess up" is deliberately discriminating against somebody over a protected class like sex, I think firing them immediately is a fair and arguably ideal action to take. I would be surprised if this wasn't the standard operating procedure in most companies.
I assumed from the phrase "massive jackass" in your post that cruel behavior from him was typical and dramatic enough to be a marked pattern. Most companies /are/ willing to fire people who repeatedly disrespect and are cruel to their coworkers. It's part of a bare baseline that you need to maintain to have a decent work environment for your employees. You and the woman he discriminated against makes at least two separate eye witness reports to an egregious offense (protected class discrimination), and I assumed from your description of him that his cruelty wasn't just exposed to you two.
I assumed from the phrase "massive jackass" in your post that cruel behavior from him was typical and dramatic enough to be a marked pattern. Most companies /are/ willing to fire people who repeatedly disrespect and are cruel to their coworkers. It's part of a bare baseline that you need to maintain to have a decent work environment for your employees. You and the woman he discriminated against makes at least two separate eye witness reports to an egregious offense (protected class discrimination), and I assumed from your description of him that his cruelty wasn't just exposed to you two.
You're making a lot of assumptions. You assume that the interaction where he was discriminatory took place with my teammate. That's not the case, it was a comment made to me and only me. I recorded and documented it's something that was followed up on.
I understand you're outraged at people for their discriminatory behavior but you need to recognize you don't know the facts.
I understand you're outraged at people for their discriminatory behavior but you need to recognize you don't know the facts.
You could do one thing to prove the point about not defending leadership and not standing up for this kind of bullshit right away. It sounds like "Mike #2" ought to be sufficiently unambiguous for Uber employees to identify, so can you name that person?
There are nearly 2000 engineers at Uber, with people coming and going every week. I'm not even sure I know the /team/ the author is writing about.
Practicality aside, how stupid do you think I would have to be to start a massive witchhunt against somebody who has had allegations made against them by an anonymous person?
Practicality aside, how stupid do you think I would have to be to start a massive witchhunt against somebody who has had allegations made against them by an anonymous person?
> Practicality aside, how stupid do you think I would have to be to start a massive witchhunt against somebody who has had allegations made against them by an anonymous person?
They weren't talking to you they were talking to the person who asked for the witch hunt.
Although somebody does know exactly who this is and never should have let it slide. Those of you with your head down, it's time to go over your boss's head and say something.
They weren't talking to you they were talking to the person who asked for the witch hunt.
Although somebody does know exactly who this is and never should have let it slide. Those of you with your head down, it's time to go over your boss's head and say something.
>They weren't talking to you they were talking to the person who asked for the witch hunt.
That's the same person I replied to. I think you took my comment to be in reply to another comment of the same depth.
That's the same person I replied to. I think you took my comment to be in reply to another comment of the same depth.
My bad. I misjudged the indents.
As much as I would love to see "Mike #2" publically castrated, there is a fairly high chance of causing an innocent person significant grief by going down this path. Please don't trigger a witch hunt. Justice must be discharged with tremendous care to protect the innocent.
Its the way the HR responds that is of more concern than how other engineers respond.
How do we know you're a Uber engineer and not some rented astroturfer? You better balance some binary trees for us right now, son.
Blatant sexism is quite high bar. IMO, most of it is in grey area where whoever is thinking that way can easily deny everything. There is usually aspect of being unsure whether you are really discriminated against or whether it is that you are really doing something wrong and needs improvement.
In any case, it is good you took the opportunity to speak up. Even if the company does not change anything, knowing that it is not all colleagues who consider you to be less helps to put things into perspective. For me personally, when something similar happened, it mattered a lot. Not just felt better, but really made difference in how I seen my position, how I was confident afterwards and how I trusted colleagues in general.
I am trying to say that the action like yours may have positive impact on colleges even if you did not seen it.
In any case, it is good you took the opportunity to speak up. Even if the company does not change anything, knowing that it is not all colleagues who consider you to be less helps to put things into perspective. For me personally, when something similar happened, it mattered a lot. Not just felt better, but really made difference in how I seen my position, how I was confident afterwards and how I trusted colleagues in general.
I am trying to say that the action like yours may have positive impact on colleges even if you did not seen it.
You, with the rest of us, have been treated to more than enough coverage of the issues at Uber to know that this isn't a series of isolated incidents.
If you really wouldn't stand for this sort of thing, then quit your job.
If you really wouldn't stand for this sort of thing, then quit your job.
I don't get this. You don't know anything about working at Uber except secondhand accounts. Where do you get off dictating morals to me? You don't think I'm a person that stands up for what's right?
You know nothing about what I'm doing, who I am, or anything about working at Uber except the worst of the worst. Yet here you are acting condescending, because you've read a bunch of newspaper articles you're morally superior.
I tremendously resent comments like yours. I hope you consider how offensive your comments are.
You know nothing about what I'm doing, who I am, or anything about working at Uber except the worst of the worst. Yet here you are acting condescending, because you've read a bunch of newspaper articles you're morally superior.
I tremendously resent comments like yours. I hope you consider how offensive your comments are.
I agree with this, it is easy to tell others what they should do. You should never quit rashly over something like this anyway, figuring out a long-term exit; maybe.
Also you are very right it is hard to say for anyone if we would have done what you have, very easy to imagine ourselves doing the right thing but so much harder in the moment.
Also you are very right it is hard to say for anyone if we would have done what you have, very easy to imagine ourselves doing the right thing but so much harder in the moment.
Ehhhhh it's not as if this is the first time Uber has repeatedly been in the news for abusive behavior. You guys have a reputation of being vile to a really diverse group of people (drivers, tech types, news media). FFS Uber is a company whose core values are thumbing their nose at the rule of law (rah rah disruption... gag).
So, no, I'm not going to suggest you quit your job. Hell, I don't even think you condone the nasty behavior coming out of your employer. But, by working at Uber, you are very directly helping a company that is about as far away from "do no evil" as possible. You're directly contributing to making the world a worse place and that sucks. That's pretty offensive to me. You're aiding and abetting a company that absolutely feeds into the anti-tech narrative in the Bay Area and that is personal. And, yes, I resent that.
So, no, I'm not going to suggest you quit your job. Hell, I don't even think you condone the nasty behavior coming out of your employer. But, by working at Uber, you are very directly helping a company that is about as far away from "do no evil" as possible. You're directly contributing to making the world a worse place and that sucks. That's pretty offensive to me. You're aiding and abetting a company that absolutely feeds into the anti-tech narrative in the Bay Area and that is personal. And, yes, I resent that.
What is your opinion on the reports about Travis ignoring red flags on this kind of behaviour inside Uber?
I agree, but for people to step up and complain, there needs to be a system around them that supports it.
The crazy part about these stories is not that Uber has a few awful people, and it's not that there aren't people who will speak up and complain. The crazy part about these stories is that HR seems to be systematically supporting the few awful people and antagonizing the people who speak up and complain.
The crazy part about these stories is not that Uber has a few awful people, and it's not that there aren't people who will speak up and complain. The crazy part about these stories is that HR seems to be systematically supporting the few awful people and antagonizing the people who speak up and complain.
It really sounds insane to me, too. No shop I've ever worked at is remotely like that.
Trying to fight against bullying takes 300% of the effort it takes to bully :/
20 idiots!!
This is the part that really hits me. When, in a meeting, Mike#2 says to "stop being a whiny little bitch", and he's not fired on the spot, something is not just wrong with Mike#2, something is systemically wrong.
I don't work in Regular Tech (I'm in a teacher-education nonprofit), so I'm not as exposed to the SV bro culture. I'd like to think I'd speak up and fight for people who are marginalized in my workplace. I wonder if I actually would. It's so easy to be quiet, laugh it off, and go back to your daily, if it's not you.
I don't work in Regular Tech (I'm in a teacher-education nonprofit), so I'm not as exposed to the SV bro culture. I'd like to think I'd speak up and fight for people who are marginalized in my workplace. I wonder if I actually would. It's so easy to be quiet, laugh it off, and go back to your daily, if it's not you.
Let's not make excuses by blaming this on something like a widely-spread yet widely-derided culture. This behaviour is inexcusable, there is no excuse here. If you see something like this, as a man, you say something, and you stand up for your coworker. Otherwise, you lose your man license.
> you lose your man license.
If you want men to do something, just threaten their masculinity. It seems you know the infallible trick of emasculation.
If you want men to do something, just threaten their masculinity. It seems you know the infallible trick of emasculation.
Yeah, I think this is tricky. There's the individual accountability thing, which I agree with. If you are in that room and say nothing or laugh it off, you are complicit. But I think that the systemic misogyny is also something that needs to be addressed - the fact that the entire Uber culture seems to be saying 'this behavior is okay if you're a high performer' us up and down the chain and extends to people who aren't in the room where it happens.
A good deal of this is the entire system of control Uber has (or really, hasn't) implemented here.
We already know that managers at Uber use reviews to punish those on their team that are at all critical of them (especially for ethic issues). The "20 men on her team", even if they did want to say something, could reasonably expect to have their careers (and potentially a material amount of Uber stock vesting) impacted by standing up.
That's not to say that these men couldn't have or shouldn't have stood up, but they would've had to take some amount of risk to do so. In a company with better controls, these men would've felt comfortable criticizing this manager (and confident that they weren't endangering their careers or financial well-being by doing so).
We already know that managers at Uber use reviews to punish those on their team that are at all critical of them (especially for ethic issues). The "20 men on her team", even if they did want to say something, could reasonably expect to have their careers (and potentially a material amount of Uber stock vesting) impacted by standing up.
That's not to say that these men couldn't have or shouldn't have stood up, but they would've had to take some amount of risk to do so. In a company with better controls, these men would've felt comfortable criticizing this manager (and confident that they weren't endangering their careers or financial well-being by doing so).
If Uber had implemented a good system of control, we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. The question is what do we do when there isn't a good system.
Yes, there is risk to speaking out. It wouldn't be brave to do so if there were no risk. I do think it takes people who are already in a relative position of power to minorities and women in tech–which includes men at the same level—saying that this will not stand, in order for real change to come about.
Yes, there is risk to speaking out. It wouldn't be brave to do so if there were no risk. I do think it takes people who are already in a relative position of power to minorities and women in tech–which includes men at the same level—saying that this will not stand, in order for real change to come about.
> If Uber had implemented a good system of control, we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place.
The system of control doesn't have to be optimized for good. In a situation like this -- where managers seem to operate without fear of reporting or push back from underlings -- there likely is a lot of control in place already.
> Yes, there is risk to speaking out. It wouldn't be brave to do so if there were no risk.
The same could be said of the victims themselves and highlights the problem with this attitude: betting on bravery is long odds.
If workers are highly dependent on managers' approval -- not of their work, but of their opinions, character, manner -- then they will learn to keep their heads down and go along to get along. It's too late when something like this happens.
The system of control doesn't have to be optimized for good. In a situation like this -- where managers seem to operate without fear of reporting or push back from underlings -- there likely is a lot of control in place already.
> Yes, there is risk to speaking out. It wouldn't be brave to do so if there were no risk.
The same could be said of the victims themselves and highlights the problem with this attitude: betting on bravery is long odds.
If workers are highly dependent on managers' approval -- not of their work, but of their opinions, character, manner -- then they will learn to keep their heads down and go along to get along. It's too late when something like this happens.
One of the dirtiest tricks that Uber uses -And I found this out through firsthand experience - Is doing performance reviews where all feedback is public (I think technically it's only shown to your manager and team lead, except they're expected to make it public). This prevents you from writing negative feedback, and even damning with faint praise is a sure strategy to face retaliation. Rather than work out, privately, when one of your coworkers is underperforming, you only have the option of naming and shaming.
I'd really like a culture where this was viable - I'd love for nearly everything to be done in the public sphere, and even 'backstabbing' to be handled in the clear, but since Diffie–Hellman exists, it's not viable.
I'd really like a culture where this was viable - I'd love for nearly everything to be done in the public sphere, and even 'backstabbing' to be handled in the clear, but since Diffie–Hellman exists, it's not viable.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
- Upton Sinclair
- Upton Sinclair
That happens to be one of the quotes in one of the related articles Medium suggests at the bottom that's worth the read: https://medium.com/@dhh/deleting-uber-is-the-least-you-can-d...
What specifically is the move forward here, though? I suppose hn as a community has the power to boycott applying to the company, but how else can we drive internal change from an external position?
Uninstalling the app and simply choosing to use a competitor's services are another option, but sapping the entire organization of revenue seems like it would hurt drivers and developers at least as much as management, if not more so. Do you think this merits organized public protest? Is the average Uber user aware of the issues/incensed enough to actually take to the streets?
Obviously I'd like to see a change, but I'm struggling with how best to actually make this happen.
Uninstalling the app and simply choosing to use a competitor's services are another option, but sapping the entire organization of revenue seems like it would hurt drivers and developers at least as much as management, if not more so. Do you think this merits organized public protest? Is the average Uber user aware of the issues/incensed enough to actually take to the streets?
Obviously I'd like to see a change, but I'm struggling with how best to actually make this happen.
OK Cupid blocked Firefox, a non-profit with less questionable business practices than most tech companies and certainly Uber, over Eich's quiet private donation which ought to be a smaller deal than systematic sexual harassment with consequences for victims instead of perpetrators (although the donation was proven while the harassment is alleged; I doubt this tips the scales of public sentiment though.) The overall reaction on HN was mostly positive. I'm sure an Uber boycott can be figured out. (Is it a good idea? I dunno, in Eich's case the question is different from this case and there's much to discuss, I'm just saying that people these days are fairly eager to boycott and fairly good at it once the proper mood sets in.)
The two cases are incomparable. What happened to Eich was injustice, as in a democratic state, he is (read: is supposed to be) free about supporting whatever idea he wants. We might not like it, yet "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What happened was hypocrisy pure, and OkCupid got some positive PR from the situation. In a world where this sort of stuff works, we'll quickly end up with Inquisition and witch-hunts, reversed.
WRT Uber, their business model is shady to begin with, and that's not the only shady thing about them. Yet, the post is anonymous, and sincere though it sounds, nobody can be sure that the allegations are true. If cost of a lawsuit is the concern, I believe there are many organisations out there who'd help with the case.
WRT Uber, their business model is shady to begin with, and that's not the only shady thing about them. Yet, the post is anonymous, and sincere though it sounds, nobody can be sure that the allegations are true. If cost of a lawsuit is the concern, I believe there are many organisations out there who'd help with the case.
So. Eich funding discrimination is free speech, whereas OK Cupid blocking his browser is not. Because why?
Aside: great insights into the victimhood mentality of the free speech zealots.
https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-amer...
Aside: great insights into the victimhood mentality of the free speech zealots.
https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-amer...
There's no discrimination issue here. Just like one can support a given law, they can oppose it too. OK Cupid's move has nothing to do with free speech at all, and I believe in neither the sincerity nor the aptness thereof. Eich's actions were legal, peasurable or not, and within the protection of basic human rights.
(WRT same-sex marriage issue, I believe that civil unions should replace all kinds of marriage we've today and it should be left to the individuals to decide what their partnership(s) mean to them, wrt their philosophical/religious stances.)
(WRT same-sex marriage issue, I believe that civil unions should replace all kinds of marriage we've today and it should be left to the individuals to decide what their partnership(s) mean to them, wrt their philosophical/religious stances.)
Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and organizations then you're really saying some speech needs to be more protected than others. How do we draw those lines?
- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative--good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers.
- OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott.
- OKCupid is a company, so all of its actions are not only in the name of their executives, but also in the name of the users.
- What they did boiled down to a public shaming campaign, hurting, unjustly, not only a person who used their freedom to support a given political quest, but also a huge community around Firefox and Mozilla that had nothing to do with Eich's political tendencies. Free speech is not useful at all if we let the loudest to win.
What OKCupid did is probably defendable in front of law, but is completely unethical and exploitative. They tried to start a lynch to silence someone. It's no different to shaming someone for being homosexual or calling someone with the N word and excluding them. And it was an attempt to suppress freespeech, not an act thereof.
- OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott.
- OKCupid is a company, so all of its actions are not only in the name of their executives, but also in the name of the users.
- What they did boiled down to a public shaming campaign, hurting, unjustly, not only a person who used their freedom to support a given political quest, but also a huge community around Firefox and Mozilla that had nothing to do with Eich's political tendencies. Free speech is not useful at all if we let the loudest to win.
What OKCupid did is probably defendable in front of law, but is completely unethical and exploitative. They tried to start a lynch to silence someone. It's no different to shaming someone for being homosexual or calling someone with the N word and excluding them. And it was an attempt to suppress freespeech, not an act thereof.
I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it.
EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.
EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.
> their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's!
Agreed. When I said their actions have nothing to do with free speech, I meant that they weren't confronting a free speech issue. They have the right to do what they did (IANAL, competition laws may apply, though I don't know much about American law).
> Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech?
The only one who gets to moderate is the speaker themselves, and the listener. And my view is that OKCupid boggled here.
> You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.
Ditto. But I also think that the companies should stay neutral, especially those who serve registered users, for they represent them in that using their service continuously may (and do) cause people to get labeled with the company's tendencies.
Agreed. When I said their actions have nothing to do with free speech, I meant that they weren't confronting a free speech issue. They have the right to do what they did (IANAL, competition laws may apply, though I don't know much about American law).
> Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech?
The only one who gets to moderate is the speaker themselves, and the listener. And my view is that OKCupid boggled here.
> You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.
Ditto. But I also think that the companies should stay neutral, especially those who serve registered users, for they represent them in that using their service continuously may (and do) cause people to get labeled with the company's tendencies.
taw24(2)
OK Cupid behaved poorly in that matter - after getting what they wanted (Eich resigning), they didn't act to resolve the reputational damage they'd done. All too quick to pop up a message saying "mozilla is the devil"[1], but afterwards, no message saying "okay, the situation has been resolved in our favour, you should go back and try it out". I lost a lot of respect towards the site from that.
[1] despite gay and lesbian developers coming out and saying that Eich's personal opinions on the issue didn't translate to company culture and they felt a positive atmosphere working there.
[1] despite gay and lesbian developers coming out and saying that Eich's personal opinions on the issue didn't translate to company culture and they felt a positive atmosphere working there.
an interesting debate. if i build my company on abuse and shady tactics, but i now employ 10,000 employees, is it okay to let me get away with it because so many depend on me? This is the too-big-to-fail issue.
This whole too-big-to-fail reasoning really galls me.
When a company is too big to fail it means that if it fails there's a systemic risk for an entire economy. Banks (and it's mostly banks), which are too big to fail are so interewoven with other banks, multinational companies and the economy as a whole that a failure can bring other institutions to the brink of exctinction and by extension wreck havoc on the entire economy.
Thousands of people out of a job does not mean too big to fail. No more being able to hail an Uber may be inconvenient, but it's no systemic risk to the economy.
Look at Enron. They had north of 20'000 employees when they imploded. And they where in a far more critical sector of the economy than Uber can ever dream to be. While it was brutal for the employees (who partially lost their life savings) and while I think there should be a special place in hell for the responsible executives Enron's demise had hardly any effects on the economy as a whole.
I'm not jumping on you personally. It's just that this too-big-to-fail nonsense in combination with Uber is thrown around an awful lot recently.
And it's utter bullshit.
When a company is too big to fail it means that if it fails there's a systemic risk for an entire economy. Banks (and it's mostly banks), which are too big to fail are so interewoven with other banks, multinational companies and the economy as a whole that a failure can bring other institutions to the brink of exctinction and by extension wreck havoc on the entire economy.
Thousands of people out of a job does not mean too big to fail. No more being able to hail an Uber may be inconvenient, but it's no systemic risk to the economy.
Look at Enron. They had north of 20'000 employees when they imploded. And they where in a far more critical sector of the economy than Uber can ever dream to be. While it was brutal for the employees (who partially lost their life savings) and while I think there should be a special place in hell for the responsible executives Enron's demise had hardly any effects on the economy as a whole.
I'm not jumping on you personally. It's just that this too-big-to-fail nonsense in combination with Uber is thrown around an awful lot recently.
And it's utter bullshit.
The drivers aren't going to be hurt; half of them are already working for Lyft anyway (they have two phones, one for each service), so the rest will just move to the competition if Uber goes under, and they'll probably be better off for it anyway. Same goes for the developers; there's no shortage of jobs in Silicon Valley.
There is no way to change a company's internal culture from outside. The only thing you can do is punish it.
There is no way to change a company's internal culture from outside. The only thing you can do is punish it.
Consumer action like boycotts and social media posting is nice, but I think the solution to this problem is lawsuits. Victims can seek redress through the courts, which both compensates them and holds the company directly to account for their actions.
For a lot of reasons participating in lawsuits is challenging for the victims, and I am in no way criticizing any individual for not going through all of that. I just think that really making an impact is going to require more than a few hundred app deletions and some bad PR.
For a lot of reasons participating in lawsuits is challenging for the victims, and I am in no way criticizing any individual for not going through all of that. I just think that really making an impact is going to require more than a few hundred app deletions and some bad PR.
How about a class action?
Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.
Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.
This is kinda like saying, "We should never punish a company for wrongdoing, because they'll pass that on to customers and employees." It doesn't really hold water.
i think public pressure of the board of directors is the right approach here:
Shervin Pishevar, John Gurley, David Bonderman, David Drummond, Arianna Huffington, Garrett Camp, Ryan Graves
some of these people have reputations that are worth more than their stake in uber. the desire to uphold their reputations may be enough to get them to truly act on this matter.
Shervin Pishevar, John Gurley, David Bonderman, David Drummond, Arianna Huffington, Garrett Camp, Ryan Graves
some of these people have reputations that are worth more than their stake in uber. the desire to uphold their reputations may be enough to get them to truly act on this matter.
At this point, the ouster of Kalanick is the only blood sacrifice that would be sufficient. The rot goes all the way up to the CEO.
> sapping the entire organization of revenue seems like it would hurt drivers and developers at least as much as management, if not more so.
Drivers can easily move to Lyft or other competitors (at least in markets where Lyft is active). In fact, I would venture that most drivers already drive for both Lyft and Uber.
Developers can (and should) look for jobs at other companies.
Drivers can easily move to Lyft or other competitors (at least in markets where Lyft is active). In fact, I would venture that most drivers already drive for both Lyft and Uber.
Developers can (and should) look for jobs at other companies.
Reminds me of 'Bystander Apathy'[1]: i.e. when there is a person in need, the greater the number of people, the less likely anyone will help.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
If I saw a manager do what she described, no matter how high up the food chain he was, I'd frog march him to HR myself. I don't even care if they fire me for it. We don't tolerate stuff like this in this century.
I know. What I'm struck by in all this is that much of Uber's staff must be really junior. Not just the assholes at the center of these stories, but everyone else around these incidents. Which kind of contradicts the idea that they are a bunch of high performers.
I had much the same thought. It's far easier to death march the youth. Try the same management style on someone older and they'd simply quit.
Probably only until it became obvious that HR was suffering from the corporate equivalent of 995.81 (battered person syndrome) and will give a response of "Oh, he's a good person and has never done this before and I'm sure he'll never do it again, and if we rock the boat we'll be targeted as well."
Frankly I think Uber has long passed the point where I expect to start hearing about leaked recordings and cellphone videos of this kind of thing instead.
Frankly I think Uber has long passed the point where I expect to start hearing about leaked recordings and cellphone videos of this kind of thing instead.
It's even better when it's "Oh, he's a good person and has never done this before and I'm sure he'll never do it again" followed by studiously failing to document the incident so that every time is the first time.
Have you seen who is President these days?
To be fair, it is more nuanced. While everyone knows Trump "is sexist and makes comments and stuff like that" (quote from the linked article) at the same time he has glowing testimonials by women who worked for him and who he promoted to top jobs in a "boys club" industry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champ...
> The picture many current and former employees paint stands in contrast to the blustering controversies prompted by Trump’s comments since he hit the campaign trail. .... Those who have worked for Trump say looks aren’t everything. He is more interested in hiring smart people, regardless of gender, they say, and that has led Trump for decades to rely on strong, assertive women both as gatekeepers and as advisers. Several of Trump’s female employees said he fostered a positive work environment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champ...
> The picture many current and former employees paint stands in contrast to the blustering controversies prompted by Trump’s comments since he hit the campaign trail. .... Those who have worked for Trump say looks aren’t everything. He is more interested in hiring smart people, regardless of gender, they say, and that has led Trump for decades to rely on strong, assertive women both as gatekeepers and as advisers. Several of Trump’s female employees said he fostered a positive work environment.
> While everyone knows Trump "is sexist and makes comments and stuff like that" (quote from the linked article) at the same time he has glowing testimonials by women who worked for him and who he promoted to top jobs in a "boys club" industry.
Finish the sentence please? Are you suggesting that one cancels the other out? Or that maybe he's just a great guy after all and just the victim of smear campaigns?
Finish the sentence please? Are you suggesting that one cancels the other out? Or that maybe he's just a great guy after all and just the victim of smear campaigns?
> What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.
You're being surprisingly lenient in your assessment here. I'd argue they need to tell their bosses to fuck off and find another job.
You're being surprisingly lenient in your assessment here. I'd argue they need to tell their bosses to fuck off and find another job.
I don't disagree, but consider that many of these engineers are sitting on illiquid stock options valued at millions to tens of millions of dollars.
You're asking people to stand up for what's right when it may cost them millions of dollars of incentives and the loss of years of their life in career investment. That doesn't make it right to look the other way when these kind of abuses occur, but is it any wonder that people don't speak up when the incentives are lined up so strongly against doing so?
You're asking people to stand up for what's right when it may cost them millions of dollars of incentives and the loss of years of their life in career investment. That doesn't make it right to look the other way when these kind of abuses occur, but is it any wonder that people don't speak up when the incentives are lined up so strongly against doing so?
It's always easy to ask someone else to make a significant sacrifice for the sake of your moral code. It's much harder to do so yourself.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Agreed, and I'm not defending Mike#2 in any way, but good men perhaps have children. Mortgage. Family plans and life goals. It's a really shitty situation.
Perhaps evil triumphs if great men do nothing?
Perhaps evil triumphs if great men do nothing?
Thats a little hyperbolic.
These aren't rust belt coal miners.
With a name brand like Uber on your resume you could quickly get plenty of competitive job offers in SF/SV without even trying.
Its hard for me to see an excuse for this, other than widespread cultural acceptance/willful ignorance of these practices.
The bar for "good" is lowered when there is money on the line?
Well it's great for them to have those, but they gotta do more for me to consider them as good. In my eyes, they're just looking out for themselves and their family.
What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.
Agreed 100%, but maaaan I have seen it where you would defend someone just so they can turn against you because of the same fear that originally prevented them from speaking out loud. Then they make peace with the abuser and now you are the one left holding the burning candle. It is a very tricky situation.
Agreed 100%, but maaaan I have seen it where you would defend someone just so they can turn against you because of the same fear that originally prevented them from speaking out loud. Then they make peace with the abuser and now you are the one left holding the burning candle. It is a very tricky situation.
I'm not in the business of defending Uber - quite the contrary - but reading through the comments it seems that most people are assuming that this post by an anonymous person is 100% true.
These types of posts are worrying to me. Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft? Or one of Uber's many other detractors? Given the PR nightmare that Uber is in why not pile on while the public seems primed for that type of information and stretch out the negative news cycle?
Just thought I'd throw out a word of caution: we know literally nothing about the credibility of this person.
These types of posts are worrying to me. Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft? Or one of Uber's many other detractors? Given the PR nightmare that Uber is in why not pile on while the public seems primed for that type of information and stretch out the negative news cycle?
Just thought I'd throw out a word of caution: we know literally nothing about the credibility of this person.
She posted anonymously, BUT also went out of her way to provide an awful lot of information about herself. Information that her ex-coworkers could presumably verify and figure out her real identity (especially since Uber seems to have very few women in engineering positions).
Based on the article, she is:
Based on the article, she is:
1) A woman in her late 20s
2) who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on database and networking scalability
3) went to a top private college
4) has a Masters in Information Systems
5) previous to Uber worked as a Data Analyst in a tech company in the Midwest and left when it was acquired by a Chinese firm
6) is 5 foot 7 Caucasian with dark hair
7) never wears high heels
But the OP's point stands generally: If this were a smear campaign by a competing company, how different would it look?
I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler not least because she put her reputation out there and claimed to have documentation of the specific offenses, which a decently respectable journalism outfit like the NYTimes could fact-check. Fowler's story could be exaggerated, but I have reasonable doubt that it's true, or true enough to merit scorn toward Uber.
As inexcusable as this "Amy"'s story is if true, we have to keep our heads and recognize when we have a falsifiability problem on our hands with the current facts.
I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler not least because she put her reputation out there and claimed to have documentation of the specific offenses, which a decently respectable journalism outfit like the NYTimes could fact-check. Fowler's story could be exaggerated, but I have reasonable doubt that it's true, or true enough to merit scorn toward Uber.
As inexcusable as this "Amy"'s story is if true, we have to keep our heads and recognize when we have a falsifiability problem on our hands with the current facts.
It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.
Can you describe a general situation where this kind of skepticism is avoided? I'm keenly aware that selective application of standards of evidence in legal matters is a serious bias problem, but if you are suggesting it happens in some issue to people across the ideological spectrum on that issue I don't know what you're talking about.
Skepticism and comments about skepticism don't necessarily need a linear relationship. Making a pro skepticism comment is a reactionary move against people treating anonymous accusations as fact. If you see more people doing the latter when racial or gender discrimination issues are discussed then it makes sense that the former will follow.
The more serious/terrible the accusation, the more likely it seems to me that people will just take it on face value.
The more serious/terrible the accusation, the more likely it seems to me that people will just take it on face value.
Reactionary contrarian skepticism is kinda the MO of hacker news comments.
These women are victims of harassment and abuse. It seems very unfair to expect them to also put their personal reputation on the line before we finally take them seriously. That's a very high bar to clear and it's the reason why so few women speak out publicly. That's why we must encourage, not discourage, anonymous disclosures, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
I have a strong allegiance to the American justice principles of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, right to face one's accuser in open court, cross examination, and standards of evidence. So much so that I apply it to judging controversial current events like this. Much as I might dislike putting a powerful entity like Uber into the defendant's chair with those attendant protections, These principles and others have served me extremely well in suspending belief and not being led astray by sensationa news and consequently looking hotheaded and foolish when time bears out the details of the story.
You may feel otherwise, and I cannot and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. But as I said before, I believe Ms. Fowler at this point, and take issue with Amy's claim on falsifiability grounds. "We" are under no obligation to take any particular person seriously. There are strong labor laws against the transgressions claimed, and if there are problems with enforcement or efficiency, I am all for examining our procedures, but I won't sacrifice the bedrock of fair and individualized consideration of the particular case within the storm of the prevailing dysfunction.
You may feel otherwise, and I cannot and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. But as I said before, I believe Ms. Fowler at this point, and take issue with Amy's claim on falsifiability grounds. "We" are under no obligation to take any particular person seriously. There are strong labor laws against the transgressions claimed, and if there are problems with enforcement or efficiency, I am all for examining our procedures, but I won't sacrifice the bedrock of fair and individualized consideration of the particular case within the storm of the prevailing dysfunction.
I understand where you're coming from; I don't think you've made enough of an effort to understand where your parent is coming from, your focus is entirely on how wrong you feel your parent is.
Of course the criminal justice system must abide by the principles of due process. Simultaneously, if someone anonymously expresses great suffering, we are of course under an ethical obligation to take them seriously, offer them our compassion, and take action based on what we can substantiate.
Of course the criminal justice system must abide by the principles of due process. Simultaneously, if someone anonymously expresses great suffering, we are of course under an ethical obligation to take them seriously, offer them our compassion, and take action based on what we can substantiate.
I reread the parent, because your point is a well-taken that I might have brushed it aside too quickly. I can specify upholding my skepticism on the grounds that only Uber employees in some certain proximity to "Amy" could deduce whether she's a real person. If not Amy herself, but 2 or 3 of them who could vouch will come forward out of anonymity and say something along the lines of "yes, 'Amy' is a real person. Her story is real. Uber management treated her terribly and HR ignored her claims", then I'll be a lot more willing to consider this credible. I disagree that anonymous, unverifiable grievances impose on otherwise ethical and rational people a positive obligation of specific personal demand for belief or compassion. But I can only speak for myself.
>>I disagree that anonymous, unverifiable grievances impose on otherwise ethical and rational people a positive obligation of specific personal demand for belief or compassion.
Amy's specific experiences may or may not be verifiable. I believe you are missing the point though. This isn't about Amy herself. If it were, she would have come out publicly, like Susan has. I suspect the reason Amy posted her story anonymously is because it is about the treatment women in general receive at Uber. That's what makes her story credible: we have heard from multiple sources so far that the atmosphere at Uber is extremely hostile to women.
Here's an example why anonymity is important: law enforcement agencies receive anonymous tips all the time. One way they decide whether to follow up on a tip is by looking at surrounding factors. For instance, if multiple anonymous tips within a short period of time suggest that Bob may be involved in child trafficking, that is in most cases sufficient to earn Bob a police raid.
Same thing with Amy's story. By itself, it is full of extraordinary claims. In light of everything we have learned about Uber's company culture though, the claims are both ordinary and credible.
Is there a chance that it was written by a rival company's astroturfers? Sure. Just like how Bob may actually have been a target of swatting[1]. But law enforcement agencies still have an obligation to investigate the anonymous tips against Bob, just like we as the public have an obligation to offer belief or compassion to stories like Amy's.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
Amy's specific experiences may or may not be verifiable. I believe you are missing the point though. This isn't about Amy herself. If it were, she would have come out publicly, like Susan has. I suspect the reason Amy posted her story anonymously is because it is about the treatment women in general receive at Uber. That's what makes her story credible: we have heard from multiple sources so far that the atmosphere at Uber is extremely hostile to women.
Here's an example why anonymity is important: law enforcement agencies receive anonymous tips all the time. One way they decide whether to follow up on a tip is by looking at surrounding factors. For instance, if multiple anonymous tips within a short period of time suggest that Bob may be involved in child trafficking, that is in most cases sufficient to earn Bob a police raid.
Same thing with Amy's story. By itself, it is full of extraordinary claims. In light of everything we have learned about Uber's company culture though, the claims are both ordinary and credible.
Is there a chance that it was written by a rival company's astroturfers? Sure. Just like how Bob may actually have been a target of swatting[1]. But law enforcement agencies still have an obligation to investigate the anonymous tips against Bob, just like we as the public have an obligation to offer belief or compassion to stories like Amy's.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
Wouldn't a false story that could be disproven only serve to cast doubt on Fowler's claim rather then support it? I just don't see anyone with any brains trying to create a false narrative to smear Uber.
There's many explanations why you would post a "false story" despite being "reasonable":
- "Amy" might not think she's lying at all, but a combination of misunderstandings and POV-blindness can quickly turn an "awful" story around to a banal situation
- "Amy" isn't necessarily looking to "reinforce the narrative" - it is certainly possible that they just want empathy or attention(which is practically guaranteed, see this thread). You could parallel this with the hoax hate crimes that were reported once Trump was in office - they would all hurt the otherwise legitimate point that bigotry is on the rise, yet the people still did it, quite often claiming that they were going through a rough patch and wanted some sympathy and attention.
- Even if "Amy" was lying, they may be relying on the impossibility of Uber to defend themselves. If they aggressively pursue the claims, they will receive a ton of backlash for harassing an alleged survivor.
> I just don't see anyone with any brains trying to create a false narrative to smear Uber.
The case doesn't have to be a "false narrative" - boosting a shitty situation beyond its actual levels is certainly a bonus to any Uber competitor, or anyone who dislikes Uber. It may absolutely be the case that Uber has a systemic problem; or alternatively, they have had an unfortunate clump of scandals, boosted by their unpopular business practices making it easy to believe that Uber really are monsters. At that point, it's easy to pile on any accusation, people will believe it, and it hurts Uber.
- "Amy" might not think she's lying at all, but a combination of misunderstandings and POV-blindness can quickly turn an "awful" story around to a banal situation
- "Amy" isn't necessarily looking to "reinforce the narrative" - it is certainly possible that they just want empathy or attention(which is practically guaranteed, see this thread). You could parallel this with the hoax hate crimes that were reported once Trump was in office - they would all hurt the otherwise legitimate point that bigotry is on the rise, yet the people still did it, quite often claiming that they were going through a rough patch and wanted some sympathy and attention.
- Even if "Amy" was lying, they may be relying on the impossibility of Uber to defend themselves. If they aggressively pursue the claims, they will receive a ton of backlash for harassing an alleged survivor.
> I just don't see anyone with any brains trying to create a false narrative to smear Uber.
The case doesn't have to be a "false narrative" - boosting a shitty situation beyond its actual levels is certainly a bonus to any Uber competitor, or anyone who dislikes Uber. It may absolutely be the case that Uber has a systemic problem; or alternatively, they have had an unfortunate clump of scandals, boosted by their unpopular business practices making it easy to believe that Uber really are monsters. At that point, it's easy to pile on any accusation, people will believe it, and it hurts Uber.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I was careful not speak to "belief", which is unfortunately ambiguous; one could interpret "belief" of this testimonial as supporting millions in damages being awarded to the author right now on the basis of nothing else, which I hopefully have been clear about not supporting.
It surprises me that you have no compassion for an anonymous grievance, though, especially one that is (at least currently) asking for nothing else. Speaking for myself, at least, even (or especially) though there are usually two sides to every story, I pride myself on usually being able to have compassion for both sides.
I was careful not speak to "belief", which is unfortunately ambiguous; one could interpret "belief" of this testimonial as supporting millions in damages being awarded to the author right now on the basis of nothing else, which I hopefully have been clear about not supporting.
It surprises me that you have no compassion for an anonymous grievance, though, especially one that is (at least currently) asking for nothing else. Speaking for myself, at least, even (or especially) though there are usually two sides to every story, I pride myself on usually being able to have compassion for both sides.
I can distill it this way:
Compassion for the suffering of the unknown is one thing. To make damaging public accusations behind the veil of the unknown is something else entirely.
Compassion for the suffering of the unknown is one thing. To make damaging public accusations behind the veil of the unknown is something else entirely.
These are not mutually exclusive.
We can extend our hearts and offer our support to the anonymous authors of these stories, seriously investigate the questions they raise, and prosecute to our fullest abilities all wrongdoings substantiated by credible reports (e.g. Susan Fowler's blogpost), while simultaneously being careful to restrict any punishment meted out to be only based on credible evidence.
"Believe victims" means offer support instead of minimizing ("I'm sure he didn't mean it") or making counteraccusations ("what were you wearing?"). It doesn't mean "automatically, immediately punish anyone accused of anything without due process".
We can extend our hearts and offer our support to the anonymous authors of these stories, seriously investigate the questions they raise, and prosecute to our fullest abilities all wrongdoings substantiated by credible reports (e.g. Susan Fowler's blogpost), while simultaneously being careful to restrict any punishment meted out to be only based on credible evidence.
"Believe victims" means offer support instead of minimizing ("I'm sure he didn't mean it") or making counteraccusations ("what were you wearing?"). It doesn't mean "automatically, immediately punish anyone accused of anything without due process".
To give anonymous accusations of harassment and abuse the benefit of the doubt is to believe that someone is an abuser without evidence to. Given the effect that this can have on a persons life I don't believe it should be encouraged at all. It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's really not "guilty until proven innocent". Nobody has gone to prison, much less been charged with a criminal offense. The article doesn't name anyone in particular, so even if harassment accusations ruined mens' careers (which is a comically untrue assertion in the first place), that argument holds no water. Sexism is real, harassment is real, and demanding some arbitrarily high standard of evidence before you believe it is at best obtuse and at worst deliberately complicit.
I know comments on this type of articles get extremely heated, but with no intention to favor any side, I will say this: What if she provided that "awful lot of information about herself" with the intent of deceiving the audience and creating the illusion that she's this person, when in fact she's somebody else?
Maybe she aggregated attributes from multiple women at Uber and created this new person which cannot be specifically indentified. I see this as a valid strategy to conceal one's identity.
Maybe she aggregated attributes from multiple women at Uber and created this new person which cannot be specifically indentified. I see this as a valid strategy to conceal one's identity.
I think they've lost the benefit of the doubt after responding in an unconvincing way to Susan Fowler's allegations and the critical open letter from one of their VCs, to name just two recent examples.
People deserve the benefit of the doubt and courts are very strict on this. Companies that let such an issue fester for such a long time without convincing remediatory action probably don't deserve it in the court of public opinion.
People deserve the benefit of the doubt and courts are very strict on this. Companies that let such an issue fester for such a long time without convincing remediatory action probably don't deserve it in the court of public opinion.
Or that was all made up? Who is in a position to know every employee at Uber, so they can verify that this person actually existed, AND that they actually wrote it?
> Who is in a position to know . . .
Nobody is. She could be lying. She could even be providing the demographic information of a coworker who had none of these experiences. She might be a space alien for all we know.
So you just have to weigh the evidence and get comfortable with uncertainty. Is there someone who would make all this stuff up? Sure. No doubt there's someone out there who likes internet adulation enough to cook up a story. Is this an instance of that happening? Not very likely, I think, since it corroborates what we're hearing from a lot of other people about Uber's culture, and Ms. Fowler's story. I judge that there is a high likelihood this story is true or mostly true.
That's all you can do really. You're never going to get first-hand, attributed corroboration in a case like this. This is because anyone in a position to do that would be outing the anonymous whistle-blower by corroborating, especially if more than two people did. If they care about the victim, they will respect her choice to remain anonymous. So demanding more before assigning credibility is tantamount to deciding to always disbelieve anonymous accounts. That is an option available to you, but I don't think that option is the most useful for developing true beliefs about the world around me, so I don't choose it.
Nobody is. She could be lying. She could even be providing the demographic information of a coworker who had none of these experiences. She might be a space alien for all we know.
So you just have to weigh the evidence and get comfortable with uncertainty. Is there someone who would make all this stuff up? Sure. No doubt there's someone out there who likes internet adulation enough to cook up a story. Is this an instance of that happening? Not very likely, I think, since it corroborates what we're hearing from a lot of other people about Uber's culture, and Ms. Fowler's story. I judge that there is a high likelihood this story is true or mostly true.
That's all you can do really. You're never going to get first-hand, attributed corroboration in a case like this. This is because anyone in a position to do that would be outing the anonymous whistle-blower by corroborating, especially if more than two people did. If they care about the victim, they will respect her choice to remain anonymous. So demanding more before assigning credibility is tantamount to deciding to always disbelieve anonymous accounts. That is an option available to you, but I don't think that option is the most useful for developing true beliefs about the world around me, so I don't choose it.
Fowler's post established that this was happening to many women in the company. If we accept that Fowler is a credible witness, which I think is a fair assessment, we already know that this is a systemic problem. It's safe to assume then that if more women come forward, they are more likely to be telling the truth than not.
Additionally, it's in Lyft's or other detractors best interests not to fake additional claims. This is a scandal that will grow on its own, as/if more women come forward. If Lyft et al is caught faking claims, they discredit all the claims and make themselves the bad guys instead of Uber. All Lyft has to do is sit back and watch Uber dig themselves deeper into the hole they're in.
As other posters have also touched on, there is a history of men (and women) doubting and minimizing abuse claims made by women. This is not a good mindset to take as it minimizes the women's experience in favor of a corporation or individual who is already in a more powerful position than the accuser. By minimizing one accuser, we make it harder for women as a whole to speak up against abuse, which is not acceptable.
Additionally, it's in Lyft's or other detractors best interests not to fake additional claims. This is a scandal that will grow on its own, as/if more women come forward. If Lyft et al is caught faking claims, they discredit all the claims and make themselves the bad guys instead of Uber. All Lyft has to do is sit back and watch Uber dig themselves deeper into the hole they're in.
As other posters have also touched on, there is a history of men (and women) doubting and minimizing abuse claims made by women. This is not a good mindset to take as it minimizes the women's experience in favor of a corporation or individual who is already in a more powerful position than the accuser. By minimizing one accuser, we make it harder for women as a whole to speak up against abuse, which is not acceptable.
Let's assume I am an internet troll. What stops me from anonymously signing up for Medium and publishing a similar story, now that there are two out there that corroborate?
You would be a pretty lousy troll in that case.
I'd argue Fowler's claims are similarly unchallenged.
True, but her claims haven't been denied by anyone. And a lot of her claims should have a paper trail. Either she was propositioned by her manager over corp chat, or she wasn't. Either she emailed HR these screenshots, or she didn't. Either she informed HR about the leather jacket incident, or it didn't happen.
These claims can be easily disproven by Uber if they were false, and the fact that Uber hasn't denied them says a lot.
These claims can be easily disproven by Uber if they were false, and the fact that Uber hasn't denied them says a lot.
This is Susan Fowler, who's very well known in the community. ~zero chance it's fake.
[deleted]
Is Uber a company with a horrible culture? Pretty much. Are the details of these reports 100% accurate? Hard to tell. When talking about the subject, I'd recommend to think about the big picture and not the details (ehy, have you heard at Uber people call colleagues "dirty whore" during meetings?)
To be frank? Uber gets the benefit of the doubt when they demonstrate that they've earned it. Every bit of smoke I have seen, both online and in my social circles, has had fire behind it. Every one, without exception.
So I'm going to believe this until I have a compelling reason not to, and "but it could be fake" isn't one.
So I'm going to believe this until I have a compelling reason not to, and "but it could be fake" isn't one.
I come from the country that gave birth to Cesare Beccaria and I won't stop believing that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Besides this is exactly smoke, blocking us from seeing the majestic damages Uber is doing to labour ad mobility all over the world. there will always be a woman who'll accept to work for them if the pay is good enough, the ones harassed will be maybe compensated one day with a few million dollars, but the elephant Uber will still be in the room. No matter what, they are still growing, and doing it fast.
That's what really scares me, and all the engineers who did a great job of building their infrastructure are, IMHO, somewhat responsible for giving them the power to abuse it. I'm sure they all thought "let's give'em time and see what happens". This happens! every f*ing time. will we learn someday? will we stop to go west looking for the gold? I'm not sure we'll ever understand.
Although I agree, my training informs me that there is quite a history of doubting reports made by women. From rape to domestic violence.
As a bystander I don't even want to say out loud what you did, even though it crossed my mind.
Women have historically been ignored when reporting.
As a bystander I don't even want to say out loud what you did, even though it crossed my mind.
Women have historically been ignored when reporting.
Everyone believes the story because it sounds plausible. It's not the first time we've heard of very bad culture at Uber, and it fits the ways they have been reported to treat their drivers, etc.
Most of the women who left Uber didn't publicly announce why they did. Now we're seeing a plausible explanation.
Most of the women who left Uber didn't publicly announce why they did. Now we're seeing a plausible explanation.
As much as I oppose to Uber philosophy, technology.and their work and HR policies (I even think it's dangerous for the future of mobility), I still think plausible is not enough for news to be news. It's merely enough for bar stories. I respect so much journalism that I don't want enough, I want facts, names, proofs and the smocking gun.
Do you also believe Hacker News comments should be held to the standards of journalism, and people on Hacker News shouldn't even discuss something unless there are facts, names, proofs, and the smoking gun?
No, reputable news sources shouldn't (and don't) publish claims like these without substantiation. But I don't see a problem with HN commenters discussing claims like these even though this is all we have to go on. And I don't see how that's an argument against its fundamental plausibility, which is what your parent comment discusses.
No, reputable news sources shouldn't (and don't) publish claims like these without substantiation. But I don't see a problem with HN commenters discussing claims like these even though this is all we have to go on. And I don't see how that's an argument against its fundamental plausibility, which is what your parent comment discusses.
At a company as large as Uber could someone working on database scalability be involved in calls about whether or not payment should be withheld from drivers before a ride ends? Would her manager be the decision maker for that?
That detail seems suspect to me. There are also essentially no details about the work that convey inside knowledge about the ideosyncracies of Uber specifically at a work place. It is also weird to me that she chose to be anonymous but included her height and a bunch of specific incidental details - it reminds me of how liars frequently add an excessive amount of detail to add credibility to their stories.
Personally it sounds true to me. but I'd like to see more scrutiny from someone with perspective on this.
That detail seems suspect to me. There are also essentially no details about the work that convey inside knowledge about the ideosyncracies of Uber specifically at a work place. It is also weird to me that she chose to be anonymous but included her height and a bunch of specific incidental details - it reminds me of how liars frequently add an excessive amount of detail to add credibility to their stories.
Personally it sounds true to me. but I'd like to see more scrutiny from someone with perspective on this.
The way I see it is that the team was working on the payment system. She may well have specialized on some scaling aspects but that does not preclude her working within a team having responsibility for building or maintaining the payment system. Considering that Uber has a micro services architecture the teams will be organized vertically along end-to-end functionality and not along the architectural layers. In that way the story is consistent with what is publicly known about Uber IT.
I just returned to India after working in the US for one year. I find it extremely difficult to believe such a culture can exist in the country let alone an organization. People there were friendly, extremely polite and well mannered. I never once faced any incidents or racism or hatred in my work place and out. I can't imagine things like this even in my wildest dreams.
-Chauvinistic, racist and homophobic attitudes were far too normal
-It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts
-They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women
Also the fact that she talks about driver compensation makes it look like it was an article written just to smear Uber. I may be wrong though, but really, really hard to believe.
Edit: She refused to meet Freda Kapor (see comments in post) makes it all the more suspicious.
-Chauvinistic, racist and homophobic attitudes were far too normal
-It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts
-They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women
Also the fact that she talks about driver compensation makes it look like it was an article written just to smear Uber. I may be wrong though, but really, really hard to believe.
Edit: She refused to meet Freda Kapor (see comments in post) makes it all the more suspicious.
This 1000 times. It so easy to lie on the internet. It's even easier to get riled up and pick up pitchforks. The things this person wrote about were horrifying, yes, but an anonymous post on the internet should not be immediately accepted as cold hard facts.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was fake. It seemed to hit on too many talking points and buzzwords. It has a "too good to be true" feel to it.
I didn't see any buzzwords or liberal talking points in this article. Could you provide specifics ? This article feels exactly as it would be written by a scared and angry person. Not everyone is cool,(as in calm headed) brilliant and courageous as Fowler. Fowler had the smarts, strength and level headedness to keep proof and you get the strong feeling that she has kept more proof hidden and ready to use as ammunition . I suspect she would make a very good troop leader if she had ever joined the military - her writing gives the vibe of an very strong willed woman. But expecting most folks (whether women or men) to be like her and track all facts and evidence in a personal crisis situation is expecting too much of anybody.
It's not what the author left out (eg. proof, evidence) that makes me suspicious, it's what they put in.
To wit:
- in the 3rd paragraph, it includes the gender wage gap topic. Usually companies keep employee salaries hidden from each other, so the way its included here feels more like box-ticking of a feminist talking point
- also in the 3rd paragraph, it establishes the character as somebody who is not overly "privileged", which is important for liberals (privilege undermines your platform of victimhood; if you're writing something like this, the less privilege the better)
- the 4th paragraph introduces the ideals of respecting human beings regardless of their gender, sexuality of religion. It's like the writer is going for a broad thematic sweep.
- also in the 4th paragraph, it refers to the concept of "triggering", another SJW trope that other people would probably cringe at using
- this sort of thing just sounds like it was written by Lena Dunham: "Uber finally broke me by destroying my dignity as a human being, and reduced my aspirations by attaching their worth them to a female reproductive organ. Like they did to Susan, Uber killed a part of me that was most precious."
- this bit sounds very far fetched, like the author is trying to work in examples of misogyny that they've witnessed on the web: "They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women."
- the author seems to have a hang-up about high-heels, another feminist issue, and even works it into dialogue: after casually asking me if I was married or in a relationship, he told me that he liked women in heels. “You know what heels do don’t you?”
- weaving in another grand feminist theme: "I would wonder why I went to grad school instead of wearing heels and marrying a rich guy so I would never have to work."
- as others have noted, the personal detail that is included doesn't seem like it's written by someone really concerned about preserving their anonymity. And at the same time, the rest of the article seems strangely impersonal, running through generic feminist tropes
I am not saying the basic details are entirely implausible, but the way it's written leads me to strongly suspect it's fake.
To wit:
- in the 3rd paragraph, it includes the gender wage gap topic. Usually companies keep employee salaries hidden from each other, so the way its included here feels more like box-ticking of a feminist talking point
- also in the 3rd paragraph, it establishes the character as somebody who is not overly "privileged", which is important for liberals (privilege undermines your platform of victimhood; if you're writing something like this, the less privilege the better)
- the 4th paragraph introduces the ideals of respecting human beings regardless of their gender, sexuality of religion. It's like the writer is going for a broad thematic sweep.
- also in the 4th paragraph, it refers to the concept of "triggering", another SJW trope that other people would probably cringe at using
- this sort of thing just sounds like it was written by Lena Dunham: "Uber finally broke me by destroying my dignity as a human being, and reduced my aspirations by attaching their worth them to a female reproductive organ. Like they did to Susan, Uber killed a part of me that was most precious."
- this bit sounds very far fetched, like the author is trying to work in examples of misogyny that they've witnessed on the web: "They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women."
- the author seems to have a hang-up about high-heels, another feminist issue, and even works it into dialogue: after casually asking me if I was married or in a relationship, he told me that he liked women in heels. “You know what heels do don’t you?”
- weaving in another grand feminist theme: "I would wonder why I went to grad school instead of wearing heels and marrying a rich guy so I would never have to work."
- as others have noted, the personal detail that is included doesn't seem like it's written by someone really concerned about preserving their anonymity. And at the same time, the rest of the article seems strangely impersonal, running through generic feminist tropes
I am not saying the basic details are entirely implausible, but the way it's written leads me to strongly suspect it's fake.
iopq(1)
Are there publicly known instances of something like this being "too good to be true", or is your feeling based only on private experience?
I have had no private experience with something like this being "too good to be true", and multiple instances of it being all too true. And there is obviously a publicly known instance of something like this that appears quite credible (the Susan Fowler blogpost). So you understand why I'd feel the opposite way---that in spite of the lack of substantiation, this feels all too true.
I have had no private experience with something like this being "too good to be true", and multiple instances of it being all too true. And there is obviously a publicly known instance of something like this that appears quite credible (the Susan Fowler blogpost). So you understand why I'd feel the opposite way---that in spite of the lack of substantiation, this feels all too true.
Here is one example
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-ri...
I could tell it was fake because it hit on so many tropes of the left.
Here's a more directly comparable example (incredibly long winded expose... skimming recommended)
https://contraspin.co.nz/the-weaponising-of-social-pt1-the-c...
It's not about the events, it's about how they are framed and told by the anonymous author.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-ri...
I could tell it was fake because it hit on so many tropes of the left.
Here's a more directly comparable example (incredibly long winded expose... skimming recommended)
https://contraspin.co.nz/the-weaponising-of-social-pt1-the-c...
It's not about the events, it's about how they are framed and told by the anonymous author.
I'm confused. Are you saying that Guardian article is a hoax? In what way is that a publicly known fact? I did not see any retraction or correction on the link provided.
The Contraspin article is pretty fascinating and from skimming it, makes a decent case worth taking seriously, but one good case isn't a consensus; in fact, it appears to run directly contrary to the consensus. (It also has plenty of weak spots; for example, someone who's been Executive Director of the EFF for 15 years has a lot of credibility in my eyes.) By contrast, Sarah Fowler's article has been corroborated by reputable sources like the New York Times [1], who've found additional horror stories along similar lines. (To be clear, I'm operating under the assumption we're in agreement that all indications are that Sarah Fowler's story is fundamentally accurate.)
Do you have any examples where it's a thorough consensus that an anonymous testimonial was made up to hurt someone, the way, for example, there's a thorough consensus that the Rolling Stone UVA article was pretty much made up?
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
The Contraspin article is pretty fascinating and from skimming it, makes a decent case worth taking seriously, but one good case isn't a consensus; in fact, it appears to run directly contrary to the consensus. (It also has plenty of weak spots; for example, someone who's been Executive Director of the EFF for 15 years has a lot of credibility in my eyes.) By contrast, Sarah Fowler's article has been corroborated by reputable sources like the New York Times [1], who've found additional horror stories along similar lines. (To be clear, I'm operating under the assumption we're in agreement that all indications are that Sarah Fowler's story is fundamentally accurate.)
Do you have any examples where it's a thorough consensus that an anonymous testimonial was made up to hurt someone, the way, for example, there's a thorough consensus that the Rolling Stone UVA article was pretty much made up?
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
Someone called Godfrey Elfwick claimed to have written the Guardian article as a spoof, although on closer investigation it seems there's no solid proof. That said, it reads like perfect satire, I can't believe it's genuine.
I recall a few similar instances over the years but I can't find links to all of them. Not sure if I can find an exact fit for an anonymous story made up to smear someone. The accusations of child-rape against Trump just before the election spring to mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump...
More generally on fake accounts, there was the fake Syrian lesbian blogger:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13760208
There was the fake deaf cerebral palsy blogger:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dave-on-wheels
There was this "meeting a troll" story from years ago which I always suspected was fake - looked it up just now, and while there's no hard evidence that it is fake, the writer (who made no claims to using a pseudonym), has since vanished from the face of the web, and it seems no journalists ever fact checked the story:
http://paulclarke.com/honestlyreal/2012/10/for-whom-the-bell...
My google search turned up this article from Breitbart which is actually pretty good, a rundown of fake stories that became national news over the years:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-n...
Their comment on the infamous Stephen Glass I think gets to the heart of how fake articles get written:
Some speculated Glass fooled so many editors because he had “wonder boy” star power and great personal charisma. Others thought it was because he understood and flattered the biases and expectations of the publications he worked for – he sold them stories they wanted to publish, surfing the early wave of “narrative” obsession that has completely consumed mainstream journalism over the past two decades. Glass invented people, organizations, and events that lived down to his publishers’ darkest expectations of every social group and profession except their own.
I recall a few similar instances over the years but I can't find links to all of them. Not sure if I can find an exact fit for an anonymous story made up to smear someone. The accusations of child-rape against Trump just before the election spring to mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump...
More generally on fake accounts, there was the fake Syrian lesbian blogger:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13760208
There was the fake deaf cerebral palsy blogger:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dave-on-wheels
There was this "meeting a troll" story from years ago which I always suspected was fake - looked it up just now, and while there's no hard evidence that it is fake, the writer (who made no claims to using a pseudonym), has since vanished from the face of the web, and it seems no journalists ever fact checked the story:
http://paulclarke.com/honestlyreal/2012/10/for-whom-the-bell...
My google search turned up this article from Breitbart which is actually pretty good, a rundown of fake stories that became national news over the years:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-n...
Their comment on the infamous Stephen Glass I think gets to the heart of how fake articles get written:
Some speculated Glass fooled so many editors because he had “wonder boy” star power and great personal charisma. Others thought it was because he understood and flattered the biases and expectations of the publications he worked for – he sold them stories they wanted to publish, surfing the early wave of “narrative” obsession that has completely consumed mainstream journalism over the past two decades. Glass invented people, organizations, and events that lived down to his publishers’ darkest expectations of every social group and profession except their own.
> These types of posts are worrying to me. Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft? Or one of Uber's many other detractors? Given the PR nightmare that Uber is in why not pile on while the public seems primed for that type of information and stretch out the negative news cycle?
This is a good point, but I thought what historically happens is that there are women who are too afraid to speak up? That's why I personally believe the story.. hopefully more people will speak up and so it won't matter that one of them isn't real.
This is a good point, but I thought what historically happens is that there are women who are too afraid to speak up? That's why I personally believe the story.. hopefully more people will speak up and so it won't matter that one of them isn't real.
Definitely agree caution is a good stance to take -- as much as we need to be supportive of victims we also need to be smart about doing our research. With that said, given Uber's recent history (Fowler) and without any action from Uber's higher-ups that indicates they actually give a shit (frankly a twitter apology from Kalanick and a half-assed 'investigation' isn't enough at this point), I'm far more inclined to err on the side of supporting the alleged victim than the alleged perpetrator in this case.
I would worry less about this credibility issue. Uber management, Mike#2, HR and likely every Uber employee will know if these claims are true, and if so, who they refer to. Our opinion and our degree of outrage matters not at all.
If history shows anything, and despite what we may like to think, public outrage has very little impact on corporate reality. The key to enacting change at Uber is the company management and HR. Rest assured the people that matter will know if this story is true.
If history shows anything, and despite what we may like to think, public outrage has very little impact on corporate reality. The key to enacting change at Uber is the company management and HR. Rest assured the people that matter will know if this story is true.
From these comments, I can't tell if Uber is a scrappy startup where everybody knows everybody, or it's a huge global corporation where nobody knows what's going on elsewhere.
If this was a science post that had no evidence, everyone here would be shooting it down. Something about a tawdry narrative though seems to instantly be believed.
My first thought was that someone has launched an all out PR attack against Uber. There are hundreds of comments here going after Uber. This was an anonymous post and could be totally fake.
My first thought was that someone has launched an all out PR attack against Uber. There are hundreds of comments here going after Uber. This was an anonymous post and could be totally fake.
It would be stupid for Lyft to do this, because if they get busted, it'd be a PR nightmare and counter-productive, because Uber can change the narrative and call Lyft the lying bad guys.
But it's also possible that it's someone who likes Lyft or/and hates Uber.
But it's also possible that it's someone who likes Lyft or/and hates Uber.
> Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft?
After all the shady campaigns Uber has used against their competitors, even if this were true, I'd be fine with it.
After all the shady campaigns Uber has used against their competitors, even if this were true, I'd be fine with it.
Because only a disgusting company like Uber would pull such a thing off and since Uber wouldn't criticise Uber we can safely assume this is probably legit.
Do you know the difference between punching up vs punching down?
I consider the HN community to be one of the most thoughtful I've found on the web, yet am stunned by how quickly a righteous mob is formed based on an anonymous, cartoonish, and IMO barely plausible account of what it's like to work for a large US tech company.
Having spent years working at multiple SV tech companies, where even the slightest tinge of a racist or sexist affront would land you in an office in front of HR and a company lawyer, I find this account to be very difficult to believe. Slanty eye joe? Please.
We don't know if this is a (poorly written) attempt to sink Uber (which I don't happen to care for) by someone with a short position and an evening to spare, or if it has been penned by an employee with a grudge.
Please have some credulity before parading your #deleteuber hashtags and morally superior posturing so the world can marvel at how virtuous you are. There has never been a more evil force in the world than an outraged, self-righteous mob inflamed by twisted anecdotes.
And yes, I've resorted to creating a throwaway account, fully expecting the flagging and down-voting groupthink brigade to be in force. If there's a shameful story here, it's more likely this disturbing human phenomenon, not an anonymous blog post, the veracity of which we know nothing about.
Having spent years working at multiple SV tech companies, where even the slightest tinge of a racist or sexist affront would land you in an office in front of HR and a company lawyer, I find this account to be very difficult to believe. Slanty eye joe? Please.
We don't know if this is a (poorly written) attempt to sink Uber (which I don't happen to care for) by someone with a short position and an evening to spare, or if it has been penned by an employee with a grudge.
Please have some credulity before parading your #deleteuber hashtags and morally superior posturing so the world can marvel at how virtuous you are. There has never been a more evil force in the world than an outraged, self-righteous mob inflamed by twisted anecdotes.
And yes, I've resorted to creating a throwaway account, fully expecting the flagging and down-voting groupthink brigade to be in force. If there's a shameful story here, it's more likely this disturbing human phenomenon, not an anonymous blog post, the veracity of which we know nothing about.
I think the idea of "victim-blaming" has morphed into its own beast. We're so scared of doing it that asking for evidence or asking critical questions is now in a weird way associated with victim blaming. Everyone in this thread who's said what you said has ipso facto gotten downvoted.
I find myself suspicious of this new culture of "standing together in solidarity," "letting vulnerable people tell their narratives," "being supportive," etc. These all sound like perfectly upstanding things to do, but nowadays they dominate discourse. Facts, reason, and inquiry are now considered oppressive.
I've met some people who have asked, why is this a problem? Who cares if a couple people make things up, when there are so many people hurting out there? Well, people who make things up make real stories less believable. And it incentivizes victimhood, which nowadays carries with it the reward of not having to engage in debate, because anyone who voices doubt is considered a monster. Someone earlier got flagged for saying what you said. Not just downvoted so his post would be light gray, but flagged so his post would disappear.
And really, at the end of the day, what can trigger-happy moral outrage accomplish that a quiet sense of justice backed by reason, fairness, and determination can't?
I find myself suspicious of this new culture of "standing together in solidarity," "letting vulnerable people tell their narratives," "being supportive," etc. These all sound like perfectly upstanding things to do, but nowadays they dominate discourse. Facts, reason, and inquiry are now considered oppressive.
I've met some people who have asked, why is this a problem? Who cares if a couple people make things up, when there are so many people hurting out there? Well, people who make things up make real stories less believable. And it incentivizes victimhood, which nowadays carries with it the reward of not having to engage in debate, because anyone who voices doubt is considered a monster. Someone earlier got flagged for saying what you said. Not just downvoted so his post would be light gray, but flagged so his post would disappear.
And really, at the end of the day, what can trigger-happy moral outrage accomplish that a quiet sense of justice backed by reason, fairness, and determination can't?
>I think the idea of "victim-blaming" has morphed into its own beast. We're so scared of doing it that asking for evidence or asking critical questions is now in a weird way associated with victim blaming.
This is a critical point. Is there a way to express doubt, sans body language, that can further a discussion without evoking responses such as this? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748089]
This is a critical point. Is there a way to express doubt, sans body language, that can further a discussion without evoking responses such as this? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748089]
Anonymity of poster doesn't render the poster's experience unworthy of thought. If it did, I would be ignoring this comment from a throwaway account.
Cartoonish and poorly written are subjective judgements.
These experiences might seem implausible to you because they might never be happening when you're looking. In light of other, non-anonymous and fact-checked accounts of Susan's experience, I wouldn't think it is implausible.
All-in-all, while I agree in principle that one should apply fair judgement before believing someone's anonymous story, I do not think it warrants incredulity, especially and ironically from an anon account. If you believe that Amy should not have posted anonymously, I find it laughable that you use an anonymous account fearing flagging and down-voting in a low stakes environment fearing the "groupthink brigade".
Cartoonish and poorly written are subjective judgements.
These experiences might seem implausible to you because they might never be happening when you're looking. In light of other, non-anonymous and fact-checked accounts of Susan's experience, I wouldn't think it is implausible.
All-in-all, while I agree in principle that one should apply fair judgement before believing someone's anonymous story, I do not think it warrants incredulity, especially and ironically from an anon account. If you believe that Amy should not have posted anonymously, I find it laughable that you use an anonymous account fearing flagging and down-voting in a low stakes environment fearing the "groupthink brigade".
Are we just trading anecdotes now? A medium size SV unicorn I worked at had at least two similar incidents shared with me by female employees whom I highly trust. Just because you personally haven't witnessed this kind of behavior first-hand doesn't mean it never happens. I think you've gone too far in denouncing this story instead of at least considering that it might merit a debate.
I'm a woman in tech, and situations like this never seemed real to me until similar things like this happened to my female friends (and, to a lesser degree, to me).
I'm downvoting this not because of the point it makes but because of the nature of the language. I think even though it's your legal right to express us-vs-them mentality "down-voting groupthink brigade", ad-hominem attacks "morally superior posturing", "outraged, self-righteous mob" I don't think it's a valuable contribution to this discussion.
This type of language is intentionally attempts to provoke emotion, which in turn reduces the ability for the community to collectively find truth. It sounds like perhaps you've had some anecdotal experiences where you feel like you're the victim of Pc-police, but if you want to convince anyone I recommend you share the data-points of your experience rather than play to emotions.
This type of language is intentionally attempts to provoke emotion, which in turn reduces the ability for the community to collectively find truth. It sounds like perhaps you've had some anecdotal experiences where you feel like you're the victim of Pc-police, but if you want to convince anyone I recommend you share the data-points of your experience rather than play to emotions.
Yes, people say racists and sexist and mean things at work. Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've seen it, personally.
Maybe it's a lie. Maybe it's not. Either way, it's definitely plausible though and that's not good.
the whole point is that Uber is _not at all_ like a typical US tech company. it seems to be much much much worse, and that is what is shocking to discover.
Some of the responses to that article express a sentiment that women should fight back and not just silently take it.
I wonder (doubt) if they've ever been abused. It's hard for someone who has been abused to come forward, let alone stand up to an abuser.
Besides, men outnumber women in tech by a very large margin. It's on our shoulders to help women fight back. Strength in numbers is a thing, and having men who speak up on their own, and who support and reinforce women who come forward can only a be a good thing.
I wonder (doubt) if they've ever been abused. It's hard for someone who has been abused to come forward, let alone stand up to an abuser.
Besides, men outnumber women in tech by a very large margin. It's on our shoulders to help women fight back. Strength in numbers is a thing, and having men who speak up on their own, and who support and reinforce women who come forward can only a be a good thing.
She did fight back, told HR about what was happening, stood up to the abusers in meetings. Then when she was physically handled and verbally threatened in a meeting with many eye witnesses, nothing was done to support her or protect her.
What else do they expect her to do? Bring a weapon to work and shoot everyone?
What else do they expect her to do? Bring a weapon to work and shoot everyone?
I took their comments to mean directly to the abuser in a more aggressive way than "please stop" or even "that's not appropriate."
But you're right: in any adult, rational sense she "fought back."
But you're right: in any adult, rational sense she "fought back."
Because everyone knows that being aggressive back to your abuser is an easy, viable option.
I don't think the comment you're pointing to is saying that she should have done more, but that others in the company should have; that to expect her to have done more is lacking in empathy for the difficulty of the situation she is in.
Umm.... so nevermind your hyperbole about bringing a gun... Maybe he was referring to the other female employees we've heard were too afraid to speak up? The ones mentioned say... here?
> Other female employees who were his seniors often discussed in private about his lewd comments and sexist behavior but no one was ever brave enough to complain to the senior management and HR because the management is known to ignore the complaints and many times punish the women by accidentally leaking the names of the women over private chat groups.
> Other female employees who were his seniors often discussed in private about his lewd comments and sexist behavior but no one was ever brave enough to complain to the senior management and HR because the management is known to ignore the complaints and many times punish the women by accidentally leaking the names of the women over private chat groups.
The best way for men to counter this in a toxic environment is to call it out when they see it. This sends a message that being outwardly dehumanizing and dismissive is not okay, and is not the accepted norm.
I'm quite shocked that nobody stepped in when Mike2 called her a "whiny little bitch" in a meeting. She said the other men "were shocked" spare a couple that giggled. What the fuck kind of person stands around and does nothing when witnessing that kind of abuse in a professional environment?
When you put a lot of your self-worth in your job and you know that the person you're about to call out can have you fired on the spot? So probably almost everyone. It's really hard to call out the boss, especially when you know that no one all the way up to the CEO has your back.
Not saying it's still not the right thing to do, just, you should put yourselves in their shoes. Probably that entire room could have told the guy in unison "that wasn't cool" and they would have all been instantly fired, so, not sure what that's gonna do for anyone...
Not saying it's still not the right thing to do, just, you should put yourselves in their shoes. Probably that entire room could have told the guy in unison "that wasn't cool" and they would have all been instantly fired, so, not sure what that's gonna do for anyone...
I've stood up for someone in that kind of conversation. Our boss was yelling at a colleague in an inappropriate way. I interrupted to defend the guy. Our boss said, "If you don't feel like you need to be here, you should leave the room." I left the room. No adverse consequences to my job, as far as I can tell.
I suppose I could have stayed, but I also figured my colleague could stand up for himself. He's not a pushover.
I suppose I could have stayed, but I also figured my colleague could stand up for himself. He's not a pushover.
Honestly, the type that is afraid to be fired and doesn't want to rock the boat. I'd like to believe I'd stand up and say that's wrong, but never having been in the situation, I don't know how I'd react. I'd probably start navel-gazing, too. :(
Presumably ones that are themselves being abused/in an abusive environment, as mentioned all over the article? Plus, of course, the ones perpetuating that culture, but I doubt those were the ones whose silence you were shocked by.
Yes! This! Same with dealing with racists, call it out when you see it. And stand up with those who are brave enough to act on it.
> It's easy to be practical about other people's problems.
I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best.
I had a person on my team once who I did not hire but who had a reputation for being one of the smartest and most capable engineers. As his new manager, I expected that I'd soon promote him. But then I saw that he treated others on the team very poorly and often said highly inappropriate sexual things.
I talked to the founder and was told that he's really a great guy, etc. As it got worse I mentioned the pattern to HR, and HR was initially concerned, but then after HR met with the founder it was as if I was imagining the problem.
I tell this story simply to point out that the same culture that tolerates bullies and harassment can happen even when there is a female founder.
I know it's a cliche that bullies are always deeply insecure. I think that is the case for workplace bullies too. The brash, over-confident, aggressive act that these people put on works to help them find out who they can victimize.
Others who interact less closely often perceive people (particularly engineers) who have a brash, confident attitude as being smart and capable. Just because someone quickly points the finger and shoots down other peoples' ideas doesn't mean his/her ideas are smart :)
I don't think bullies can thrive in a healthy workplace culture. There should not be any question that certain behavior is inappropriate and is grounds for a stern warning (or worse). But once this doesn't happen, a sort of law of the jungle emerges and bullies and exploiters can take over.
The more information that comes out about Uber's culture, I think Travis probably needs to go.
I had a person on my team once who I did not hire but who had a reputation for being one of the smartest and most capable engineers. As his new manager, I expected that I'd soon promote him. But then I saw that he treated others on the team very poorly and often said highly inappropriate sexual things.
I talked to the founder and was told that he's really a great guy, etc. As it got worse I mentioned the pattern to HR, and HR was initially concerned, but then after HR met with the founder it was as if I was imagining the problem.
I tell this story simply to point out that the same culture that tolerates bullies and harassment can happen even when there is a female founder.
I know it's a cliche that bullies are always deeply insecure. I think that is the case for workplace bullies too. The brash, over-confident, aggressive act that these people put on works to help them find out who they can victimize.
Others who interact less closely often perceive people (particularly engineers) who have a brash, confident attitude as being smart and capable. Just because someone quickly points the finger and shoots down other peoples' ideas doesn't mean his/her ideas are smart :)
I don't think bullies can thrive in a healthy workplace culture. There should not be any question that certain behavior is inappropriate and is grounds for a stern warning (or worse). But once this doesn't happen, a sort of law of the jungle emerges and bullies and exploiters can take over.
The more information that comes out about Uber's culture, I think Travis probably needs to go.
I'll be real with you. I worked at Uber for a while. I never noticed any sexual harassment while I was there, but what I did notice was that the company culture was quite excellent until the number of employees got up to 1000 or so. It wasn't until there were many layers of management that things got shitty. I left once the culture no longer felt friendly.
I haven't spoken to Travis in quite a few years now, but I find it very hard to believe he is responsible.
Shitty, evil, manages are great at being two-faced. When their boss is around they act one way, but you better watch out when no one is looking.
I haven't spoken to Travis in quite a few years now, but I find it very hard to believe he is responsible.
Shitty, evil, manages are great at being two-faced. When their boss is around they act one way, but you better watch out when no one is looking.
No. There is simply no excuse for this kind of abusive environment to exist at your company. If you are CEO, you are responsible:
- Kalanick doesn't interact with every employee every day like the olden days, but he certainly hired the people who do (directly or indirectly).
- Greenshift is a real problem, but it's not like the management chain is the only way a CEO can find out about problems.
And nobody's saying that Kalanick is telling his execs that it's OK to harass employees. In my mind, he is responsible and culpable even if he simply turns a blind eye when harassment happens.
- Kalanick doesn't interact with every employee every day like the olden days, but he certainly hired the people who do (directly or indirectly).
- Greenshift is a real problem, but it's not like the management chain is the only way a CEO can find out about problems.
And nobody's saying that Kalanick is telling his execs that it's OK to harass employees. In my mind, he is responsible and culpable even if he simply turns a blind eye when harassment happens.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
> I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best.
Based on anecdotal experience I think this is quite true. It's almost like the dark side of the Taleb chapter that was on HN the other day...just as Taleb trusts the disheveled butcher-looking doctor more than the elegant and refined one because the fact that the unkempt one has made it this far without looking like a professional underscores his actual professional skill[0], it really seems to me that some founders/senior execs instinctively prefer hiring assholes, because assholes must be really good at what they do -- look at how far they've come despite being an asshole!
[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...
Based on anecdotal experience I think this is quite true. It's almost like the dark side of the Taleb chapter that was on HN the other day...just as Taleb trusts the disheveled butcher-looking doctor more than the elegant and refined one because the fact that the unkempt one has made it this far without looking like a professional underscores his actual professional skill[0], it really seems to me that some founders/senior execs instinctively prefer hiring assholes, because assholes must be really good at what they do -- look at how far they've come despite being an asshole!
[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...
> I don't think bullies can thrive in a healthy workplace culture
This part is really key: a single incident, sure, perhaps that's a bad hire but if it's not directly and completely rejected by senior management they're sending a message that anything goes as long as you get results / have the right friends. That doesn't even mean explicitly condoning something – merely allowing it to continue is enough.
This part is really key: a single incident, sure, perhaps that's a bad hire but if it's not directly and completely rejected by senior management they're sending a message that anything goes as long as you get results / have the right friends. That doesn't even mean explicitly condoning something – merely allowing it to continue is enough.
> I know it's a cliche that bullies are always deeply insecure. I think that is the case for workplace bullies too. The brash, over-confident, aggressive act that these people put on works to help them find out who they can victimize.
I just don't agree with this thinking. Thinking that insecurity drives aggression ignores the simple fact that aggression is aggression. It's applying a victim card on top of asshole behavior.
I just don't agree with this thinking. Thinking that insecurity drives aggression ignores the simple fact that aggression is aggression. It's applying a victim card on top of asshole behavior.
> It's applying a victim card on top of asshole behavior.
Well, we're all in a sense victims of what our environment did to our tabula rasa to make us who we are (for better and worse).
All humans have flaws (insecurity among them). Mistreating others is never an excusable way to conduct ourselves. I do not intend to give anyone a pass.
FYI I think it's necessary to point out that brash behavior can have its origin in insecurity, since many seem to assume it has its origin in competence and frustration with others' incompetence.
Well, we're all in a sense victims of what our environment did to our tabula rasa to make us who we are (for better and worse).
All humans have flaws (insecurity among them). Mistreating others is never an excusable way to conduct ourselves. I do not intend to give anyone a pass.
FYI I think it's necessary to point out that brash behavior can have its origin in insecurity, since many seem to assume it has its origin in competence and frustration with others' incompetence.
I think the bottom line is that some founders ARE abusive personalities and hire people like themselves.
It comes as no surprise to me that a company as cavalier toward local laws and its drivers as Uber is would also mistreat its other workers.
On the off-chance Amy or Susan is reading this, thanks for sharing your stories.
On the off-chance Amy or Susan is reading this, thanks for sharing your stories.
Why would someone write an anonymous blog post but then declare that they are:
1) A woman in her late 20s
2) Who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on
database and networking scalability
3) Went to a top private college
4) has a Masters in Information Systems
5) previous to Uber worked as a Data Analyst in a tech
company in the Midwest and left when it was acquired
by a Chinese firm
6) Is 5 foot 7 Caucasian with dark hairBecause it probably doesn't matter if ex-coworkers at Uber figure out who it is. She just doesn't want this story attached to her real name when people Google her.
It's also possible that some of that information is slightly twisted, to throw people off.
It's also possible that some of that information is slightly twisted, to throw people off.
Or maybe she wants people at Uber to know who she is, but not the general public.
Perhaps because her name would be indexed by the search engines as this story is shared thousands of times? Would you like the #1 search result for your name to be a sexual harassment story?
There's anonymity in numbers. Even with Uber's relatively small female workforce, the high turnover rate and unspecified timeframe makes it likely that there are dozens of potential candidates. This sounds specific, but it's really just a lot of datapoints that already correlate heavily with the sample group (Engineering is large at Uber, elite private colleges are strongly represented at startups, average-heighted white women with dark hair are statistically average).
Furthermore, any of those descriptions could be fabricated to throw someone attempting to deanonymize her off.
Furthermore, any of those descriptions could be fabricated to throw someone attempting to deanonymize her off.
I'm curious if HR will out her, or if there's so many harassment complaints lodged with HR that even so doing makes you effectively anonymous. You say that's unethical and/or illegal, but it's Uber HR, brought to you by the company that jokes about paying a million dollars to dig up dirt on your critics [1], and that lied to a judge about paying investigators to dig up dirt on someone suing them [2], [3].
[1] https://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-f...
[2] http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12201134/uber-ergo-admit-l...
[3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/25/12274122/uber-ergo-investi...
[1] https://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-f...
[2] http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/15/12201134/uber-ergo-admit-l...
[3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/25/12274122/uber-ergo-investi...
Internally, she's almost definitely identifiable. I think the parent was talking about public identifiability, seeing how the public doesn't have access to Uber's employee records.
And yes, unethicality/illegality doesn't appear to be an impediment for Uber. In fact, they seem to revel in skirting the law.
And yes, unethicality/illegality doesn't appear to be an impediment for Uber. In fact, they seem to revel in skirting the law.
Did a search of all current/past Uber employees based on public data mainly from LI, found only 6 people with those degrees and none were female. Did another search for people who worked as Data Analyst and worked at Uber came up with 6 different people again all male. As other answers suggest the information could be twisted, but definitely not "slightly".
What was your motivation for doing this?
As soon as someone doesn't want to be associated with a story critical of anything, the salt is implicit isn't it?
Considering the last few stories that have come out about how women are being treated in tech, what I've observed (and been enraged by) I'm pretty sure this happened/is happening still.
Are you just trying to verify the legitimacy of the post? If someone finds the courage to speak out, why would you then try to out them for doing so?
Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not? There are bigger problems being highlighted here than this individual incident...
But what do I know... Do you work there? Is someone trying to fsck with uber's valuation or something?
As soon as someone doesn't want to be associated with a story critical of anything, the salt is implicit isn't it?
Considering the last few stories that have come out about how women are being treated in tech, what I've observed (and been enraged by) I'm pretty sure this happened/is happening still.
Are you just trying to verify the legitimacy of the post? If someone finds the courage to speak out, why would you then try to out them for doing so?
Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not? There are bigger problems being highlighted here than this individual incident...
But what do I know... Do you work there? Is someone trying to fsck with uber's valuation or something?
Are you just trying to verify the legitimacy of the post? If someone finds the courage to speak out, why would you then try to out them for doing so?
Because if it's not legitimate then it's worth knowing that? To me, this story seems far more suspicious than Fowler.
Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not?
Perhaps a variety of fake incidents have caused you to believe things that aren't true. Maybe the bigger problem being highlighted is also fake.
I recently had a conversation with someone telling me about a rape on a college campus. I told her I was skeptical. She said it was so common, why am I skeptical, and supported her case that it was common by citing Duke, Mattress Girl and UVA as examples. She was shocked when I suggested she google those incidents. Repeated fake incidents can cause people to change their priors.
So yes, the reason why "most of us could totally believe it's not" actually matters quite a lot.
Because if it's not legitimate then it's worth knowing that? To me, this story seems far more suspicious than Fowler.
Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not?
Perhaps a variety of fake incidents have caused you to believe things that aren't true. Maybe the bigger problem being highlighted is also fake.
I recently had a conversation with someone telling me about a rape on a college campus. I told her I was skeptical. She said it was so common, why am I skeptical, and supported her case that it was common by citing Duke, Mattress Girl and UVA as examples. She was shocked when I suggested she google those incidents. Repeated fake incidents can cause people to change their priors.
So yes, the reason why "most of us could totally believe it's not" actually matters quite a lot.
What would be the motivation behind creating a 'false' rhetoric such as the experiences of women in tech?
I've certainly seen this happening / had to deal with it, I do feel that this is still an issue and something we need to improve. While it's not an across the board problem, I suspect most women working in tech would agree with me; the story, which I don't stand behind as as legitimate, is very similar to the sorts of things I've seen going on.
I wish we could just make it very hard for either false (I've seen this case happen, demonstrably, too) or true claims such as these to occur.
In most cases, talking to leads/mgt BEFORE these things get really bad would have helped and that's something we should be making easier..
I've certainly seen this happening / had to deal with it, I do feel that this is still an issue and something we need to improve. While it's not an across the board problem, I suspect most women working in tech would agree with me; the story, which I don't stand behind as as legitimate, is very similar to the sorts of things I've seen going on.
I wish we could just make it very hard for either false (I've seen this case happen, demonstrably, too) or true claims such as these to occur.
In most cases, talking to leads/mgt BEFORE these things get really bad would have helped and that's something we should be making easier..
I don't know the motivation. Perhaps someone feels harassment is a real problem, but can't find any real examples of it, so feels the need to tell lies for a good cause? Perhaps someone merely wants to harm Uber? They certainly have no shortage of people who hate them.
But regardless of motivation, the facts show that many people are willing to fake stories just to support their "team". Sometimes they do this at great personal risk and cost, e.g. lighting their own truck on fire or making false police reports. As an example of one category, there have been many such incidents since Nov 7:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/23/denton-man-s... http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/14/hate-hoax-nyc-musl... http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man-ar... http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann-arbor-police-womans-s... http://patch.com/new-york/gardencity/man-who-drew-swastikas-...
So it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that such a person took an hour to write a medium post in an incognito window for such purposes.
But regardless of motivation, the facts show that many people are willing to fake stories just to support their "team". Sometimes they do this at great personal risk and cost, e.g. lighting their own truck on fire or making false police reports. As an example of one category, there have been many such incidents since Nov 7:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/12/23/denton-man-s... http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/14/hate-hoax-nyc-musl... http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/S-Jersey-man-ar... http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann-arbor-police-womans-s... http://patch.com/new-york/gardencity/man-who-drew-swastikas-...
So it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that such a person took an hour to write a medium post in an incognito window for such purposes.
Sure; I can't fault any of that. Even if this was a link to a chapter of a fictional book though, I'd be saying the same thing.
I don't accept this as truth, I assume it's fiction as no one is standing behind it. My only point was, that in general, none of us are terribly shocked by stories such as these, and that's what I wanted to talk about.
I really do hope that less of this goes on than is reported, I sadly feel that the opposite is true -- and that's from personal experiences not unverifiable stories on the internetz.
I don't accept this as truth, I assume it's fiction as no one is standing behind it. My only point was, that in general, none of us are terribly shocked by stories such as these, and that's what I wanted to talk about.
I really do hope that less of this goes on than is reported, I sadly feel that the opposite is true -- and that's from personal experiences not unverifiable stories on the internetz.
Real or not, no one's shocked because we just had a major eye-opener (Fowler) so recently.
I normally disagree with everything 'yummyfajitas posts, and I personally dislike Uber due to the number of well documented unethical actions they've taken. Additionally, I think this type of story has played out so many times that no one thinks the story is truly unbelievable.
In light of all of that I still think this is the kind of story that needs to be verified before action is taken. Just off the top of my head I could think of a number of reasons for someone to create a false story in this situation ranging from semi-believable, a competitor like Lyft adding more fuel to Uber's current PR fire, to conspiracy theory level, China trying to hurt a foreign company so that Didi Chuxing has an easier time growing.
Its unfortunate, but the internet allows unethical actors to craft and spread unverifiable stories with little effort but a high payoff due to the emotions of everyone who reads them. The same feeling that leads us to want to take action after reading this, because it would be genuinely terrible if true and we want to believe people, is the same feeling that leads anti vaxxers to believe fake science they find on the internet.
In light of all of that I still think this is the kind of story that needs to be verified before action is taken. Just off the top of my head I could think of a number of reasons for someone to create a false story in this situation ranging from semi-believable, a competitor like Lyft adding more fuel to Uber's current PR fire, to conspiracy theory level, China trying to hurt a foreign company so that Didi Chuxing has an easier time growing.
Its unfortunate, but the internet allows unethical actors to craft and spread unverifiable stories with little effort but a high payoff due to the emotions of everyone who reads them. The same feeling that leads us to want to take action after reading this, because it would be genuinely terrible if true and we want to believe people, is the same feeling that leads anti vaxxers to believe fake science they find on the internet.
It absolutely does (need verification).
As for the false news/polarisation thing... Am I the only one starting to panic just a teeny little bit?
As for the false news/polarisation thing... Am I the only one starting to panic just a teeny little bit?
I am trying to verify its legitimacy, how can you silently accept such a critical post on face-value, no I don't work there. Giving voice to false claims intensifies their illegitimate power and in societies that this prevails that same power can be used by propagandists to advance their goal, so it's not about Uber it's about giving homage to truth, as every person's responsibility should be.
I've not accepted it as genuine at all; I'm saying that regardless of if it's real or not, the point here is that if it was it wouldn't surprise us..
I'd really really like it if we could get to the point where if stories like this came out for any company, we would be more surprised by them..
As for the illegitimate power (I'm not even sure what that is...) and propagandists comments; I don't really see how this fits into twist of those..
It's a story about some bad behaviour at a big tech company.. Is it a big deal? Individually; nah. As a general trend in tech that I've certainly experienced; yeah. Is it part of a propagandists plot to turn your country into a communist superstate and increase their "illegitimate power" -- I doubt it..
I'd really really like it if we could get to the point where if stories like this came out for any company, we would be more surprised by them..
As for the illegitimate power (I'm not even sure what that is...) and propagandists comments; I don't really see how this fits into twist of those..
It's a story about some bad behaviour at a big tech company.. Is it a big deal? Individually; nah. As a general trend in tech that I've certainly experienced; yeah. Is it part of a propagandists plot to turn your country into a communist superstate and increase their "illegitimate power" -- I doubt it..
> I'm saying that regardless of if it's real or not, the point here is that if it was it wouldn't surprise us …
It would certainly surprise me. I simply cannot imagine working with the sort of folks Amy describes. I'm not saying that such folks don't exist — it's a big world — but that I have never in my almost two decades of work in our field run into them.
Now, maybe that means I haven't run into them. I can accept that. And maybe it means that Uber is particularly bad in this regard. I can also accept that.
I don't know if this story is true or false: I honestly don't. It's probably worth investigating; certainly, after Susan Fowler put her name on some allegations of despicable behaviour it probably is.
If there are pockets of our field where this is considered normal, they need to be eliminated. But it does not accord at all with my experience of trends in our field.
It would certainly surprise me. I simply cannot imagine working with the sort of folks Amy describes. I'm not saying that such folks don't exist — it's a big world — but that I have never in my almost two decades of work in our field run into them.
Now, maybe that means I haven't run into them. I can accept that. And maybe it means that Uber is particularly bad in this regard. I can also accept that.
I don't know if this story is true or false: I honestly don't. It's probably worth investigating; certainly, after Susan Fowler put her name on some allegations of despicable behaviour it probably is.
If there are pockets of our field where this is considered normal, they need to be eliminated. But it does not accord at all with my experience of trends in our field.
> As a general trend in tech that I've certainly experienced
What do you mean by that? Do you mean you've experienced an upswing in these incidents, or an upswing in the number of news stories about these sorts of incidents?
There are numerous incidents where broad media coverage of unsubstantiated claims cause public outrage over exaggerated incidents. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controver... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria for examples.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean you've experienced an upswing in these incidents, or an upswing in the number of news stories about these sorts of incidents?
There are numerous incidents where broad media coverage of unsubstantiated claims cause public outrage over exaggerated incidents. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controver... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria for examples.
Perhaps trend was the wrong word. I simply meant that for all the female employees and coworkers I've had over the last few years, almost all of them have confided a story such as this to me when we discuss women in tech.
Now, maybe that's part of life. I'm sure most of the males I've worked with have a story about being bullied or getting into a horrible fight with a coworker at least once, and perhaps by putting women experiencing these things into a certain category we're also part of the problem..
shrug -- I just don't like seeing people I like or am responsible for in some way getting a hard time; hopefully I won't see much more of it.
Now, maybe that's part of life. I'm sure most of the males I've worked with have a story about being bullied or getting into a horrible fight with a coworker at least once, and perhaps by putting women experiencing these things into a certain category we're also part of the problem..
shrug -- I just don't like seeing people I like or am responsible for in some way getting a hard time; hopefully I won't see much more of it.
>Does it even matter if it's faked if most of us could totally believe it's not?
With the popularity of people crying "fake news" and the study recently hitting the front page of HN/Reddit that if you repeat a lie enough, people are more inclined to believe it [0], it bothers me to see a sentence like this. Yes, it matters a lot whether or not it is legitimate. "Fake news" never seems to matter to individuals if it supports their point of view.
Do you "totally believe it" because you've heard similar stories that are equally unverifiable or because you've had similar experiences? If it's because you've heard similar stories, how credible are those stories? Do you believe it because it has been repeated again and again? The last credible story along the "identity politics" line that I can remember offhand is "Donglegate" which I don't even take seriously, because it made a huge mess out of an immature joke that was overheard.
This whole "Even though it was a lie, I was trying to start a conversation!" is such a common tactic it's become a meme at this point and the fake victims "trying to start a conversation" are beginning to hurt the credibility of actual victims.
I pass no judgement on the credibility of the article - as I haven't read it. I came across this comment from /newcomments
[0] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537177...
With the popularity of people crying "fake news" and the study recently hitting the front page of HN/Reddit that if you repeat a lie enough, people are more inclined to believe it [0], it bothers me to see a sentence like this. Yes, it matters a lot whether or not it is legitimate. "Fake news" never seems to matter to individuals if it supports their point of view.
Do you "totally believe it" because you've heard similar stories that are equally unverifiable or because you've had similar experiences? If it's because you've heard similar stories, how credible are those stories? Do you believe it because it has been repeated again and again? The last credible story along the "identity politics" line that I can remember offhand is "Donglegate" which I don't even take seriously, because it made a huge mess out of an immature joke that was overheard.
This whole "Even though it was a lie, I was trying to start a conversation!" is such a common tactic it's become a meme at this point and the fake victims "trying to start a conversation" are beginning to hurt the credibility of actual victims.
I pass no judgement on the credibility of the article - as I haven't read it. I came across this comment from /newcomments
[0] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537177...
No. I don't.
I meant that in the context of the overall experiences in women in tech, not women at uber or anything more specific than that.
Let me try to rephrase.. Would you be shocked that this sort of thing goes on? I would not. My only point was that the bigger problem is exactly THAT lack of surprise, and not the legitimacy of the post; and that's what we should be talking about.
I don't trust anything about the post, even if it was intentionally labelled as fiction; I'd feel the same way.
I meant that in the context of the overall experiences in women in tech, not women at uber or anything more specific than that.
Let me try to rephrase.. Would you be shocked that this sort of thing goes on? I would not. My only point was that the bigger problem is exactly THAT lack of surprise, and not the legitimacy of the post; and that's what we should be talking about.
I don't trust anything about the post, even if it was intentionally labelled as fiction; I'd feel the same way.
I would be shocked that a bunch of high-IQ, high-conscientiousness individuals would repeatedly engage in dangerous activities with a high probability of getting caught, and in such easily provable ways.
Putting on my evil villain hat for a moment, if I want to harass women it won't be at my workplace. It won't be at my favorite bar in Pune where I get laid regularly. I'll take the bus to Mumbai, head to some bar in Andheri where no one knows my face, and do it there. That's just a sign of my rational self interest (and evil villain hat) combined with a demonstrated ability to rub two brain cells together and think a step or two ahead.
Putting on my evil villain hat for a moment, if I want to harass women it won't be at my workplace. It won't be at my favorite bar in Pune where I get laid regularly. I'll take the bus to Mumbai, head to some bar in Andheri where no one knows my face, and do it there. That's just a sign of my rational self interest (and evil villain hat) combined with a demonstrated ability to rub two brain cells together and think a step or two ahead.
>I would be shocked that a bunch of high-IQ, high-conscientiousness individuals would repeatedly engage in dangerous activities with a high probability of getting caught
There's a long history of precisely such individuals doing precisely this sort of thing.
And in any case, there is not a high probability of getting caught, for reasons that your comment illustrates. Women who make these claims are not believed.
There's a long history of precisely such individuals doing precisely this sort of thing.
And in any case, there is not a high probability of getting caught, for reasons that your comment illustrates. Women who make these claims are not believed.
I can't work it out either. I've had staff who I really liked and knew for years, who were TOTALLY normal be reported to me by other males on the team for harassing female staff..
He admitted his behaviour and he couldn't explain why he did it; was a pretty rough experience for everyone..
He admitted his behaviour and he couldn't explain why he did it; was a pretty rough experience for everyone..
I understand your reasoning but I don't think it takes into account the motivations of those that harass. Harassment is about control. Taking the bus to Mumbai to harass some random woman you don't know and are unlikely to ever see again isn't as powerful as harassing/controlling women in your every day life.
"listen and believe"
Please don't do this. Nothing can be gained from this.
Not everyone is on LinkedIn.
Yeah, lets be real here. The idea that all (or even most) current and past Uber employees are findable on LinkedIn is laughable at best.
if you went looking for my work history you wouldn't find it, it's not documented anywhere public. You would have to have access to some completely internal/non public databases.
Even if she did have a LinkedIn, she'd probably just leave Uber off of it.
if you went looking for my work history you wouldn't find it, it's not documented anywhere public. You would have to have access to some completely internal/non public databases.
Even if she did have a LinkedIn, she'd probably just leave Uber off of it.
[deleted]
You think Uber has only 6 "Data Analyst"s?
Yeah, I read the first paragraph and thought it sounded wicked fake, way too storied up. Maybe Lyft hired a writer.
Having some people know who you are is very different from having the Internet know who you are. Even if she got doxxed (let's hope shoe doesn't), it's unlikely the fallout would be similar.
Why would someone read this whole post, and the main takeway they get from it - enough to post a hackernews comment - is to question the poster's claims of interest in anonymity. (And - let's be honest - therefore trying to discredit her whole story one chip at a time).
People like you are the problem.
People like you are the problem.
The thing that strikes me, is that regardless of if this is 'verified' or not, that this sort of thing is not beyond the imagination or, indeed, the experience of most of us who have female staff/coworkers..
Even if the story is totally fabricated, the bigger point here is that this sort of thing really does go on, and I'm really not sure why. I've had staff who were totally normal and who I actually quite liked whom I've had to let go / perm shitlist for behaving in ways I could never have predicted them to, as soon as I added a female engineer to the team..
What's up with all this? Sad as it is, I always have a sit down with new female staff on my teams and try to let them know that they can come to me with anything like this which goes on and we'll work out how to deal with it together. It's a sad fact, but I've never discussed this topic with a female techie who doesn't have at least one story..
It's on all of us to stop this shit from happening.
Just... Have each others backs, folks!
Even if the story is totally fabricated, the bigger point here is that this sort of thing really does go on, and I'm really not sure why. I've had staff who were totally normal and who I actually quite liked whom I've had to let go / perm shitlist for behaving in ways I could never have predicted them to, as soon as I added a female engineer to the team..
What's up with all this? Sad as it is, I always have a sit down with new female staff on my teams and try to let them know that they can come to me with anything like this which goes on and we'll work out how to deal with it together. It's a sad fact, but I've never discussed this topic with a female techie who doesn't have at least one story..
It's on all of us to stop this shit from happening.
Just... Have each others backs, folks!
Not a problem at all. People should always question credibility of random things on the internet.
Even though you just tried to #identity_politic someone with blind belief, I'm not going to say people like you are the problem. Just tone down your zeal a bit and approach the problem rationally.
Even though you just tried to #identity_politic someone with blind belief, I'm not going to say people like you are the problem. Just tone down your zeal a bit and approach the problem rationally.
Branding someone's concern for the well being and liberty of others as "identity politics" (or in other context "political correctness") suggests an interpretation of the world where the only reason anyone would empathise with others is to win credibility and acceptance from peers. It's a very cynical worldview.
That's not remotely close to what the parent comment was saying...
Being genuinely puzzled by someone's actions is not by definition an attempt to discredit them. I was also puzzled by her detailed description of herself. It wasn't clear to me wether she believes that it isn't enough detail for uber to identify her, or if she doesn't care if uber is able to identify her she just wants to be anonymous to the public. Neither of those cases undermine her story even slightly.
Its not discrediting, its asking for proof. There are some very harsh accusations here. And if there is one thing that I learned about the Internet, that its full with trolls. Just look at some Reddit dramas on what lengths people will go to troll others.
The proof is all the other women who are going to come forward.
The individual cases don't matter, because that can always be pushed off with "bad apple" arguments.
What matters is the trend. And there is DEFINITELY a trend. Every female Uber engineer will tell you that.
The individual cases don't matter, because that can always be pushed off with "bad apple" arguments.
What matters is the trend. And there is DEFINITELY a trend. Every female Uber engineer will tell you that.
Indeed. Fowler already came out in public and said this is a systemic problem. If you accept that Fowler is a credible source, which I think is a fair assessment considering she's a talented and well regarded engineer who has nothing to gain from accusing Uber of such serious claims, then any other women who come forward can be given the benefit of the doubt that their experiences are real.
Also if you know women at Uber, you can also establish a trend.
Also if you know women at Uber, you can also establish a trend.
>People like you are the problem.
Not exactly healthy discourse.
Not exactly healthy discourse.
People have had a decade to get used to the idea of institutional discrimination, unconscious biases, unintentional discrimination and sexism.
I don't expect the average rural Trump voter to have become aware and gain an in-depth understanding of these concepts over that time, but well-educated, well-connected, big-city techies that frequent hackernews have NO EXCUSE.
There is no room for healthy discourse when the default reaction from so much of the privileged side is to pick apart, dismiss, and discredit.
If your instinct when you hear a woman coming forward with stories of sexism in the tech industry is anything but to listen, understand, and empathize, you are part of the cause, not the solution.
I don't expect the average rural Trump voter to have become aware and gain an in-depth understanding of these concepts over that time, but well-educated, well-connected, big-city techies that frequent hackernews have NO EXCUSE.
There is no room for healthy discourse when the default reaction from so much of the privileged side is to pick apart, dismiss, and discredit.
If your instinct when you hear a woman coming forward with stories of sexism in the tech industry is anything but to listen, understand, and empathize, you are part of the cause, not the solution.
I can both listen, understand and empathize while at the same time engaging my critical thinking skills. The former does not preclude the latter.
From the description of circumstances, Uber will already be able to identify the author. Assuming they go after her (as they are often wont to do), it only increases her credibility in the eyes of the public, damaging Uber further.
Its one thing for the people who know her to know it was her, its another thing for the world. That is why.
in fact it's maybe even better if her colleagues know it was her since that may empower them to start taking action against uber or start taking action the next time they see this shit happen.
She put enough information so that the parties relevant would be able to identify all the actors but the parties not involved can't. That's not strange - she wants to tell her story and have it attached to her by identity but not name.
[deleted]
antisthenes(1)
Because any woman who speaks up under their real name is bound to get harassment from gamergate types and other misogynistic asses who have nothing better to do. Fowler is already getting harassed online.
Additionally, assuming that Uber isn't stupid enough to coordinate a smear campaign of their own (although it happened to Ellen Pao)[1], she's safe. And if someone does doxx her, it means either: (a) Uber decided to doxx her or (b) one of the Uber employees that participated in her harassment decided to doxx her. Either way, it looks even worse for Uber and could set them up for a lawsuit.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/594rad/exreddit_c...
Additionally, assuming that Uber isn't stupid enough to coordinate a smear campaign of their own (although it happened to Ellen Pao)[1], she's safe. And if someone does doxx her, it means either: (a) Uber decided to doxx her or (b) one of the Uber employees that participated in her harassment decided to doxx her. Either way, it looks even worse for Uber and could set them up for a lawsuit.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/594rad/exreddit_c...
Seems to me the author is trying to characterize herself as boring, intelligent, hard-working, skilled and educated. A model employee. An asset to the company.
As opposed to the standard MRA characterization of all women as flighty, bitchy, whiny, screechy, slutty, dumb, "cheaters" who slept their way to the top somehow using their devious womanly wiles (but won't sleep with the MRA in question because they hate men).
As opposed to the standard MRA characterization of all women as flighty, bitchy, whiny, screechy, slutty, dumb, "cheaters" who slept their way to the top somehow using their devious womanly wiles (but won't sleep with the MRA in question because they hate men).
I think it's pretty obvious that Travis Kalanick should resign. He is the constant in all these stories supporting this nasty company culture. In the past year he has also been linked with Uber's shady business (attacks on press, fake income for drivers, etc) . He is the one pushing on borderline legal tactics. Even their business model is borderline legal (if anything). How he can deny knowing anything like the sexual harassment not happening ?
There was a time when founders were replaced too soon with "professional management". The pendulum has swung the other way with the mythology of the founder. Now, founders are rarely if ever replaced.
I agree with you. I think he's more of a negative than a positive for Uber right now. They have a huge image problem.
Without getting into any details this: "Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe" seems very strange to me. The Uber tech org is like 80%+ foreign born, this makes pretty much zero sense. Disclaimer: I work for Uber.
Racism isn't limited to locals. Foreign born people can be just as racist as everyone else. For example, it's suprisingly common to hear immigrants complain that there is too much immigration now.
I don't know if you realize it, but you are conflating anti-immigration sentiments with racism.
I have seen groups of people where their internal culture stamps the OK on terms like that...even when members of the group are of that race. Some kind of thing where slinging insults of any type is "playful" and accepted. It's odd, but it happens.
it makes a lot of sense. Americans are taught PC behavior. It is incorrect to assume that our local fetish is considered a universal good. In my experience it is one of the peculiarities of US culture that foreign born, especially Asians, initially struggle with
You work for Uber but are you in the SV offices? The culture probably varies quite a bit depending on where you are.
I meant the San Francisco offices. I think this office is something like half (corrected) Asian American. I thought about this a bit more and it makes even less sense.
I have worked for a number of old generation US companies and some were a part of the military-industrial complex. The employee population in them was significantly biased to the right (white, male, middle aged), up to the point that it would be "Trump crowd" today. Yet, I have never heard anything like this. Uber as any other tech company is full of younger and more liberal people. So this particular allegation (open expressions of racism towards Asian Americans) just seems extremely unlikely.
Unless... Well, there are indeed some countries that are culturally very casually racist. Ex-USSR comes to mind. Yet, even ex-USSR crowd is not that stupid and by now there enough self awareness to not say things like this out loud.
This is fishy.
I have worked for a number of old generation US companies and some were a part of the military-industrial complex. The employee population in them was significantly biased to the right (white, male, middle aged), up to the point that it would be "Trump crowd" today. Yet, I have never heard anything like this. Uber as any other tech company is full of younger and more liberal people. So this particular allegation (open expressions of racism towards Asian Americans) just seems extremely unlikely.
Unless... Well, there are indeed some countries that are culturally very casually racist. Ex-USSR comes to mind. Yet, even ex-USSR crowd is not that stupid and by now there enough self awareness to not say things like this out loud.
This is fishy.
You lost me at that last paragraph. Slinging mud as one minority does not make a strong case for how little mud-slinging-at-minorities happens around you.
Yes, because casual racism by individuals makes sense.
[deleted]
You can delete your Uber account here: https://help.uber.com/h/24010fe7-7a67-4ee5-9938-c734000b144a
After reading the original blog post I went to remove my account from the app. It asked to provide always on access to location and when I refused I couldn't even reach app's menu. I removed the app and used the same link you provided to remove my account, and mentioned my experience in the comment section. Now they sent me an email saying that my account is still active and they'll fix the app. The fact that process of closing my account is not a single button press and is taking me more than two days is beyond ridiculous and infuriating to be honest.
I have to state my reasons as a required field, AND wait for their "approval" to delete my own account? WTF is this shit.
I get a 404 past the telephone/email entry page...
You can delete it from the app, as well. http://www.imore.com/how-to-delete-your-uber-account
Amy, many people believe your story. But based on the flags this story is getting, many don't, at least not yet.
Is there any way you can verify the authenticity of your story without losing your anonymity to the public? For example, would Susan be able to verify you as an ex-employee?
Is there any way you can verify the authenticity of your story without losing your anonymity to the public? For example, would Susan be able to verify you as an ex-employee?
> But based on the flags this story is getting, many don't [believe your story].
Or maybe they know her story all too well, and are angry to see it here. It's not like there's nobody from Uber on HN, I mean.
Or maybe they know her story all too well, and are angry to see it here. It's not like there's nobody from Uber on HN, I mean.
Amy, I believe your story because it is a second independent set of events that closely parallels Susan's story.
You do not need to suffer more indignity by "being outed."
Best of luck!
You do not need to suffer more indignity by "being outed."
Best of luck!
I also believe your story Amy, and strongly suggest you think _very_ carefully before providing any sort pf "proof" to people who demand it, and view those people with intense suspicion.
And reledi? Grow up man - give up on your "not all men" attitude - trying desperately to preserve your own dignity by failing to acknowledge that our industry treats women in ways with should shame all men, and that your "Holy Grail" tech employers like Uber are at the worst end of the bell curve - quite clearly run by reprehensible human beings from the top down - which filters all the way down the org chart. #deleteuber
And reledi? Grow up man - give up on your "not all men" attitude - trying desperately to preserve your own dignity by failing to acknowledge that our industry treats women in ways with should shame all men, and that your "Holy Grail" tech employers like Uber are at the worst end of the bell curve - quite clearly run by reprehensible human beings from the top down - which filters all the way down the org chart. #deleteuber
What you think about "not all men" seems to dependent on whether you believe that the concept of original sin is immoral or not.
I don't think I should feel shame because someone I had no control over, which incidentally had the same gender/skin color/nationality/ethnicity as me, did something wrong.
I don't think I should feel shame because someone I had no control over, which incidentally had the same gender/skin color/nationality/ethnicity as me, did something wrong.
I thought his mention of Holy Grail was more in line with the definition "a thing that is being earnestly pursued or sought after." [1]
I don't think his eschatology was at all a part of his argument.
I don't think his eschatology was at all a part of his argument.
I didn't mean to reference the Holy Grail, sorry for the confusion. I added a second paragraph to clarify.
I meant that how you feel about being told you should feel shameful about being a male due to how other men sometimes act probably depends on how you react to being told that you're a sinful person who needs to redeem yourself because someone else ate an apple they weren't supposed to eat.
The "you" in my post weren't directed at him either, it was just a generic you. Damn, English is hard.
I meant that how you feel about being told you should feel shameful about being a male due to how other men sometimes act probably depends on how you react to being told that you're a sinful person who needs to redeem yourself because someone else ate an apple they weren't supposed to eat.
The "you" in my post weren't directed at him either, it was just a generic you. Damn, English is hard.
I also believe Amy. But I recognize that many don't. The story will have difficulty making an impact if people are easily attacking its authenticity.
Many people hate Uber. Maybe Amy wrote this. Maybe a taxi driver wrote this.
I have no idea, and to pretend otherwise is to fool myself in order to confirm my preconceived notions.
I have no idea, and to pretend otherwise is to fool myself in order to confirm my preconceived notions.
Maybe you should follow the trend.
One person coming forward is not evidence. Evidence is when every single Uber engineer that I talk to, backs up these claims.
Don't focus on this one case. Focus on all the other women who are going to come forward in the next couple weeks.
One person coming forward is not evidence. Evidence is when every single Uber engineer that I talk to, backs up these claims.
Don't focus on this one case. Focus on all the other women who are going to come forward in the next couple weeks.
The CEO of my previous company called Travis an asshole. It was pretty funny at the time, but now not so much.
I agree, this is the only thing that I've been wondering, otherwise it really is, for me personally, the end of any interaction with the company, it is unforgivable if true.
Do you have _any_ basis at all for your suggestion that _all_ of the stories you hear in private and public about the leadership and management of Uber being toxic all the way from the top are ever worth "wondering" about their truthfulness? Is _any_ of Uber's public behaviour worthy of giving them the benefit of the doubt? They're rotten through and through - and here you have the audacity and insensitivity to question individual accounts of poor treatment at the hands of the clearly reprehensible garbage in control of the company? _Seriously?_
Yeah I do: everyone can lie. Also, innocent until proven guilty, don't just believe what you hear, etc. I see the smoke, I know that by practically all chances there's a fire, but before I grab my pitchfork and go on a crusade telling everyone and anyone to never use uber again (which I will quite soon judging by the escalation and their inability to handle the accusations only adding to the likeliness of their guilt) I would like to make sure I'm 100% sure that what's been said is true. No need for more zealots, one's already in the whitehouse.
"There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart. We are not a charity."
OMFG
I don't know if this is real or not, but given how Uber acts publicly about everything else (breaking the laws until governments are forced to amend the laws for Uber), I'm not surprised at all if this really is the overall attitude that they have for everything.
OMFG
I don't know if this is real or not, but given how Uber acts publicly about everything else (breaking the laws until governments are forced to amend the laws for Uber), I'm not surprised at all if this really is the overall attitude that they have for everything.
What especially annoys me about the Uber's management is that they believe themselves to be tough and no-nonsense - but in reality their behaviour is self-destructive. In other words, they are delusional and arrogant, not practical and reality-oriented. I have worked with people like this, though they were not as extreme as Uber.
Travis Kalanick is often painted as an example of Ayn Rand's philosophy in action. [1] I don't doubt he follows his own shallow understanding of her ideas. Still, what she actually said was that it's in your rational self-interest to treat everyone you deal with fairly and trade value for value. I.e., you need ethics to succeed in business.
John Allison of BB&T bank explains this principled approach better than I can [2]. He grew BB&T into a top 10 American bank, but he's the polar opposite of the stereotypical ruthless capitalist.
If you screw people over, you may gain a short-term advantage, but you will inevitably fail in the long-run. Enron, Zynga, Groupon, and countless others have proved this.
[1] https://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/
[2] https://youtu.be/XPSGMbqEGU0?t=3m12s
Travis Kalanick is often painted as an example of Ayn Rand's philosophy in action. [1] I don't doubt he follows his own shallow understanding of her ideas. Still, what she actually said was that it's in your rational self-interest to treat everyone you deal with fairly and trade value for value. I.e., you need ethics to succeed in business.
John Allison of BB&T bank explains this principled approach better than I can [2]. He grew BB&T into a top 10 American bank, but he's the polar opposite of the stereotypical ruthless capitalist.
If you screw people over, you may gain a short-term advantage, but you will inevitably fail in the long-run. Enron, Zynga, Groupon, and countless others have proved this.
[1] https://pando.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/
[2] https://youtu.be/XPSGMbqEGU0?t=3m12s
I can absolutely imagine an Uber manager speaking against ethics. I find it less plausible that a man in his 40s (my age group) refers to women as "sweetheart"...that seems like a thing someone in his 60s or 80s would say.
We've gotten to a point where regardless of who's in the right, the most (only?) effective way to attack a huge company is controversial allegations posted under the veil of anonymity. Regardless of what (if anything) in these allegations happened, this is costing Uber ridiculous amounts of money and all it took was an anonymous blog post.
I know I'm a horrible person to say this, but if I were an Uber competitor, these posts would be part of my marketing arsenal. If unaccountable journalism produces results, it's going to be used. If it isn't already, it will. There's too much money and not enough risk in it.
And the only way to fight against this is to not let yourself be part of outrage culture. We have evidence-based courts for dealing with these things.
I know I'm a horrible person to say this, but if I were an Uber competitor, these posts would be part of my marketing arsenal. If unaccountable journalism produces results, it's going to be used. If it isn't already, it will. There's too much money and not enough risk in it.
And the only way to fight against this is to not let yourself be part of outrage culture. We have evidence-based courts for dealing with these things.
> I remember how the interviewers constantly tried to trigger me and insulted my intelligence to see if I break under pressure.
What the fuck? I'd walk and never entertain an offer from a company that spent the interview insulting and provoking me. Who would be stoked to get an offer after an experience like that, much less accept it??
What the fuck? I'd walk and never entertain an offer from a company that spent the interview insulting and provoking me. Who would be stoked to get an offer after an experience like that, much less accept it??
It wouldn't bother me much.
I've worked with people who couldn't handle pressure, who would just shut down and blank out when you criticized their plans or gave negative feedback. It's not pleasant - such people force you to spend more time thinking about their feelings than about technology or strategy. People like that shut down the free exchange of ideas.
I'd much rather suffer through a grueling interview for a day than work with such people on a daily basis. Being a healthy adult without PTSD, I don't get "triggered" by interviewers questioning me or playing games.
I've worked with people who couldn't handle pressure, who would just shut down and blank out when you criticized their plans or gave negative feedback. It's not pleasant - such people force you to spend more time thinking about their feelings than about technology or strategy. People like that shut down the free exchange of ideas.
I'd much rather suffer through a grueling interview for a day than work with such people on a daily basis. Being a healthy adult without PTSD, I don't get "triggered" by interviewers questioning me or playing games.
Famous example: http://www.businessinsider.com/hyman-rickover-interview-tech...
I don't know if it's actually useful when interviewing for a job with lives on the line, but I would guess that it creates an effect where the worse the interview experience is the happier you feel when you pass it.
I don't know if it's actually useful when interviewing for a job with lives on the line, but I would guess that it creates an effect where the worse the interview experience is the happier you feel when you pass it.
That's quite different from what Amy alleges happened to her at the interview.
Have you not been in a stressful technical interview situation? I have even heard of people doing this on purpose to weed out people who don't "perform under pressure".
In my mind there's a pretty clear difference between being challenged to justify your answers or go into deeper detail in a response and being intentionally insulted. I'm not thin skinned, but I'm not about to go to work for someone after they spend an hour or more calling me retarded.
I'm guessing that it was the glamor (Uber) and the money. And the challenge to beat those assholes at their game.
we kind of do that to our government officials no?
Social justice fundamentally needs an economic basis to stand on. If you want to stop sexual harassment, install a financial penalty.
* The internet was supposed to democratize this stuff. People like Balaji Srinivasan say the FDA should be replaced with Yelp for drugs. Why isn't Glassdoor more effective? Why wasn't Uber's toxic work culture public knowledge, gorgeously pinned to the top of Google's search results?
* When people like Mike interrupt meetings to tell his subordinates not to be a "whiny little bitch," presumably it makes all the quiet, thoughtful people in the room teem with unease. Ideally every instance of this adds a quantum of incentive for them to leave the company. How can that be encouraged?
* Do unions offer any protections to a group of Uber engineers who decided tomorrow to just walk out together?
* The internet was supposed to democratize this stuff. People like Balaji Srinivasan say the FDA should be replaced with Yelp for drugs. Why isn't Glassdoor more effective? Why wasn't Uber's toxic work culture public knowledge, gorgeously pinned to the top of Google's search results?
* When people like Mike interrupt meetings to tell his subordinates not to be a "whiny little bitch," presumably it makes all the quiet, thoughtful people in the room teem with unease. Ideally every instance of this adds a quantum of incentive for them to leave the company. How can that be encouraged?
* Do unions offer any protections to a group of Uber engineers who decided tomorrow to just walk out together?
> * The internet was supposed to democratize this stuff. We have people like Balaji Srinivasan saying the FDA should be replaced with Yelp for drugs. Why isn't Glassdoor more effective? Why wasn't Uber's toxic work culture public knowledge, gorgeously pinned to the top of Google's search results, long before Susan or Amy started interviewing?
"The internet" as a decision making body rewards the loudest, most obnoxious, easiest to use, quickest to strong arm someone into joining its network. Not the most just, or best for its own well being.
"The internet" as a decision making body rewards the loudest, most obnoxious, easiest to use, quickest to strong arm someone into joining its network. Not the most just, or best for its own well being.
A very good set of prompts, thanks for taking the time to think of them.
- On Glassdoor: I assume it's mostly-anonymous replies are an issue. Has anyone verified what is posted there, say comparing it to official data or something? You're of course right that it's a place to start. I'm more troubled by the lack of sleuthing done before accepting an offer to uncover the blindingly obvious problems.
-How to encourage others to call out bad behavior? I don't see an easy answer there. The power differential is still there. If a VP humiliates a subordinate, another subordniate may not have the power to change behavior. Ideally a complaint goes up to the VP level and a discussion is had there (or higher).
- On unions: I've heard this passed around for years, most famously when Steve Jobs's posthumous testimony was in that hiring/collusion lawsuit. I think it's mostly an academic issue at this point similar to other pre-union industries: it's a challenge getting highly-paid employees to favor organizing (and possibly a lower wage) for the benefits.
-How to encourage others to call out bad behavior? I don't see an easy answer there. The power differential is still there. If a VP humiliates a subordinate, another subordniate may not have the power to change behavior. Ideally a complaint goes up to the VP level and a discussion is had there (or higher).
- On unions: I've heard this passed around for years, most famously when Steve Jobs's posthumous testimony was in that hiring/collusion lawsuit. I think it's mostly an academic issue at this point similar to other pre-union industries: it's a challenge getting highly-paid employees to favor organizing (and possibly a lower wage) for the benefits.
It's unfortunate that the Silicon Valley work culture is being tarnished by companies like Uber. There are many companies that respect women and have HR departments that actually fulfill the purpose of being helpful Resources to Humans. I hope the anti-Uber sentiment grows so other companies can learn from this example.
I'm glad the author is sharing her story.
I'm glad the author is sharing her story.
You have got that backwards dude: the Resources are the Humans.
The resources are the humans and the departments responsibility is to keep the company from being sued.
until the resources are self-driving cars?
I've experienced this at just about every single non-startup that I've worked for.
Basically, once the company is big enough that you don't know everyone who works there, the evil actors and back stabbers emerge. Especially when a company is growing rapidly, you go from being a human in the eyes of others, to a performance report -- some numbers on paper.
My new strategy? Leave any company that gets bigger than 300 people or so. It's worked so far!
Basically, once the company is big enough that you don't know everyone who works there, the evil actors and back stabbers emerge. Especially when a company is growing rapidly, you go from being a human in the eyes of others, to a performance report -- some numbers on paper.
My new strategy? Leave any company that gets bigger than 300 people or so. It's worked so far!
I have friend who is an engineering middle manager at Uber. I was having drinks with him and some of his direct reports (including 2 women), and they all told me that they've never experienced or heard of any of this behavior until recently.
Obviously that's anecdata (although it has the benefit of me knowing that it's true, as opposed to Amy's story), but I think people are jumping to conclusions here.
It seems that there is some kind of problem at Uber. The scope and size of it remains to be seen.
Obviously that's anecdata (although it has the benefit of me knowing that it's true, as opposed to Amy's story), but I think people are jumping to conclusions here.
It seems that there is some kind of problem at Uber. The scope and size of it remains to be seen.
I wouldn't be willing to admit that I had seen that, or had experienced that in front of my direct manager. Especially given what happened to those who did try to report.
Yet another example, with lots more that won't come out publicly, of just how toxic Uber's culture of growth at any cost and personal allegiances to Travis really is. The current internal investigation by insiders is a complete joke and only a class action lawsuit can start to right the wrong.
How insidiously toxic. I cannot think of a better or more perfectly descriptive word than toxic (at least this is the word we use in the military for environments less bad than that).
> Therefore, it hurts me to say that despite my grit, I was not prepared to deal with the abuse and dehumanizing treatment I received from my supervisors and colleagues at Uber.
Nobody should expect to be so prepared. Nobody volunteers to become the equivalent of a prisoner of war.
> Therefore, it hurts me to say that despite my grit, I was not prepared to deal with the abuse and dehumanizing treatment I received from my supervisors and colleagues at Uber.
Nobody should expect to be so prepared. Nobody volunteers to become the equivalent of a prisoner of war.
This is terrible, and one more reason to despise Uber, but I find the usage of the word "survivor" out of place in this context, at least in my understanding of its meaning.
I know this is not the main point to take home from this situation, and I also know I'll be attacked from making it, but I felt it was important nonetheless.
I know this is not the main point to take home from this situation, and I also know I'll be attacked from making it, but I felt it was important nonetheless.
Her usage of "survivor" is appropriate both in terms of being alive (i.e. not committing suicide after traumatic experience) and being whole as a human being (i.e. having healed enough to function in society).
There are countless studies linking sexual harassment and intimidation to suicides, just look it up.
There are countless studies linking sexual harassment and intimidation to suicides, just look it up.
> just look it up.
How about citing a source if you make a claim?
How about citing a source if you make a claim?
It is far from unheard of for someone to kill themselves in these situations. Also, still working in the industry could be considered surviving and someone who left the industry due to this treatment could be considered someone who didn't survive.
So i'd say survivor fits perfectly.
So i'd say survivor fits perfectly.
Committing suicide over something like this seems a bit extreme. Don't want to trivialize her suffering, or the gravity of what happened, but infantilizing people also doesn't help in making them stronger.
Of course it's not up to me to decide when committing suicide makes sense (does it ever?), but this is the issue I see with the word "survivor": it seems to want to portray what happened in terms of a life threatening situation. As far as I can tell, it wasn't.
Now, back to the main issue, i.e. sexual harassment at Uber.
Of course it's not up to me to decide when committing suicide makes sense (does it ever?), but this is the issue I see with the word "survivor": it seems to want to portray what happened in terms of a life threatening situation. As far as I can tell, it wasn't.
Now, back to the main issue, i.e. sexual harassment at Uber.
[deleted]
Survivor i.e. being alive and not having killed herself - this type of abuse can drive people to kill themselves. Is that surprising? She may have also meant it in a less dramatic sense: been through it but got out. Many people who've been abused at Uber are probably still at Uber.
I'd like to thank these brave women for coming out and speaking against these evils. I rarely use Uber but more importantly, I'm not interviewing/working for Uber ever.
p.s. I've had one opportunity in the past that I declined due to lower pay package. Current one seems good, but I'm not going forward.
#nouber
p.s. I've had one opportunity in the past that I declined due to lower pay package. Current one seems good, but I'm not going forward.
#nouber
Don't "rarely" use it. Delete it. Now. Close your account, explaining to Uber why you've done so. Tweet/Facebook/Blog about having done so. Encourage all your friends, family, and coworkers to do the same - explaining exactly_ why you came to the decision.
There really is no other self respecting choice. Sitting on the fence is condoning and enabling their behaviour.
There really is no other self respecting choice. Sitting on the fence is condoning and enabling their behaviour.
[deleted]
OK, Uber is off the list for my next company. This toxic masculinity, whose dick is bigger contest is no good for stable person like me. Good luck with your alpha male culture, Uber :)
Edit: Triggered Uber employee just sent his downvote. Pretty affirming. Good job, Uber :):P
Edit: Triggered Uber employee just sent his downvote. Pretty affirming. Good job, Uber :):P
I assume (and have some anecdotal proof) that this type of stuff happens with regularity in other "older" industries. Go to any law office and you'll find women with horrifying stories.
Kudos to the tech community, the majority of whom, don't accept this type of reprehensible behavior.
Kudos to the tech community, the majority of whom, don't accept this type of reprehensible behavior.
I am aware of sexism in my field but the characters in article sound like bullshit to me. It is like all the evil characters from soap operas work at Uber now.
I can accept a few person in a big company is that racist/sexist, but whole company is like that or overlooks this stuff?
edit: to clarify, "I can accept" is used as "I find it possible". I am not saying it is keep such parties at a company. English is not my main language and I worded this very poorly
team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe
“You know what heels do don’t you?” he smirked while placing his hands on his behind so as to suggest that they make them look bigger. He then patted on my shoulder and squeezed it before walking away
I can accept a few person in a big company is that racist/sexist, but whole company is like that or overlooks this stuff?
edit: to clarify, "I can accept" is used as "I find it possible". I am not saying it is keep such parties at a company. English is not my main language and I worded this very poorly
Let's forget about the drama for a minute and focus on running an actual business.
It seems like a lot people are about to leave Uber and that's a business opportunity!
Here's a list of Uber employees that can be recruited away with little to moderate effort: https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...
It seems like a lot people are about to leave Uber and that's a business opportunity!
Here's a list of Uber employees that can be recruited away with little to moderate effort: https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...
Not sure I would want to hire some of them, if they think this behavior is normal.
If I were in a meeting and anyone referred to one of my coworkers as a "bitch" I would walk out of the meeting immediately and report it to HR. There's no way to know that the men in the room when "Amy" was insulted like that didn't report it to HR but it really makes me wonder.
There are so many more me in tech than women that they really do need us to be part of the fight against this shit. It is crazy to me that this kind of behavior really exists.
There are so many more me in tech than women that they really do need us to be part of the fight against this shit. It is crazy to me that this kind of behavior really exists.
>Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe. It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them. They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women.
This feels so unreal, just incredible! Amy Anon, time to sue Uber and get yourself a piece of the Uber VC. What kind of cretins work at Uber?
This feels so unreal, just incredible! Amy Anon, time to sue Uber and get yourself a piece of the Uber VC. What kind of cretins work at Uber?
Are there any female Uber employees on HN? I wonder what they think about a) the veracity of this claim and b) why they are sticking with Uber.
Why are male employees sticking with Uber?
What do _you_ think about "the veracity of this claim"? Is there really _any_ doubt in your mind about Uber's management and culture? Seriously?
I think it's legit. I wanted to solicit an insider's view, though I agree it may not be practical as I probably wouldn't post on HN even if I agreed.
Oh, man. Uber sounds like a seriously sick, toxic environment. Get rid of Travis, get rid of everyone in a management position, fire the HR team and actually make an attempt to better the working conditions at Uber.
I'm a man, and reading this plus Susan's story shared recently makes my stomach turn. It truly is sickening. I deleted Uber off my phone, I refuse to support a company that runs like a gentlemens club operating in 1955.
The sad thing about all of this is, when women report this kind of behaviour they get told to "report it", but it seems in the case of Uber (and who knows where else) these claims come with a huge cloud of being fired hanging over your head or they're just ignored.
I think Uber needs to be investigated by an impartial third-party and to be honest, the only way this will happen is if the investors step in and do something about it.
Fuck Uber.
I'm a man, and reading this plus Susan's story shared recently makes my stomach turn. It truly is sickening. I deleted Uber off my phone, I refuse to support a company that runs like a gentlemens club operating in 1955.
The sad thing about all of this is, when women report this kind of behaviour they get told to "report it", but it seems in the case of Uber (and who knows where else) these claims come with a huge cloud of being fired hanging over your head or they're just ignored.
I think Uber needs to be investigated by an impartial third-party and to be honest, the only way this will happen is if the investors step in and do something about it.
Fuck Uber.
Wow, while I expected more stories to surface, this one seems to be a whole different level. But then again, Uber seems to be a really dysfunctional company.
Rock the boat, people. You are a part of your company's culture: not an observer of it, not a victim of it.
From an article I wrote a couple years ago:
"My two cents for the conversation is pretty simple: there are only two different kinds of humans in the world: Those who actively exploit women, and those who actively speak out against the exploitation of women. Keeping your mouth shut for fear of rocking the boat -- this is a form of apathy all its own." http://ink.hackeress.com/2015/01/why-im-boat-rocker.html
From an article I wrote a couple years ago:
"My two cents for the conversation is pretty simple: there are only two different kinds of humans in the world: Those who actively exploit women, and those who actively speak out against the exploitation of women. Keeping your mouth shut for fear of rocking the boat -- this is a form of apathy all its own." http://ink.hackeress.com/2015/01/why-im-boat-rocker.html
This can be generalized to similar spectrum in quite a few domains: those who fear of rocking the boat on one end and those who do it without good reason. Part of working in a larger organization is the politics of knowing when the right time to speak up and make change is. I kind of wish I was working at Uber right now because now is the time for them.
Company that has skeezy and predatory business practices has skeezy and predatory company culture. God damn shocking
Speaking unsarcasticly, the women who are starting to come out and reveal this are very brave.
Speaking unsarcasticly, the women who are starting to come out and reveal this are very brave.
We have elected the president which "will grab them by the pussy" so we should not be surprised that Uber might have culture like this.
The problem is much deeper than just Uber...
The problem is much deeper than just Uber...
I can only imagine that the bulk of the employees at Uber in that room with her were young and still intoxicated by startup success to allow Mike#2 to say things like that.
I am 12 years away from the valley, but was at half a dozen startups in 20 years prior and I can't remember ever being on a team that would have put up with a manager saying something like that to a coworker.
I am 12 years away from the valley, but was at half a dozen startups in 20 years prior and I can't remember ever being on a team that would have put up with a manager saying something like that to a coworker.
>My paycheck is 18% less than my less qualified male colleagues.
I stopped reading after this line. Not because it cannot be true but because it reeks of agenda and made me doubt her credibility.
I stopped reading after this line. Not because it cannot be true but because it reeks of agenda and made me doubt her credibility.
by "agenda" do you mean the agenda of exposing sexism at Uber? because that's what the whole post is about.
and why exactly would it make you doubt her credibility?
and why exactly would it make you doubt her credibility?
A very sad read. Uber is in deep ethical trouble recently. Postpone that IPO plan guys.
Would not it be better if HR of your company can be managed by some third party with 100% transparency?
Would not it be better if HR of your company can be managed by some third party with 100% transparency?
It is very strange to me when I read these "Survivor" stories. I really can't relate to them not because I am a male and don't work in Silicon Valley but because I know I can and I have quit companies because I couldn't tolerate to work there. There is not fucking reason to keep suffering at a company for whatever reason. QUIT as soon as you feel unhappy let alone you come to a point where they "break" you. Are you kidding me? This is not North Korea. No one is forcing you to keep suffering. You are living in a goddam United State of America, and in a goddam Silicon Valley.
Uber is huge, it's recognizable, it's got interesting problems. Susan Fowler even wrote a bestselling book related to some of her work there. You get to work with a lot of smart people. That's a lot of motivation to try to stay despite bad things happening. It's easy to say in hindsight how bad it was, but I'd say most people want to try to do a good job and will expect some problems that they will just "have to deal with" with any work environment. But in the end, they realized the bad outweighed the good and they -did- quit.
She wrote: "Even though I don’t work at Uber any longer, the damage that was done to me by Uber’s work environment ruined my spirit."
you have stay until they kill your spirit just because Uber is a cool company?
I can imagine people keep staying there if they have to feed their hungry children and pay mortgage in a very bad economy, but not just because its a "Cool" company.
you have stay until they kill your spirit just because Uber is a cool company?
I can imagine people keep staying there if they have to feed their hungry children and pay mortgage in a very bad economy, but not just because its a "Cool" company.
I don't know why you're getting down-voated. In American culture, people feel trapped. I wrote about this a few years back: http://khanism.org/perspective/trapped-in-the-cubical/
And I also wrote about the dangers of job loyalty a few years later: http://khanism.org/society/loyalty/
It's like the Milgram experiments: people often don't realize they have options. They don't want to be one of those people who "keep switching jobs." My longest job on my CV is 2.5 years. Most are only 1 year. I worried a bit about job loyalty until I realized no one even read the dates on my resume. Average turnaround in our industry is 13 months.
You can get a new job. If you're afraid of jumping too much, don't have more than three a year. Surely 1/3 of those is going to be tolerable/not-horrible enough to get a nice 13 months on your CV. If you're in IT as a dev, admin or some kind of engineer, there is a ton of interesting work. I agree with you totally. There is no reason to stay in a shit job. There is plenty of interesting and challenging work in good places for both men and women in our industry.
And I also wrote about the dangers of job loyalty a few years later: http://khanism.org/society/loyalty/
It's like the Milgram experiments: people often don't realize they have options. They don't want to be one of those people who "keep switching jobs." My longest job on my CV is 2.5 years. Most are only 1 year. I worried a bit about job loyalty until I realized no one even read the dates on my resume. Average turnaround in our industry is 13 months.
You can get a new job. If you're afraid of jumping too much, don't have more than three a year. Surely 1/3 of those is going to be tolerable/not-horrible enough to get a nice 13 months on your CV. If you're in IT as a dev, admin or some kind of engineer, there is a ton of interesting work. I agree with you totally. There is no reason to stay in a shit job. There is plenty of interesting and challenging work in good places for both men and women in our industry.
Like I said hindsight is also the issue here.
It's easy to look back and say "Oh this is a bad company" but as it's happening it's easy to say "Oh this just happened once." or "Maybe it's me." or "Well Mike sucks, but I can deal with it, it's not that big of a deal, and there's a lot of benefits to staying like fulfilling work and being able to work with great minds. I've learned a lot from my other coworkers." or "Maybe I can change things, maybe things will get better." or "I can resolve this if I keep working with HR, it will be fixed soon."
Not-Amy said it was exhilarating the first 2 months, if overly hard work. In a company of that size, I too would totally expect working with HR to be the fix, as it usually is. I mean do you quit your job the instant you have a shitty coworker? I too would try to resolve my issues first internally first. Because that usually works. When that didn't work, she quit and rightly called them out on being ridiculous.
It's easy to look back and say "Oh this is a bad company" but as it's happening it's easy to say "Oh this just happened once." or "Maybe it's me." or "Well Mike sucks, but I can deal with it, it's not that big of a deal, and there's a lot of benefits to staying like fulfilling work and being able to work with great minds. I've learned a lot from my other coworkers." or "Maybe I can change things, maybe things will get better." or "I can resolve this if I keep working with HR, it will be fixed soon."
Not-Amy said it was exhilarating the first 2 months, if overly hard work. In a company of that size, I too would totally expect working with HR to be the fix, as it usually is. I mean do you quit your job the instant you have a shitty coworker? I too would try to resolve my issues first internally first. Because that usually works. When that didn't work, she quit and rightly called them out on being ridiculous.
At this point, after all the allegations of abuse and bad behavior at Uber, if the CEO is not fired, the community here must hold the Uber board complicit in these shenanigans. The situation here seems similar (or maybe worse) in magnitude as that at Zenefits. The board there took swift action once the accusations came out in public and perhaps saved the company (at least in the short term). What can the HN community, made up of founders/investors/technologists do here? Push for a consumer boycott of Uber? Refuse to work for Uber? Refuse to do business with Uber?
Although this post is anonymous, Given what has come out recently about Uber, I'm strongly inclined to believe what she wrote. If Uber gets into any more trouble then the board and investors will have to do something because the bad press would be directly hurting their business.
"Visibly angry, Mike#2 covered the microphone of the conference phone, he reached over to hold my hand tightly and told me to stop being a whiny little bitch."
I can't imagine that because someone performs well at their jobs they'd be entitled to treat another person in such a demeaning manner.
"Visibly angry, Mike#2 covered the microphone of the conference phone, he reached over to hold my hand tightly and told me to stop being a whiny little bitch."
I can't imagine that because someone performs well at their jobs they'd be entitled to treat another person in such a demeaning manner.
Why aren't any of these shitbags getting named?
This type of thing should ruin the guy's career.
Fair or not I'm just going to assume Travis and anyone working for him is just like this disgusting mike#2 fellow.
This type of thing should ruin the guy's career.
Fair or not I'm just going to assume Travis and anyone working for him is just like this disgusting mike#2 fellow.
innocent until proven guilty.
this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice:
1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately.
2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations.
until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.
this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice:
1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately.
2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations.
until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.
That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims).
It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying.
(Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).
It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying.
(Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).
I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true.
by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused.
the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.
by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused.
the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.
Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective.
So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you.
You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them?
I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.
So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you.
You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them?
I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.
because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused.
From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.
From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.
This is why: https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833
Even assuming no malice, a rational economic actor faced with a career-ending allegation of bad behavior is interested in discrediting the accusation via all possible means, including discrediting, shaming, or embarrassing the accuser to force a retraction.
And once you're assuming malice, they're especially interested in it.
Even assuming no malice, a rational economic actor faced with a career-ending allegation of bad behavior is interested in discrediting the accusation via all possible means, including discrediting, shaming, or embarrassing the accuser to force a retraction.
And once you're assuming malice, they're especially interested in it.
To my knowledge Susan didn't specifically name anyone?
It seems like the smear campaign will happen regardless as long as the woman is alleging bad behavior like this. (Presumably because there is a cadre of psychopaths who think this sort of sexism should be allowed).
So I don't see where the disincentive is for the abused to go nuclear first. (The abuser clearly has no compunction or ethics regarding escalating the situation, she's just a 'whiny little bitch' to him).
It seems like the smear campaign will happen regardless as long as the woman is alleging bad behavior like this. (Presumably because there is a cadre of psychopaths who think this sort of sexism should be allowed).
So I don't see where the disincentive is for the abused to go nuclear first. (The abuser clearly has no compunction or ethics regarding escalating the situation, she's just a 'whiny little bitch' to him).
Smear campaigns depend on the sympathy of outsiders. I can't smear anyone by myself, I smear them by convincing other people to believe negative things about the person I'm smearing.
If I can convince people to believe that someone accused me "falsely" by name and tried to ruin my career, I'm a lot more likely to gain the support of neutral outsiders against that person than if I go after someone who very carefully never named names.
If I can convince people to believe that someone accused me "falsely" by name and tried to ruin my career, I'm a lot more likely to gain the support of neutral outsiders against that person than if I go after someone who very carefully never named names.
That's the tipping point for me. I don't care about being ruthless in business, but you don't pull shit like this. No more Uber for me, although I enjoy using their service.
Everyone needs to #deleteuber.
Until and unless they have clear internal changes that allow female and minority engineers to work in a positive, equal pay for equal work environment.
And just to add an endorsement, Accenture is a highly evolved technology firm. If you're looking to work somewhere that treats everyone equally and would never tolerate a Mike #2, give them a shot. I am not an employee, but have done several contract stints internally and they are simply the best workplace I've ever been around.
There's really no reason not to name Mike #2. If this is real, he already knows who you are.
There's enough information given in the story that virtually anybody who worked at Uber can name the people involved. Public naming and shaming is understandably desired, but unnecessary. It invites legal action.
I wouldn't call it "unnecessary." Eventually Mike will quit or get fired, then repeat this behavior at another company.
This plus 1000. Look what happened with Amit Singhal.
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google...
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google...
So, just coming forward about these stories is impressive in itself. But both of the recent Uber stories have gone well beyond that: they're coming from people who had horrific experiences at the company and have not only worked up the courage to talk publicly about it, but have put together solid strategies for deflecting a lot of the scummy ways companies, and our society, would normally come after them.
To wit: Uber is a large company with fantastically deep pockets, a gaggle of high-powered lawyers, access to a strong media/PR machine, and a lot of glamour/adoration in the Silicon Valley/startup culture. But those strengths are being carefully neutered!
There's Susan Fowler's approach, which is first and foremost to make sure everybody knows she has documentation to back up her claims. That's a very clear message to Uber that 1) they never ever want to be in a discovery situation where she could start issuing subpoenas, since she's let them know that she knows where to get the damaging documents they don't want coming out, and 2) leaves them guessing just how much documentation she has, and so unsure of how to publicly reply: if they try to downplay the incidents she describes, or attack her record, they don't know whether she might produce proof that they're lying about it.
Then there's the approach here, which is detailed enough that the people it targets inside Uber certainly know who the author is and who she's writing about. But it does not divulge any identities with certainty to the public at large, which carries some similar "I left it at this level of detail, but maybe I could divulge a lot more if you provoked me" threat, but also makes it very difficult for Uber to attack her personally. To do so they'd have to out her and details of her employment record, and depending on the details that might put them obviously and publicly on the wrong side of a bunch of employment-related law as well as make them look like bullies.
I would barely be able to function, and maybe just wouldn't be able to, after some of the things that have been described as happening at Uber. I cannot imagine being able to not only call them out publicly, but also put together such a good strategy for doing so, and I have immense respect for Susan and "Amy" for managing it.
To wit: Uber is a large company with fantastically deep pockets, a gaggle of high-powered lawyers, access to a strong media/PR machine, and a lot of glamour/adoration in the Silicon Valley/startup culture. But those strengths are being carefully neutered!
There's Susan Fowler's approach, which is first and foremost to make sure everybody knows she has documentation to back up her claims. That's a very clear message to Uber that 1) they never ever want to be in a discovery situation where she could start issuing subpoenas, since she's let them know that she knows where to get the damaging documents they don't want coming out, and 2) leaves them guessing just how much documentation she has, and so unsure of how to publicly reply: if they try to downplay the incidents she describes, or attack her record, they don't know whether she might produce proof that they're lying about it.
Then there's the approach here, which is detailed enough that the people it targets inside Uber certainly know who the author is and who she's writing about. But it does not divulge any identities with certainty to the public at large, which carries some similar "I left it at this level of detail, but maybe I could divulge a lot more if you provoked me" threat, but also makes it very difficult for Uber to attack her personally. To do so they'd have to out her and details of her employment record, and depending on the details that might put them obviously and publicly on the wrong side of a bunch of employment-related law as well as make them look like bullies.
I would barely be able to function, and maybe just wouldn't be able to, after some of the things that have been described as happening at Uber. I cannot imagine being able to not only call them out publicly, but also put together such a good strategy for doing so, and I have immense respect for Susan and "Amy" for managing it.
The author could be afraid of lawsuits (even if it is true what she writes, that doesn't mean someone can't sue for libel/defamation/retaliate in some fashion).
I think it's about time Uber was slapped with a class action lawsuit by all of it's former employees who have faced similar workplace abuse. Uber may smear the reputation of one of two women who try to sue them and bury their case, but if they all come together and file a class action lawsuit then their case cannot be just thrown out or buried and Uber certainly cannot manage to smear the reputation of all the plaintiffs in the group. The #ubersurvivors have a very strong chance of getting justice that way. And when the case is so strong, with all victims coming together as one, they will even receive legal support from top lawyers, who will also want to take their case since it's stronger and winnable now, and if not for justice, they'll do it with the incentive of a cut from the compensation or the glory of suing a billion dollar company. The good thing about class action lawsuits is that it leaves no room for the judge or jury to believe that a dozen people are lying and cannot just ignore the plaintiffs' allegation and proofs (chats, emails, alibis). So, I hope the #ubersurvivors seriously consider coming together, teaming up and getting the justice they rightfully deserve.
[deleted]
I've said this elsewhere in comments, but people really need to let it sink in that HR is not there to help them, they are there to help the company.
It is never in their interest to say "You're right, let's go get that guy!" They are institutionally there to deflect and play things down and prevent law suits.
If you are abused, harassed, or mistreated, see a lawyer, not your company's HR team, who are only going to be advising their own lawyers later.
It is never in their interest to say "You're right, let's go get that guy!" They are institutionally there to deflect and play things down and prevent law suits.
If you are abused, harassed, or mistreated, see a lawyer, not your company's HR team, who are only going to be advising their own lawyers later.
If this is true, then it's horrifying. I didn't agree with the crowd and delete Uber earlier for the protest stuff, but if this is true, then bye-bye Uber.
I've had co-workers, upon a woman passing by in the cafeteria, say things like "would you do her?"
I told them "shut the fuck up. You debase yourself by saying shit like that." Look them in the eye, say it with the confidence of the truth you know it is. If HR wants to debate me on cursing my co-workers, I'd be happy to oblige. What are they going to say? Don't tell your coworkers it's wrong to demean women?
I told them "shut the fuck up. You debase yourself by saying shit like that." Look them in the eye, say it with the confidence of the truth you know it is. If HR wants to debate me on cursing my co-workers, I'd be happy to oblige. What are they going to say? Don't tell your coworkers it's wrong to demean women?
> Chauvinistic, racist and homophobic attitudes were far too normal at Uber
There should be a $10 fine every-time the wonderful word 'chauvinism' is misused. The law should nevertheless have an exception if the term is appropriately prefixed: 'male chauvinism' even if it hardly makes any sense (1).
For those who are curious, the term comes from a soldier named Nicolas Chauvin who lived around the turn of the 18th/19th century. The guy was exaggeratedly nationalistic and subject to mockeries in the pop culture. A 'chauvinistic' person is a person that pushes the boundaries of jingoism and patriotism to the extreme and ends being grotesque.
1:While tolerable, the term 'male chauvinism' makes no sense since a 'chauvinistic' attitude is supposed to contain a great deal of bad faith and demagoguery, and I'm afraid a lot of 'chauvinistic males' are actually sincere in their beliefs.
Apparently the misuse started in the 70s, not only in english but in german too (would love to hear a german speaking person weight on this). It's not too late, we can save this word, we can prevent it from being the new 'bistro'!
There should be a $10 fine every-time the wonderful word 'chauvinism' is misused. The law should nevertheless have an exception if the term is appropriately prefixed: 'male chauvinism' even if it hardly makes any sense (1).
For those who are curious, the term comes from a soldier named Nicolas Chauvin who lived around the turn of the 18th/19th century. The guy was exaggeratedly nationalistic and subject to mockeries in the pop culture. A 'chauvinistic' person is a person that pushes the boundaries of jingoism and patriotism to the extreme and ends being grotesque.
1:While tolerable, the term 'male chauvinism' makes no sense since a 'chauvinistic' attitude is supposed to contain a great deal of bad faith and demagoguery, and I'm afraid a lot of 'chauvinistic males' are actually sincere in their beliefs.
Apparently the misuse started in the 70s, not only in english but in german too (would love to hear a german speaking person weight on this). It's not too late, we can save this word, we can prevent it from being the new 'bistro'!
Someone should build an app that can help in compiling such cases by automatically recording audio/vid anytime it hears a voice(s) we teach/specify (HR conversations, managers etc...) After some time I am sure the case solidifies with proofs.
Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to pull your phone and open a recording app. It needs to be like siri and friends where once it recognizes a voice it starts recording.
Sometimes you don't have the opportunity to pull your phone and open a recording app. It needs to be like siri and friends where once it recognizes a voice it starts recording.
Except for the whole thing where it's illegal to record someone without their explicit consent.
"Travis is well known to protect high performing team leaders no matter how abusive they are towards their employees."
Time for this Travis dude to resign, right?
Time for this Travis dude to resign, right?
Noob auestion: why "Mike#2" instead of simply "Mike"?
To me, this detail seems like it was planted in the story to identify him specifically to the people who would "know" the signal. No idea how accurate that could be, though.
in case there are two "mike"s close to travis. 2 was hired after 1.
Very sad that I expected more stories like Susan's to come out.
I know you refer to the fact these stories happened; yes, very sad indeed.
But I'm happy all these stories are coming out. Definitely glad these women have had the courage to share them, hopefully enough public pressure can be built up to steer in the direction of change.
But I'm happy all these stories are coming out. Definitely glad these women have had the courage to share them, hopefully enough public pressure can be built up to steer in the direction of change.
Good point, yes! I definitely prefer their stories to be shared than hidden.
I know this is politics and maybe distracting from the main conversation but...
The United States voters just decided similar behavior is not disqualifying for the office of President. So how can we possibly convince other men this kind of behavior is not conducive to attaining the money, power, and influence they may desire?
The United States voters just decided similar behavior is not disqualifying for the office of President. So how can we possibly convince other men this kind of behavior is not conducive to attaining the money, power, and influence they may desire?
I think this differs from the election in that we, Silicon Valley, have tacitly assumed that "things are different here", that 2017 San Francisco is different than 2017 Louisiana.
That may be the case, but we still have a long way to go.
That may be the case, but we still have a long way to go.
> It was normal for me to get to work at 7 in the morning and leave late at night with only a thirty minute break in between.
Yep, sounds like a bad place to work.
Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley, there is really no need to put up with that or wait for evil managers to make the place hell.
Yep, sounds like a bad place to work.
Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley, there is really no need to put up with that or wait for evil managers to make the place hell.
It could take 6 months just to find a job, get through the recruiters, pass the whiteboard hazing, negotiate your package, and give notice. You're advocating starting your next job search your first day at the company.
I think you mean 1 ~ 2 months. In places like the Valley, Seattle, NYC .. the market is insane. You can pick up new jobs insanely fast.
I guess if you literally don't care what job you get, you could pick up a new one insanely fast. If you're targeting a handful of companies, or a better role than you have, I don't think the market is as rosy as you describe.
Depends on you current position and your salary.
There are really a lot of opportunities, if you have nothing outstanding it's not hard to get better.
There are really a lot of opportunities, if you have nothing outstanding it's not hard to get better.
> Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
They're _probably_ implying that 6 month stints on your CV don't look "bad" to a hiring manager.
I'm not in the valley, but here (in Sydney) I tend to ask questions about people changing jobs in 12 months or less, and more than one 6 month stint (especially consecutive ones) is a serious red flag (mostly due to local employment law and practices). There are a set of people who "interview well", but cant actually cut it in the roles they land - these people can _usually_ stick it out and fake their way through a 6 or 12 month stretch before getting fired or leaving because they know it's inevitable if they don't.
One six month stint in the middle of 18+ month stretches and you'll probably at least get an interview with questions asked about the short job (with even vaguely plausible answers "I hated the commute", "the manager I was working for left, and I didn't enjoy it as much after" would all be fine, if delivered with sincerity)
3 six month stints in a row, without provided upfront and verifiable explanations "these two were contracting engagements, that one was a company that folded 6 months after I started", you'll most likely not make it to the phone screen stage.
It's certainly different in the valley - but I still question how much a string of 6-ish month stints on your cv is gonna be read down the track...
I'm not in the valley, but here (in Sydney) I tend to ask questions about people changing jobs in 12 months or less, and more than one 6 month stint (especially consecutive ones) is a serious red flag (mostly due to local employment law and practices). There are a set of people who "interview well", but cant actually cut it in the roles they land - these people can _usually_ stick it out and fake their way through a 6 or 12 month stretch before getting fired or leaving because they know it's inevitable if they don't.
One six month stint in the middle of 18+ month stretches and you'll probably at least get an interview with questions asked about the short job (with even vaguely plausible answers "I hated the commute", "the manager I was working for left, and I didn't enjoy it as much after" would all be fine, if delivered with sincerity)
3 six month stints in a row, without provided upfront and verifiable explanations "these two were contracting engagements, that one was a company that folded 6 months after I started", you'll most likely not make it to the phone screen stage.
It's certainly different in the valley - but I still question how much a string of 6-ish month stints on your cv is gonna be read down the track...
Is that the acceptable minimum there? Like the two years in other areas?
Yes. Especially when you are young.
Hmmm, good to know thanks. I'm planning on heading over there for a while and I wasn't sure what the general attitude was towards employees leaving after 0.5/1/2 years.
I wonder what some of the considerations are for posting something like this under an alias v.s. attaching one's real name to a post. Obviously, one most likely wouldn't attach a real name to this kind of writing while one is working at the relevant company, but are there any other factors one might consider, aside from criticizing a current employer? Specifically, are there any possible concerns with being labelled a "problem case" and being blackballed in the tech industry as a whole?
Is the author's credibility hurt significantly by choosing to use a pseudonym, or is the power of the message not greatly impinged?
I have a huge amount of respect for anybody that has the courage to write about these kind of experiences, regardless of if a pseudonym is used or not.
Is the author's credibility hurt significantly by choosing to use a pseudonym, or is the power of the message not greatly impinged?
I have a huge amount of respect for anybody that has the courage to write about these kind of experiences, regardless of if a pseudonym is used or not.
Cannot believe people are assuming this completely anonymous post is true. Did people just forget the whole fake news thing just a couple of months back? This whole thing can be just creative writing for all we know. But this is armchair journalism at it's finest by HN readers.
Uber seems to be a slightly special case in terms of how blatant discrimination seems to be and the explicitly deceitful and in the obviously abusive responses from HR but the general problems of harassment and discrimination are not unique.
I'm aware of multiple issues at Google and issues at Docker (although not the full details of that one). HR being useless and protecting company and senior management is common although they may be less blatant about it than Uber. Google is obviously huge so many areas may be OK.
Those are just issues I'm aware of following a few women on Twitter, they are the tip of the iceberg, some issues never come out at all, others are privately shard between women and others that might be vulnerable (I'm not in that loop).
I'm aware of multiple issues at Google and issues at Docker (although not the full details of that one). HR being useless and protecting company and senior management is common although they may be less blatant about it than Uber. Google is obviously huge so many areas may be OK.
Those are just issues I'm aware of following a few women on Twitter, they are the tip of the iceberg, some issues never come out at all, others are privately shard between women and others that might be vulnerable (I'm not in that loop).
what every man needs to ask himself and reflect on:
- would i stand up to a pig in the room
- would i stand up to a pig in the room that is way up the ladder
- would i stand up to a pig in the room
- would i stand up to a pig in the room that is way up the ladder
- and have I had my snout in the trough alongside my coworkers so long that I don't even realise the rest of the world can all see my curly tail...
I think a reasonable reaction would be to stand up and slap him around for a good few seconds (10 should do the trick). Then proceed to go to HR to report the guy and threaten with a lawsuit if he's not instantly fired. There you go. As an engineer in California you should be able to find another workplace if they decide to fire you instead.
Rise up people and take action. Boycott uber and let them fail. As others have said, there are plenty of other companies in the space ready to fill the void. #deleteuber
I don't understand why these jobs are even worth it to anyone? How much are they making 130-160k to work 16 hour days and are abused on top of that? Fuck that.
It's a sign that the election hysteria is finally fading that we are back in the thrall of these corporate kiss-and-tell scandals and intrigues. Thank god.
Its appalling she went through that and shameful to see people like this Mike #2 exist in the tech world in 2017. From what I can gather he still works there.
It looks like the HR department at Uber exists purely to manage employee pay and nothing else. They are severely defanged and pander to star hires. At this point they could may be replace them all with some API and be done with it.
It looks like the HR department at Uber exists purely to manage employee pay and nothing else. They are severely defanged and pander to star hires. At this point they could may be replace them all with some API and be done with it.
Why do you people continue working at a second rate company like this? Horrible culture, long hours, low pay, and you're getting paid in worthless stock options. All promises and bullshit. You can be sure management will do everything they can to prevent you from cashing in those options and forcing you to stay at the company for as long as possible.
Id like to see a corporate war between male dominant uber and an all female ride sharing competitor.
It's 2017, why isn't there any video or audio of these things? Why hasn't this guy been outed yet?
After the first time this happened I'd be recording everything and waiting to get a huge payout when I sue (or at least a settlement for a few years salary).
After the first time this happened I'd be recording everything and waiting to get a huge payout when I sue (or at least a settlement for a few years salary).
horrific - how can this really be happening in 2016 ?
I have great news for you! It's not. It's 2017
Your parent may be referring to the events described that happened prior to 2017.
sigh just trying to lighten the mood with a joke. -2 for that. Thanks HN. He did use the present tense :-P
serious comment: I think it's great these stories are getting out. Now women know what they will face at Uber. And perhaps someone will have the strength to sue them for discrimination.
serious comment: I think it's great these stories are getting out. Now women know what they will face at Uber. And perhaps someone will have the strength to sue them for discrimination.
Yeah, this can be a pretty serious crowd (which I actually think is a strength of HN, as humor can be so easily misinterpreted on Internet forums).
You've likely noticed how contentious and combative this topic has been in particular. A lot of people seem to be looking for any excuse to undercut another's comments. While that wasn't your intent, the lack of good faith that some people grant others can lead to unfortunate behavior. That's why I commented, by the way: to point out you may be misunderstanding your parent, not assuming you were acting in bad faith.
Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.
You've likely noticed how contentious and combative this topic has been in particular. A lot of people seem to be looking for any excuse to undercut another's comments. While that wasn't your intent, the lack of good faith that some people grant others can lead to unfortunate behavior. That's why I commented, by the way: to point out you may be misunderstanding your parent, not assuming you were acting in bad faith.
Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.
> That's why I commented, by the way: to point out you may be misunderstanding your parent, not assuming you were acting in bad faith.
> Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.
Thanks, you too! =)
> Anyway, I hope you have a better day :) Be well.
Thanks, you too! =)
[deleted]
I'm not sure the author wants to be anonymous. The amount of data she shared about herself in the third paragraph is probably enough to social engineer your way to her true identity.
This seems to be common in highly competitive companies. Uber has been ruthless and that has helped them grow so fast while ignoring these complaints. This cannot go on for long.
Is survivor really the right word here?
The pointless hyperbole makes it easy for those who would want so (subconsciously or not) to discard the real story here, of the toxic company culture.
The pointless hyperbole makes it easy for those who would want so (subconsciously or not) to discard the real story here, of the toxic company culture.
this is awful.
[deleted]
My friend worked for the Santa Monica office and told me some wacky stories. Sounds like Uber needs an HR overhaul.
[deleted]
Someone puts hands on you at work, file an assault complaint with the police. Period.
the number rule for men is, don't pursue women from work.
I would NEVER EVER approach HR department of corporate America for anything except for maybe asking for a tissue box at my desk.
For those young enough to be thinking about approaching HR for issues as nefarious as this, well, now you know.
For those young enough to be thinking about approaching HR for issues as nefarious as this, well, now you know.
I disagree with this. Most HR departments are functional and would take care of this problem. If you approach HR and they are unhelpful or place the blame on you, it's time to switch jobs, if possible.
Not having been in the silicone valley culture, I'm wondering how does racism typically work in that environment, given a disproportionate percentage of the work force are asian and south asian.
You hear that? Uber stock crashing in background
>“There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart."
"Oh, we are doing pet names for our coworkers now? From now on I will refer to you as 'dickhead'".
"Oh, we are doing pet names for our coworkers now? From now on I will refer to you as 'dickhead'".
My friend worked for the Santa Monica office and told me some wacky stories as well. This place needs an HR overhaul.
Jesus effing Christ, how is this company even holding together?
Where is Mike #1?
> tried to trigger me
Man, I really wish the internet hadn't decided that "trigger" means to anger or upset someone instead of the original meaning: provoke an anxiety or panic attack, like lighting firecrackers around war veterans.
Not that what Uber is doing here to "Amy" isn't despicable. I'm just a little bothered by this relatively frivolous usage of the word "trigger" compared to the original purpose for using it: to highlight the experiences of those suffering from PTSD. PTSD can come in many forms, not just from wartime trauma. That's what "triggering" someone was about.
Man, I really wish the internet hadn't decided that "trigger" means to anger or upset someone instead of the original meaning: provoke an anxiety or panic attack, like lighting firecrackers around war veterans.
Not that what Uber is doing here to "Amy" isn't despicable. I'm just a little bothered by this relatively frivolous usage of the word "trigger" compared to the original purpose for using it: to highlight the experiences of those suffering from PTSD. PTSD can come in many forms, not just from wartime trauma. That's what "triggering" someone was about.
I think part of what made Susan Fowler's account credible to many people was that she didn't use the same terminology as university political groups (trigger, survivor, etc).
The title, "I am an Uber Survivor", and the first few paragraphs, made me immediately skeptical. After she revealed specific examples of Uber's toxic culture, I began to feel quite guilty.
The title, "I am an Uber Survivor", and the first few paragraphs, made me immediately skeptical. After she revealed specific examples of Uber's toxic culture, I began to feel quite guilty.
>I think part of what made Susan Fowler's account credible to many people was that she didn't use the same terminology as university political groups (trigger, survivor, etc).
Yeah, you have to look at this girl's age and background. It makes sense that she's going to use that terminology. Every generation has different ways of talking about things.
Yeah, you have to look at this girl's age and background. It makes sense that she's going to use that terminology. Every generation has different ways of talking about things.
Fowler's post was incredibly well written and showed the power of understatement.
She is very careful but smart about her article. Title reads "Reflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber", doesn't seem very accusatory to me, however this only makes the what the article presents even more absurd.
The word has lots of original meanings, many of which are quite disparate:
"Large price increases could trigger demands for even larger wage increases."
"His unpleasant remark triggered an argument that almost cost them their friendship"
"Studies show that lack of water is the number one trigger of daytime fatigue for Americans."
And so on. The usage you're citing is relatively recent jargon.
"Large price increases could trigger demands for even larger wage increases."
"His unpleasant remark triggered an argument that almost cost them their friendship"
"Studies show that lack of water is the number one trigger of daytime fatigue for Americans."
And so on. The usage you're citing is relatively recent jargon.
Yes, that's exactly the problem: it's psychological jargon. People started using it in a jargon way to try to explain to others what PTSD is like. It was supposed to evoke compassion from people if they understood what triggering someone was. Instead it became a point of ridicule and mockery, "oh, I hurt your feelings? Did I trigger you, sweetheart?"
I think people need to realize that using psychological terms casually isn't like using other scientific concepts casually: doing so tends to trivialize mental illnesses most people already poorly understand.
Then I suppose it hasn't worked has it. Efforts to unilaterally redefine common words are not always successful.
The word, when used as a verb, originally refers to a consequential relationship between two entities. According to Webster's something triggers when it "initiates, actuates or sets off" another thing. It appears her usage of the word is entirely and completely correct.
The word, when used as a verb, originally refers to a consequential relationship between two entities. According to Webster's something triggers when it "initiates, actuates or sets off" another thing. It appears her usage of the word is entirely and completely correct.
For some people i know who have PTSD and/or deal with people with PTSD, an attack can mean complete personality and identity disassociation that absolutely requires police involvement and in the aftermath of which having neither them nor anyone else die is a blessing. And that's with people who're entirely excellent at any other minute in their life.
As such, i entirely agree that frivolous use of the word is at best annoying when it comes from people who have no idea what it means.
As such, i entirely agree that frivolous use of the word is at best annoying when it comes from people who have no idea what it means.
I wholeheartedly agree, and considered making a comment about the same point, but in all honestly, I think it's a small quibble in the grand scheme of what the article is about.
Yes, I don't want to blame "Amy" for this. Lots of people have started using the word this way. It is a minor quibble. Perhaps you're right that by bringing this up, I'm distracting from the major point of her article. I still want to leave it up, though.
"tried to trigger me and insulted my intelligence to see if I break under pressure"
I'm much more astounded that this is their interview technique.
I'm much more astounded that this is their interview technique.
I actually think this is a very important process in order to get rid of the weight a word carries.
The "triggered" lead us to "triggered snowflakes". "Fake news" has undergone a similar transformation, ie from a term of old media brands branding themselves as the "real news" authority, towards now an ironic term for anything you don't like. What impresses me the most is how fast these tonalities change.
It's especially silly in the context of an interview. While an interview shouldn't be an inquisition, it obviously does have some areas where you're being put on the spot, on purpose.
Note: Specifically staying just on the "trigger" topic. Not disregarding the level of concern that the story brings, assuming it is true.
Note: Specifically staying just on the "trigger" topic. Not disregarding the level of concern that the story brings, assuming it is true.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Trigger warnings" come from liberal arts colleges afraid of upsetting students with material that the previous generation of students coped with somehow, that's the first time I heard it used in this context.
We live in a world of fake news, but anyone who questions an anonymous blog post during a media hype-cycle surrounding Uber's sexual harassment allegations is flagged? It's important to be more diligent in these times, not less.
[deleted]
This is one of the most heavily flagged submissions I've seen in a while - hit #2 with 70 points, and now is at #6 with 174 points in 40 min, while the new #2 is 124 points in 2 hours.
I'm one of the flaggers.
This is an entirely anonymous complaint with no particular reason why anyone would believe it. A lot of it read to me as too perfect. Too designed to hit all of the right buttons to generate outrage.
I won't deny that it could be true. But I'd also give that possibility under even odds. And if stories like this are true, then we'll likely have enough opportunity to learn that later to give this version undue attention.
This is an entirely anonymous complaint with no particular reason why anyone would believe it. A lot of it read to me as too perfect. Too designed to hit all of the right buttons to generate outrage.
I won't deny that it could be true. But I'd also give that possibility under even odds. And if stories like this are true, then we'll likely have enough opportunity to learn that later to give this version undue attention.
Agreed. Way too much vitriol and the details are too perfect to be believable. I'm flagging as well.
I don't think that's an appropriate use of flag:
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top.
The story is not spam, not off-topic, and has a good chance of being non-egregious. It's certainly true it could be wrong, but that's very different.
(Maybe I'm wrong about appropriate use of flagging? I'd concede that it's fair for you to downvote it, but I suspect HN has disabled downvotes on stories for a reason, and using flagging as a pseudo-downvote seems wrong.)
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top.
The story is not spam, not off-topic, and has a good chance of being non-egregious. It's certainly true it could be wrong, but that's very different.
(Maybe I'm wrong about appropriate use of flagging? I'd concede that it's fair for you to downvote it, but I suspect HN has disabled downvotes on stories for a reason, and using flagging as a pseudo-downvote seems wrong.)
My stated belief was that there are greater than even odds that it is propaganda. Propaganda is a form of spam.
Even worse, propaganda is a particularly nasty form of spam since it tries to alter your belief system such that future propaganda will seem more reasonable to you. Therefore maintaining a keen sense of what is possible propaganda is very important. A healthy brain should immediately try to verify anything that could be propaganda from any ideological position, and reject out of hand anything that cannot be verified.
This will only become more important as the world continues its slide towards fake news and echo chambers.
Even worse, propaganda is a particularly nasty form of spam since it tries to alter your belief system such that future propaganda will seem more reasonable to you. Therefore maintaining a keen sense of what is possible propaganda is very important. A healthy brain should immediately try to verify anything that could be propaganda from any ideological position, and reject out of hand anything that cannot be verified.
This will only become more important as the world continues its slide towards fake news and echo chambers.
Oh no, propaganda that might alter our belief system into respecting female employees! Better reject that out of hand...
There are always two sides to a story. Having everyone believe the woman because she is a woman is a short road to seeing the system abused. Ever seen a false accusation of sexual harassment? I have.
The more important the cause, and the more serious the claim, the more important it is to proceed carefully and not rush to conclusions.
The more important the cause, and the more serious the claim, the more important it is to proceed carefully and not rush to conclusions.
It might not technically break any HN rules, but it's kind of saddening to see what's so far an anonymous accusation it make it so deep into the front page.
Combined with the other recent bad press Uber's getting, it's admittedly not looking good for them, but on the other hand any of us _could_ have signed up for Medium and published an article like this.
Combined with the other recent bad press Uber's getting, it's admittedly not looking good for them, but on the other hand any of us _could_ have signed up for Medium and published an article like this.
I don't think it's flag-worthy because it absolutely could be true. It's not like anything here is that difficult to believe given previous insider reports from Uber. None of the claims here are that absurd.
But, yes, it could easily be an anonymous troll. It needs verification.
But, yes, it could easily be an anonymous troll. It needs verification.
Not even halfway through reading it and I swore that somehow I must have missed that today was April 1st. Extremely sad if true, however highly questionable whether it is true.
HN hates anything that bashes the misogynist culture of Silicon Valley. This story will be flagged dead shortly.
Ideologues of all flavors frequently diss HN like this. Someone needs to stand up for the community, so I guess I will. This was a slur, and your prediction turning out consummately wrong illustrates this nicely.
I think it's in poor taste to diss a group with grand rhetoric whilst participating in it, since you're as much a part of it as anyone else. If you think so poorly of your community, perhaps find a different one and post nastily there. I hear Twitter is good for that.
The reality of the HN community is that it's divided much the way that society at large is. The comments here inevitably reflect that. It's a mixed bag, a lot of what's in that bag isn't great and a small portion is awful, but (a) this community does manage somewhat better than most of the rest of the internet and (b) far more of the participants here are thoughtful and decent than otherwise.
I think it's in poor taste to diss a group with grand rhetoric whilst participating in it, since you're as much a part of it as anyone else. If you think so poorly of your community, perhaps find a different one and post nastily there. I hear Twitter is good for that.
The reality of the HN community is that it's divided much the way that society at large is. The comments here inevitably reflect that. It's a mixed bag, a lot of what's in that bag isn't great and a small portion is awful, but (a) this community does manage somewhat better than most of the rest of the internet and (b) far more of the participants here are thoughtful and decent than otherwise.
I'm glad more of this stuff is coming out. As a male, I've been demeaned by a woman at one of the largest tech companies on earth. I ended up quitting, and I last I heard that woman was demoted/fire.
Our media is super powerful, and I love getting more of this out. 1984 can't happen with a free press.
Our media is super powerful, and I love getting more of this out. 1984 can't happen with a free press.
Another article with some fake name and pull the woman card to justify slandering....Uber probably did not meet your expectations but for sure they aren't much worse than most companies in this field.
"In essence, the HR department blackmailed me that if I make noise, I’d be fired. I was distraught by the HR department’s response especially considering that most of the HR folks I dealt with were women."
Say it over and over, say it loud, and say it to every single person entering the US workforce from day one:
H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
Amy's situation was grave, and kudos to her for getting out. But everyone should read these stories and burn this line into their heads permanently.
Say it over and over, say it loud, and say it to every single person entering the US workforce from day one:
H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
Amy's situation was grave, and kudos to her for getting out. But everyone should read these stories and burn this line into their heads permanently.
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
>H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
Point of order here. HR acts in management's best interests, not necessarily the company's. It's pretty clear that HR's actions here are not in the company's best interests given how much of a shitfest this has been for Uber. They gave cover for people who were not acting in Uber's best interests and, as a result, Uber lost all their goodwill, they're bleeding talent, and you'd have to be delusional to think toxic norms like this haven't been affecting their morale and productivity.
Management's interests are separate from the best interests of the company. Shareholder interests are separate from the best interests of the company. A company is made up of employees, management, shareholders, AND clients all together. All of them are stakeholders and its best interests are the things that properly balance the needs of everyone to fulfill its mission or goal. It's neoliberal bullshit to claim that only management and shareholders matter, and the sooner we accept that the sooner we can make our corporate governance tack into a sane direction.
Point of order here. HR acts in management's best interests, not necessarily the company's. It's pretty clear that HR's actions here are not in the company's best interests given how much of a shitfest this has been for Uber. They gave cover for people who were not acting in Uber's best interests and, as a result, Uber lost all their goodwill, they're bleeding talent, and you'd have to be delusional to think toxic norms like this haven't been affecting their morale and productivity.
Management's interests are separate from the best interests of the company. Shareholder interests are separate from the best interests of the company. A company is made up of employees, management, shareholders, AND clients all together. All of them are stakeholders and its best interests are the things that properly balance the needs of everyone to fulfill its mission or goal. It's neoliberal bullshit to claim that only management and shareholders matter, and the sooner we accept that the sooner we can make our corporate governance tack into a sane direction.
> H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
You're right, and here's the thing. It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Similarly, it's surprising to me that Uber HR hasn't done the mental calculus to figure out that these women have a solid case, and just fix the problem. Or, most disturbingly, Uber HR DID do the mental calculus, determined neither woman would sue; and, therefore, made the correct choices as "best for the company."
Either way, I'm taking Lyft.
You're right, and here's the thing. It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Similarly, it's surprising to me that Uber HR hasn't done the mental calculus to figure out that these women have a solid case, and just fix the problem. Or, most disturbingly, Uber HR DID do the mental calculus, determined neither woman would sue; and, therefore, made the correct choices as "best for the company."
Either way, I'm taking Lyft.
> It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard.
Reasons to pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* You may make some money.
Reasons to not pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being.
* Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty.
* You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom.
* With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes.
* You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit.
* You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again.
* You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that.
* If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy.
It's easy to suggest the nuclear option when you have no skin in the game.
Reasons to pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* You may make some money.
Reasons to not pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being.
* Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty.
* You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom.
* With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes.
* You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit.
* You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again.
* You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that.
* If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy.
It's easy to suggest the nuclear option when you have no skin in the game.
I completely agree with all this, I just think it's frustrating for a lot of people when you see a terrible situation that's supposed to have judicial remedies, but in practice that system just doesn't work.
This is sort of the best of all possible worlds. Any time there's a problem, everyone involved can just say "oh, she should sue" and "why doesn't she sue, there are lots of legal remedies".
And then if she spoke with a lawyer, that lawyer would point to all the problems listed above plus many more (the difficulty of proving damages, for one) and would almost certainly try to dissuade her from suing no matter how grievous her treatment, and if she did sue, she would likely lose. The legal remedies are so weak as to be non-existent, but their existence is beneficial to wrong-doers, who can hide behind them and pretend they are effective and powerful.
And then if she spoke with a lawyer, that lawyer would point to all the problems listed above plus many more (the difficulty of proving damages, for one) and would almost certainly try to dissuade her from suing no matter how grievous her treatment, and if she did sue, she would likely lose. The legal remedies are so weak as to be non-existent, but their existence is beneficial to wrong-doers, who can hide behind them and pretend they are effective and powerful.
The difficulty in employment harassment/constructive termination cases is seldom in the quantum determination step.
So offer to fund a lawsuit and the living expenses and career setbacks of fighting one.
Oh, you neither, huh?
See?
Oh, you neither, huh?
See?
This is why I think state Attorney Generals should be given the authority to sue on behalf of those affected when a systemic problem like this comes to light.
Important other reason to pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* It gives other survivors a statement of solidarity and validates their experiences. It says that other survivors really weren't crazy; that others had this experience too. For someone who's left doubting their sanity after an incident like this happened, this kind of support is immensely powerful.
* It forces these incidents to be drawn into the eyes of the public.
Uber's rotten culture is only getting attention because someone spoke up.
I see all the negatives you mentioned as failures of our litigation-after-sexual-harassment model that we should seek to address. There's nothing that says we should make barriers to litigation and cost of failure so high.
* It gives other survivors a statement of solidarity and validates their experiences. It says that other survivors really weren't crazy; that others had this experience too. For someone who's left doubting their sanity after an incident like this happened, this kind of support is immensely powerful.
* It forces these incidents to be drawn into the eyes of the public.
Uber's rotten culture is only getting attention because someone spoke up.
I see all the negatives you mentioned as failures of our litigation-after-sexual-harassment model that we should seek to address. There's nothing that says we should make barriers to litigation and cost of failure so high.
There's nothing we can do to fix our legal system to make it worthwhile for women to pursue these cases. Our political and legal systems are utterly broken: just look at the latest election for proof. Women who avoid pursuing litigation are simply being realistic with the way things are in America these days. And of course, the people who insist that they should sacrifice their lives to fix this problem are people who have nothing to lose themselves.
> There's nothing that says we should make barriers to litigation and cost of failure so high.
Who said anything about "should"? The fact is that the barriers are that high.
Who said anything about "should"? The fact is that the barriers are that high.
You're right. Might as well bury our heads in the sand then; nothing can be done. /s
We can't improve things until we allow ourselves to imagine better realities. There's nothing wrong with that.
We can't improve things until we allow ourselves to imagine better realities. There's nothing wrong with that.
There really needs to be a Government organization that can investigate these claims, that employees could report incidents to instead of HR. Like a beefed up Department of Labor that is responsive to employee needs. Tax the corporation to pay for it and dissolve corporations that are repeat offenders.
There is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_C...
I'd never know about it, except, a while ago, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked there. During his confirmation hearings there was a real political shitstorm about what might nor might not have transpired there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Anita_Hill_all...
I'd never know about it, except, a while ago, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked there. During his confirmation hearings there was a real political shitstorm about what might nor might not have transpired there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Anita_Hill_all...
There is the EEOC. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/filing_complaint....
[deleted]
Not to mention it may be hard to get hired at a different company if you do lose.
[deleted]
Great list, great comment, well done.
IANAL. You are absolutely right in all regards about this (with the exception of your last point which is FUD). However, there is one interesting option which may negate some of these issues. That option would be a Class Action. If enough women and minorities came forward with verifiable claims of systemic discrimination they could band together and reduce the amount of over all problems with the law suit by having increased numbers. Technically, there is no minimum number of plaintiffs to designate a Class Action. But for all practical purposes you need greater than 20. From the fact that #ubersurvivor is turning into a thing, I believe finding the right number of people would be possible. Here is how a class action would change your reasons not to pursue sexual harassment litigation:
* You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being. -- You would not have to pay an enormous amount for this. Though it would take a lot of time you are right
* Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty. -- This is almost always true but cases cost a whole lot to run and manage.
* You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom. -- With a class action you have far more people to fight on your side, making cross X a lot less scary, if it ever gets to the trial stage.
* With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes. -- It is much harder to smear a group.
* You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit. -- You want to program in peace for the rest of your life. A class action sends a message to all companies that they cannot act like this.
* You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again. -- True and a class action will help to end the nightmare.
* You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that. -- As a class action member you are less likely to be singled out
* If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy. --This is FUD. Nevertheless, by being associated with a class action you are far less likely to be singled out for issues. It's even quite hard for them to counter-sue in a class action.
While the legal option is hard and can be scary, it is not a bad option to pursue.
* You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being. -- You would not have to pay an enormous amount for this. Though it would take a lot of time you are right
* Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty. -- This is almost always true but cases cost a whole lot to run and manage.
* You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom. -- With a class action you have far more people to fight on your side, making cross X a lot less scary, if it ever gets to the trial stage.
* With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes. -- It is much harder to smear a group.
* You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit. -- You want to program in peace for the rest of your life. A class action sends a message to all companies that they cannot act like this.
* You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again. -- True and a class action will help to end the nightmare.
* You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that. -- As a class action member you are less likely to be singled out
* If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy. --This is FUD. Nevertheless, by being associated with a class action you are far less likely to be singled out for issues. It's even quite hard for them to counter-sue in a class action.
While the legal option is hard and can be scary, it is not a bad option to pursue.
> With a class action you have far more people to fight on your side, making cross X a lot less scary, if it ever gets to the trial stage.
That's not how class action lawsuits work. It's highly unlikely that 'women and LGBT persons of all genders who were abused by shitty bosses at Uber' will be found, by a court, to be a class. The class-action will be dismissed before it even gets to determining wrong-doing.
You can have a class action lawsuit over your employer, say, stealing wages from 10,000 employees.
You cannot have a class action lawsuit if 12 people have been harassed and abused by their managers. (The fact that the practice is widespread will impact judgements, but it does not mean that 12 people form a 'class action'.) [1]
Even more importantly, sexual harassment cases by their nature, require each case to be evaluated on its merits. Just because Claire, Adam, and Barbara have been abused by their bosses, doesn't mean that Donna can piggyback onto the lawsuit, and claim damages, without having her case examined as thoroughly as theirs.
> This is FUD.
No, it's not - not if you lose. If they win the case, Uber can, and almost certainly will countersue. (For PR reasons, they would prefer to avoid suing you if you just complain on your blog.) The first Google hit for your name will be about how you sued your employer, and lost.
Yes, there is the social benefit of these cases going to trial (Preventing future abuse in other companies), but not everyone wants to be a martyr.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_certificati...
That's not how class action lawsuits work. It's highly unlikely that 'women and LGBT persons of all genders who were abused by shitty bosses at Uber' will be found, by a court, to be a class. The class-action will be dismissed before it even gets to determining wrong-doing.
You can have a class action lawsuit over your employer, say, stealing wages from 10,000 employees.
You cannot have a class action lawsuit if 12 people have been harassed and abused by their managers. (The fact that the practice is widespread will impact judgements, but it does not mean that 12 people form a 'class action'.) [1]
Even more importantly, sexual harassment cases by their nature, require each case to be evaluated on its merits. Just because Claire, Adam, and Barbara have been abused by their bosses, doesn't mean that Donna can piggyback onto the lawsuit, and claim damages, without having her case examined as thoroughly as theirs.
> This is FUD.
No, it's not - not if you lose. If they win the case, Uber can, and almost certainly will countersue. (For PR reasons, they would prefer to avoid suing you if you just complain on your blog.) The first Google hit for your name will be about how you sued your employer, and lost.
Yes, there is the social benefit of these cases going to trial (Preventing future abuse in other companies), but not everyone wants to be a martyr.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_certificati...
Please don't misunderstand the following comment to mean that I am defending Uber. I quit using Uber over a year ago when I first learned of some of their business practices.
>It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages.
These cases are tough to win, even in a liberal jurisdiction like SF. For example, does "Amy" have any witnesses that are willing to testify about what they saw? Sure, a subpoena can compel them to testify, but if the men who were present are still working there, how likely is it that they are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under questioning?
The calculus becomes "keep my current job that is paying my bills, and maybe get a raise/promotion soon" vs. "stick my neck out for someone who no longer works here."
Sure, there are good lawyers who could maybe trip them up, but now you're treating what should be friendly or neutral witnesses as hostile witnesses. And Uber has some good lawyers too, obviously.
Further, even if some of these guys have moved on to other companies, they have to calculate how testifying in Amy's favor might come back to bite them later. With a guy like Travis who lacks good character (according to all the accounts I've read, anyway), it will come back to bite them sooner than later.
So "open-and-shut" is usually not really at all, but rather a less than 50% chance of recovering damages after years of difficult litigation. Unless, of course, you have lots of really good documentary evidence that's admissible.
>It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages.
These cases are tough to win, even in a liberal jurisdiction like SF. For example, does "Amy" have any witnesses that are willing to testify about what they saw? Sure, a subpoena can compel them to testify, but if the men who were present are still working there, how likely is it that they are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under questioning?
The calculus becomes "keep my current job that is paying my bills, and maybe get a raise/promotion soon" vs. "stick my neck out for someone who no longer works here."
Sure, there are good lawyers who could maybe trip them up, but now you're treating what should be friendly or neutral witnesses as hostile witnesses. And Uber has some good lawyers too, obviously.
Further, even if some of these guys have moved on to other companies, they have to calculate how testifying in Amy's favor might come back to bite them later. With a guy like Travis who lacks good character (according to all the accounts I've read, anyway), it will come back to bite them sooner than later.
So "open-and-shut" is usually not really at all, but rather a less than 50% chance of recovering damages after years of difficult litigation. Unless, of course, you have lots of really good documentary evidence that's admissible.
> multi-millions in damages. It's surprising
> to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard.
I also find this surprising to the point of puzzling. Yes, HR (+legal) works for the company, ALWAYS. However, protecting the company from multi-million dollar lawsuits and potential negative publicity certainly falls within the remit, and removing offenders and mollifying victims would be the way to go.
So something doesn't quite add up, and I have a hard time believing "oh, we know that they won't sue" would be sufficient. Then again...hubris.
> to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard.
I also find this surprising to the point of puzzling. Yes, HR (+legal) works for the company, ALWAYS. However, protecting the company from multi-million dollar lawsuits and potential negative publicity certainly falls within the remit, and removing offenders and mollifying victims would be the way to go.
So something doesn't quite add up, and I have a hard time believing "oh, we know that they won't sue" would be sufficient. Then again...hubris.
> It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages.
Is it possible that their contracts are written in such a way as to preclude this? Which if so is gross and shouldn't be allowed by contract law IMO, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Is it possible that their contracts are written in such a way as to preclude this? Which if so is gross and shouldn't be allowed by contract law IMO, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I severely doubt such a contract would hold up in court.
The Ellen Pao case found that, at least in California, an arbitration clause did not hold up. Hence why, despite her employer having such a clause in her contract, she was still able to go to trial.
Are you certain enough of that you'd personally risk taking on Uber's legal team using your own time, money, and reputation?
Let's just say that I was a little sad that my case (not Uber) was settled via the works-council dispute resolution mechanism...
So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.
So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.
[deleted]
In response to your statement, I just have to say that Uber's HR _has not_ acted in the company's best interest and has actually worked in opposition to its best interest.
Through inaction and malpractice they have increased the legal liability Uber faces and encouraged irreparable reputational damage for Uber.
Through inaction and malpractice they have increased the legal liability Uber faces and encouraged irreparable reputational damage for Uber.
>H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
Except their actions here are not in the best interest of the company...why do people keep posting this in the context of discussing Uber? These are casebook examples of what HR should not do.
Except their actions here are not in the best interest of the company...why do people keep posting this in the context of discussing Uber? These are casebook examples of what HR should not do.
Business != Company, company (made up of orgs) is a component of a business. If someone in my HR group does not act in the best interests of the business AND the company (and usually putting the company before the business is the right thing to do) they would lose their job quite quickly. My obligation as a CEO is to my shareholders, and my shareholders know that putting my people in front of returns will always result in better returns. It's pretty clear cut, you're nothing without your people, and that's that.
Ouch, those caps.
Yes, normally, HR acts in the company's interests.
But for many companies, its in their best interests to identify and fire creeps who work there and abuse women (or others generally).
What HR will do for you depends on what type of company you work in.
If you work in a company that cares about its culture, that values diversity and respects its employees, then HR is very likely to help you if you experience problems like these.
If you work for Uber - well I guess that's what all the heat and light is about. Is Uber such a shithole that these kinds of behaviour are actually condoned by the CEO?
Maybe we'll find out.
Yes, normally, HR acts in the company's interests.
But for many companies, its in their best interests to identify and fire creeps who work there and abuse women (or others generally).
What HR will do for you depends on what type of company you work in.
If you work in a company that cares about its culture, that values diversity and respects its employees, then HR is very likely to help you if you experience problems like these.
If you work for Uber - well I guess that's what all the heat and light is about. Is Uber such a shithole that these kinds of behaviour are actually condoned by the CEO?
Maybe we'll find out.
The genius of labeling it "human resources" just struck me. As an employee (and human) it seems reasonable to interpret it as "resources for humans" and thus assume it would be there to help. But its true meaning, to execs/stakeholders/corporate persons, is "[the department which manages the] human resources".
This is not really an obscure secret.
Wikipedia: “Human resources are the people who make up the workforce of an organization, business sector, or economy. [...] A human-resources department (HR department) of an organization performs human resource management, overseeing various aspects of employment, such as compliance with labour law and employment standards, administration of employee benefits, and some aspects of recruitment and dismissal.”
Wikipedia: “Human resources are the people who make up the workforce of an organization, business sector, or economy. [...] A human-resources department (HR department) of an organization performs human resource management, overseeing various aspects of employment, such as compliance with labour law and employment standards, administration of employee benefits, and some aspects of recruitment and dismissal.”
I get that, I wasn't saying it was actually a secret, just a conveniently vague conventional name.
>As an employee (and human) it seems reasonable to interpret it as "resources for humans" and thus assume it would be there to help.
Where'd you ever get that crazy idea?
>But its true meaning, to execs/stakeholders/corporate persons, is "[the department which manages the] human resources".
Not exactly. The true meaning is "the department which works to exploit the human resources as much as possible".
Where'd you ever get that crazy idea?
>But its true meaning, to execs/stakeholders/corporate persons, is "[the department which manages the] human resources".
Not exactly. The true meaning is "the department which works to exploit the human resources as much as possible".
There's an sf novel featuring a futuristic form of slavery, with a character who's introduced as a Director of Human Resources: only much later do you find out what that means. Subtly done.
(Your first meaning never occurred to me.)
(Your first meaning never occurred to me.)
Yes, HR acts in the company's best interests, not yours. However, if you ever want to be able to pursue legal claims against a company for actions such as permitting harassment, or firing you in retribution for it, you need to be able to document that you reported the problem to the appropriate people (i.e. HR).
Going to HR is the right move for something like this. In any sane company, HR will take such a claim seriously because the potential legal downside if they don't is an unacceptable risk. In an insane company - aside from the fact that you can't measure the insanity level until you have in fact made such reports to HR and seen them dismissed - you still need to be able to show that you brought the problem to HR's attention and they did nothing about it.
Going to HR is the right move for something like this. In any sane company, HR will take such a claim seriously because the potential legal downside if they don't is an unacceptable risk. In an insane company - aside from the fact that you can't measure the insanity level until you have in fact made such reports to HR and seen them dismissed - you still need to be able to show that you brought the problem to HR's attention and they did nothing about it.
I'll add that a significant portion of people I've encountered who have careers in HR are not particularly empathic nor "people persons".
That is, don't interact with them expecting to be "understood" as a person.
You may not just get a "no, we can't do that". You may well also get an unmentioned strike against you, for even raising the point or concern.
There are some good people in HR. Although, upon reflection, I realize that those I've met tended to have moved on or exited HR.
Anyway, my point is, don't just expect "in the employer's interest", be also aware of and prepared for a lack of basic human connection.
That is, don't interact with them expecting to be "understood" as a person.
You may not just get a "no, we can't do that". You may well also get an unmentioned strike against you, for even raising the point or concern.
There are some good people in HR. Although, upon reflection, I realize that those I've met tended to have moved on or exited HR.
Anyway, my point is, don't just expect "in the employer's interest", be also aware of and prepared for a lack of basic human connection.
It's kind of like going to the police. They don't necessarily share your interests, and they have the power to destroy you. That some or good doesn't help much if you go to the one who isn't.
> Amy's situation was grave, and kudos to her for getting out. But everyone should read these stories and burn this line into their heads permanently.
Yes but the company's best interest is to support Amy and fire Mike#2.
The reason is that if there is credible evidence of this behavior, she has easy settlement on par with Mike's value to the company (unless that is measured in 8 figures which is unlikely since at the end of the day, if they paid him $500k...they could replace him for $500k).
Yes but the company's best interest is to support Amy and fire Mike#2.
The reason is that if there is credible evidence of this behavior, she has easy settlement on par with Mike's value to the company (unless that is measured in 8 figures which is unlikely since at the end of the day, if they paid him $500k...they could replace him for $500k).
One of the ways HR acts in the interest of the company, is to make sure managers aren't putting the company at risk by engaging in unethical or illegal behavior. HR isn't your friend, but if they enable harassment and discrimination, they are failing in their role of corporate governance and should be replaced.
A competent CEO would take action here.
A competent CEO would take action here.
> H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS.
Hopefully the recently-revealed experiences at Uber will be taken as a wake-up call by HR folks whose calculus tells them that the best option is to cover up problems.
It should now be apparent that buried issues will eventually come to light, so the short-term gain of coverups won't be worth the long-term risk.
Hopefully the recently-revealed experiences at Uber will be taken as a wake-up call by HR folks whose calculus tells them that the best option is to cover up problems.
It should now be apparent that buried issues will eventually come to light, so the short-term gain of coverups won't be worth the long-term risk.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is the part that really hits me. When, in a meeting, Mike#2 says to "stop being a whiny little bitch"
Yet Torvalds says worse all the time, and he's a geek hero. I sense a double standard here, and I'm not sure why.
Yet Torvalds says worse all the time, and he's a geek hero. I sense a double standard here, and I'm not sure why.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13750425 and marked it off-topic.
Linus has made demeaning, sexist remarks to a woman to lower her self-worth and value, in a way worse than (or even similar to) "whiny little bitch" ? Please provide sources, I'm genuinely interested.
You really need a link to Torvalds abusing people? Here's kernel dev Sarah Sharp https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus...
Sorry, that doesn't prove what you claimed. In fact every piece of evidence appears to be him yelling at males.
(And I'm also not sympathetic to Sarah here given the clearly joking nature of Linus' reply about Greg -- notice how others took it. See also http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137391528412980&w=2
See also one of the supposed receivers of abuse on the supposed abuse: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137401130111098&w=2
Here's another supposed victim on the "abuse": http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137410815810454&w=2 Notably:
" If you can point me to a single instance of Linus "abusing" someone who is not one of his trusted persons, who really should be able to deal with that, or someone who did not provoke him to go into rant mode, then I'm all on your side.")
(And I'm also not sympathetic to Sarah here given the clearly joking nature of Linus' reply about Greg -- notice how others took it. See also http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137391528412980&w=2
See also one of the supposed receivers of abuse on the supposed abuse: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137401130111098&w=2
Here's another supposed victim on the "abuse": http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137410815810454&w=2 Notably:
" If you can point me to a single instance of Linus "abusing" someone who is not one of his trusted persons, who really should be able to deal with that, or someone who did not provoke him to go into rant mode, then I'm all on your side.")
Let me just see if I understand your position - verbal abuse is acceptable so long as both the speaker and the target identify as the same gender?
I said:
"Linus has made demeaning, sexist remarks to a woman to lower her self-worth and value, in a way worse than (or even similar to) "whiny little bitch" ? Please provide sources, I'm genuinely interested."
And you responded:
"You really need a link to Torvalds abusing people? Here's kernel dev Sarah Sharp https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus...
But you did not actually present evidence of the claim. That it comes from (a female) Sarah Sharp doesn't add anything to your position.
On the other hand, in my GP comment i include direct sources to supposed receivers of abuse that Sarah is referencing. The supposed receivers comment that they do not consider it abuse and find the language helpful and productive.
See the difference? I provided relevant evidence and your link did not address the claim.
"Linus has made demeaning, sexist remarks to a woman to lower her self-worth and value, in a way worse than (or even similar to) "whiny little bitch" ? Please provide sources, I'm genuinely interested."
And you responded:
"You really need a link to Torvalds abusing people? Here's kernel dev Sarah Sharp https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus...
But you did not actually present evidence of the claim. That it comes from (a female) Sarah Sharp doesn't add anything to your position.
On the other hand, in my GP comment i include direct sources to supposed receivers of abuse that Sarah is referencing. The supposed receivers comment that they do not consider it abuse and find the language helpful and productive.
See the difference? I provided relevant evidence and your link did not address the claim.
You're asserting that some abuse is OK, praiseworthy even, and some is not, and positioning yourself to make that judgement on behalf of the community . I'm asserting that none is. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I am not asserting that at all! I'm saying two things and two things only:
1) you did not show any evidence of abuse directed towards women, as first claimed.
2) the supposed victims of Linus' abuse claim they were not abused. Who is Sarah to decide for them that they were abused?
1) you did not show any evidence of abuse directed towards women, as first claimed.
2) the supposed victims of Linus' abuse claim they were not abused. Who is Sarah to decide for them that they were abused?
i'm not defending linus' management style, but it is a significantly worse crime in my book to be sexist/racist abusive or a sexual harasser than it is to be a garden variety verbally abusive boss who is abusive solely based on and in relation to the quality of work performed. i suspect many others feel similarly.
Joo2eiyu(1)
> My paycheck is 18% less than my less qualified male colleagues.
I stopped reading here.
I stopped reading here.
I have a hypothesis that if we could evaluate confidence levels, we'd find that both men and women who had lower confidence would be paid less than engineers with higher confidence, regardless of gender.
There's a great article published by Salon called "The Confidence Gap" which talks about this issue. Women do seem to have less confidence than men in western societies, but that's a greater social issue.
If you are a female engineer who finds out you are underpaid, go find a new job and ask for the salaries you discovered your male counterparts made. You'll most likely get it.
..and in general, you should switch jobs at the 2 year mark if you're young and fresh out of school. That way you don't get stuck as a Java/.NET/Ruby/limited-language developer, you expand you skills and you know to ask for larger increases with each job and get the current market rate. If you get stuck with the standard 2%~5% cost of living increase each year, you'll be under market value very quickly.
The wage gap is mostly a myth. When there is a gap, it has less to do with gender and more to do with the larger socialite taboo of knowing other peoples' incomes. If income/wages were transparent at every company, we'd see much less income inequality.
There's a great article published by Salon called "The Confidence Gap" which talks about this issue. Women do seem to have less confidence than men in western societies, but that's a greater social issue.
If you are a female engineer who finds out you are underpaid, go find a new job and ask for the salaries you discovered your male counterparts made. You'll most likely get it.
..and in general, you should switch jobs at the 2 year mark if you're young and fresh out of school. That way you don't get stuck as a Java/.NET/Ruby/limited-language developer, you expand you skills and you know to ask for larger increases with each job and get the current market rate. If you get stuck with the standard 2%~5% cost of living increase each year, you'll be under market value very quickly.
The wage gap is mostly a myth. When there is a gap, it has less to do with gender and more to do with the larger socialite taboo of knowing other peoples' incomes. If income/wages were transparent at every company, we'd see much less income inequality.
Why? The pay gap is real and was nearly an aside in the article. This article is about a woman being mistreated by men in tech. This comment seems to be as well.
Because if true and provable, this is a federal case that she can sue over and win.
In reality the wage gap is rarely as cut and dry as "women get paid less than men for the same jobs".
In reality the wage gap is rarely as cut and dry as "women get paid less than men for the same jobs".
Not everyone is champing at the bit to sue people whenever the opportunity arises.
Why is this aside in the article?
It's a separate point that isn't going to get her much sympathy in many circles, because that pay gap could be less real than you think.
18% less could be a result of negotiating skills or any other confounding factor. How has she quantified her qualifications vs all other male employees?
No need to add this unsubstantiated drivel to an otherwise potentially useful insight.
It's a separate point that isn't going to get her much sympathy in many circles, because that pay gap could be less real than you think.
18% less could be a result of negotiating skills or any other confounding factor. How has she quantified her qualifications vs all other male employees?
No need to add this unsubstantiated drivel to an otherwise potentially useful insight.
Mistreated by men? Did you miss the part where she writes that almost everybody in HR was a woman?
Did you miss literally every other part of the article?
She wouldn't have needed to approach HR in the first place if not for the systemic abuse from males within the company.
She wouldn't have needed to approach HR in the first place if not for the systemic abuse from males within the company.
It really seems to me that if you want to find the most evil women you possibly can, you just need to go talk to women who work in HR.
There's no way I'd ever date a women who worked in HR. Once, many years ago, I met a woman on an online dating site who worked in HR for some big retailer. She made a comment (in the messaging app, we never met) disparaging the people who interviewed to work there. I commented that maybe if they paid better, they'd get better applicants. Never heard back from her after that. (No, she didn't work for CostCo; they're famous for paying well for those types of positions, and having very loyal and hard-working employees as a result.)
It seems like HR people are really the worst kind of people: they're just rank-and-file employees usually (except the HR Director), but they'll happily defend the very worse corporate treatment of employees.
There's no way I'd ever date a women who worked in HR. Once, many years ago, I met a woman on an online dating site who worked in HR for some big retailer. She made a comment (in the messaging app, we never met) disparaging the people who interviewed to work there. I commented that maybe if they paid better, they'd get better applicants. Never heard back from her after that. (No, she didn't work for CostCo; they're famous for paying well for those types of positions, and having very loyal and hard-working employees as a result.)
It seems like HR people are really the worst kind of people: they're just rank-and-file employees usually (except the HR Director), but they'll happily defend the very worse corporate treatment of employees.
>Besides, men outnumber women in tech by a very large margin. It's on our shoulders to help women fight back. Strength in numbers is a thing, and having men who speak up on their own, and who support and reinforce women who come forward can only a be a good thing.
Yes, but the problem is that most men in tech these days are "brogrammers" who approve of this behavior and engage in it themselves. Tech is no longer the domain of shy, introverted men who just liked to play with technology, like back in the 80s. Now it's full of misogynistic frat dudes. The change started during the dot-com boom, and has only gotten worse since then.
Yes, but the problem is that most men in tech these days are "brogrammers" who approve of this behavior and engage in it themselves. Tech is no longer the domain of shy, introverted men who just liked to play with technology, like back in the 80s. Now it's full of misogynistic frat dudes. The change started during the dot-com boom, and has only gotten worse since then.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748377 and marked it off-topic.
Yes, but the problem is that most men in tech these days are "brogrammers" who approve of this behavior and engage in it themselves.
Citation needed. I haven't yet, in a decade in the tech industry, worked with anybody who would act in this way, to the best of my knowledge.
That said, I work in London and not SV, so I can't say if the culture is different. I know for a fact that it wouldn't be tolerated for a second anywhere I've worked.
Citation needed. I haven't yet, in a decade in the tech industry, worked with anybody who would act in this way, to the best of my knowledge.
That said, I work in London and not SV, so I can't say if the culture is different. I know for a fact that it wouldn't be tolerated for a second anywhere I've worked.
I think the scale of the allegations and the fact it's happening at as large and as visible a company as Uber is what is truly shocking to most Americans following this issue.
I don't mean that sexual harassment is no problem, rather it is a terrible problem but one that generally occurs at a team or departmental level stemming from loose discipline and a lack of proper organizational leadership.
I don't mean that sexual harassment is no problem, rather it is a terrible problem but one that generally occurs at a team or departmental level stemming from loose discipline and a lack of proper organizational leadership.
I _have_ worked in SV for my entire career and I've yet to meet the mythical brogrammer. That being said, I've only worked at big companies and am currently at a startup where I'm the first employee and have done all the hiring. Though that doesn't really explain why none of my candidates check any of the boxes that I'd expect from what I've heard about brogrammers.
I've worked in SV my entire career and I've met two. And their demographic profile wasn't at all what I expected.
I've worked for more than 10 years in this industry, half out and half in SV (roughly), similarly regarding established vs startups. There is a noticeable difference on both axes.
Generally my (purely anecdotal, obviously) experience is that places in the Valley and startups tend to attract more "brogrammer" types than places outside the valley or that are established companies.
Generally my (purely anecdotal, obviously) experience is that places in the Valley and startups tend to attract more "brogrammer" types than places outside the valley or that are established companies.
>That said, I work in London and not SV, so I can't say if the culture is different.
Yeah, that's your problem right there. I probably should have specified that this is largely a SV/USA problem. The work culture in the UK is very different from over here. Even here in the US, it's rather different by region; I don't think it's remotely as bad on the east coast.
Yeah, that's your problem right there. I probably should have specified that this is largely a SV/USA problem. The work culture in the UK is very different from over here. Even here in the US, it's rather different by region; I don't think it's remotely as bad on the east coast.
I currently work in tech in the (east) bay, formerly in NYC, and have yet to encounter these frat types in technical roles.
Never seen anything like this in NYC
Nor in Boston or the Los Angeles / Orange County area.
I'm willing to believe it though. Far, far too many stories. I've also definitely seen it online in spades.
I'm willing to believe it though. Far, far too many stories. I've also definitely seen it online in spades.
Replying to this comment, but this is in response to all the ancestors who have said they "haven't seen this in X area":
If you're a man (or white, etc) then it makes sense that you don't see this firsthand. It doesn't happen to you. Not all workplace harassment is as egregious or public as the harassment in this article. I absolutely don't believe that this problem mainly affects the US.
If you're a man (or white, etc) then it makes sense that you don't see this firsthand. It doesn't happen to you. Not all workplace harassment is as egregious or public as the harassment in this article. I absolutely don't believe that this problem mainly affects the US.
>I absolutely don't believe that this problem mainly affects the US.
That's fine, as long as you understand that this is just a personal belief that you hold and not a fact about the world. Since it is just your unfounded belief, it doesn't detract from, devalue, or even argue mildly against the personal experiences outlined in the comments you are responding to.
That's fine, as long as you understand that this is just a personal belief that you hold and not a fact about the world. Since it is just your unfounded belief, it doesn't detract from, devalue, or even argue mildly against the personal experiences outlined in the comments you are responding to.
I really don't think misogyny or harassment is connected to nerdy-ness or introversion/extroversion, in either direction. The methods probably very, but I don't think any personality type is free of the proverbial bad eggs.
>>I really don't think misogyny or harassment is connected to nerdy-ness or introversion/extroversion, in either direction.
When was the last time you witnessed an introverted/nerdy person proposition a coworker, or even a female friend, for sex? Or even a date?
Introverts by definition aren't socially aggressive. They also tend to not hang out with socially aggressive people, from whom they could learn such attitudes.
When was the last time you witnessed an introverted/nerdy person proposition a coworker, or even a female friend, for sex? Or even a date?
Introverts by definition aren't socially aggressive. They also tend to not hang out with socially aggressive people, from whom they could learn such attitudes.
That's not the definition of introvert at all, you're using it as a proxy to mean shy or even socially awkward.
Introverts have sex and date too. Using your logic (which I don't necessarily agree with) I could argue that they are more likely to feel frustrated with a lack of options, and to abuse any power they do have.
Anecdotally, most of the harassment I have seen (in academia at least) has come from introverts -- things like staring at a colleague's chest, awkward comments that bring up a colleagues femininity / looks / relationship status / childbearing status, and drunken propositions at conferences. It's not as malicious as the examples from Uber as most of the time the man can claim to be unaware that his actions were making the woman uncomfortable, but it persists nevertheless.
Introverts have sex and date too. Using your logic (which I don't necessarily agree with) I could argue that they are more likely to feel frustrated with a lack of options, and to abuse any power they do have.
Anecdotally, most of the harassment I have seen (in academia at least) has come from introverts -- things like staring at a colleague's chest, awkward comments that bring up a colleagues femininity / looks / relationship status / childbearing status, and drunken propositions at conferences. It's not as malicious as the examples from Uber as most of the time the man can claim to be unaware that his actions were making the woman uncomfortable, but it persists nevertheless.
>That's not the definition of introvert at all, you're using it as a proxy to mean shy or even socially awkward. Introverts have sex and date too.
Huh? Don't be ridiculous: shy and socially awkward people have sex and date too. Just not as much as people who aren't socially awkward or shy, because they obviously have a more difficult time establishing a relationship. But it's not like they never do (well maybe some of them never do...).
You have a good point about some bad behavior coming from introverts (staring at chests, drunken propositions), but it's my allegation that this is very different from the harassment like we're seeing at places like Uber, where there's a rampant culture of harassment, and it's right out in the open. The introvert harassment you talk about is more individual and less obvious, not something egged on and cheered by the group. And as you point out, the introvert actions are defended by claiming ignorance ("I didn't know it'd make her uncomfortable"), whereas the Uber actions are at another level entirely (managers openly groping female employees--check out today's big news about Kay and Jared jewelers for stuff that makes even Uber look like saints).
Huh? Don't be ridiculous: shy and socially awkward people have sex and date too. Just not as much as people who aren't socially awkward or shy, because they obviously have a more difficult time establishing a relationship. But it's not like they never do (well maybe some of them never do...).
You have a good point about some bad behavior coming from introverts (staring at chests, drunken propositions), but it's my allegation that this is very different from the harassment like we're seeing at places like Uber, where there's a rampant culture of harassment, and it's right out in the open. The introvert harassment you talk about is more individual and less obvious, not something egged on and cheered by the group. And as you point out, the introvert actions are defended by claiming ignorance ("I didn't know it'd make her uncomfortable"), whereas the Uber actions are at another level entirely (managers openly groping female employees--check out today's big news about Kay and Jared jewelers for stuff that makes even Uber look like saints).
>I really don't think misogyny or harassment is connected to nerdy-ness or introversion/extroversion, in either direction.
I completely disagree. Stereotypically nerdy, shy, introverted men are not going to be extremely aggressive towards women in social settings; that's why they stereotypically have such a hard time getting dates: they're not even comfortable talking to women. They're certainly not going to be touching them inappropriately, making sexual comments and innuendo, etc. The men that stereotypically do that are like the guys who join frats in college and spend a lot of time in drunken parties. These are not introverts, they're extroverts. These stories about Uber and other such places are not talking about quiet male programmers occasionally talking about something inappropriate at work (like anime porn or something) and being overheard by women, these stories are about managers (and executives) doing grossly inappropriate and harassing things directly to women, usually women they supervise. Shy, nerdy men do not become "high performing" managers (the kind the CEO loves to go drinking with); that's clearly the domain of extroverts.
And yes, every personality type has bad eggs, as there's exceptions for everything, but I'm talking in generalities here.
But also importantly, it's my contention that even the rank-and-file engineers and programmers these days are more like the frat-bro stereotype, so they're not going to be any help, they're part of the problem and why this company culture thrives in Silicon Valley these days.
I completely disagree. Stereotypically nerdy, shy, introverted men are not going to be extremely aggressive towards women in social settings; that's why they stereotypically have such a hard time getting dates: they're not even comfortable talking to women. They're certainly not going to be touching them inappropriately, making sexual comments and innuendo, etc. The men that stereotypically do that are like the guys who join frats in college and spend a lot of time in drunken parties. These are not introverts, they're extroverts. These stories about Uber and other such places are not talking about quiet male programmers occasionally talking about something inappropriate at work (like anime porn or something) and being overheard by women, these stories are about managers (and executives) doing grossly inappropriate and harassing things directly to women, usually women they supervise. Shy, nerdy men do not become "high performing" managers (the kind the CEO loves to go drinking with); that's clearly the domain of extroverts.
And yes, every personality type has bad eggs, as there's exceptions for everything, but I'm talking in generalities here.
But also importantly, it's my contention that even the rank-and-file engineers and programmers these days are more like the frat-bro stereotype, so they're not going to be any help, they're part of the problem and why this company culture thrives in Silicon Valley these days.
what in the actual? Let's not reinforce dim-witted stereotypes. There are all kinds of people. I have met the Socially Awkward, introverted, nerdy, absolute jerk prick asshole programmer as well. The type that attempts to anonymously create hentai comics of female coworkers. Nerdy men can and do become "High Performing Managers" they just use email more.
what the actual.
>anonymously create hentai comics of female coworkers
who goes out of their way to do that
>anonymously create hentai comics of female coworkers
who goes out of their way to do that
People who revel in making other people feel creeped out and violated.
People behave differently in different contexts, to the extent of appearing to have entirely different personalities. You might be surprised at what an otherwise shy, nice person might type in a semi-private chat room.
mememachine(4)
rustynails77(1)
mememachine(4)
rublev(1)
My opinion is that this anonymous post lacks credibility and the author is most likely LARPing. Is it really so offensive to have a skeptical view?
> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them.
> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them.
Says the three minute old throwaway account.
>Says the three minute old throwaway account.
Are you trying to be ironic by dismissing the critic's anonymity while accepting the author's?
Are you trying to be ironic by dismissing the critic's anonymity while accepting the author's?
The author just bared an intensely personal and traumatic experience, that historically, has served as an open door to abuse, doxing, not to mention legal threats and discrimination from future employment, when the post is inevitably connected to her identity.
The three-minute old account making a comment from the peanut gallery did nothing of the sort. The two are not at all equivalent.
The three-minute old account making a comment from the peanut gallery did nothing of the sort. The two are not at all equivalent.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not hypocritical. In criticizing anonymously, the commenter is acknowledging that there are reasons to remain anonymous.
Pointing out that the account is new is not meant to invalidate it's commentary. It is meant to demonstrate that it is self-contradicting.
Pointing out that the account is new is not meant to invalidate it's commentary. It is meant to demonstrate that it is self-contradicting.
josephCaruso(1)
mjolk(5)
Yet again the nerds have become the bullies.
Except I doubt these are "the nerds". These are likely the fratboys who studied business and are continuing their hazing and misogyny as managers after college.
> It was normal for our supervisors to openly appreciate the performance of one member over the other and publicly demean members who did not perform as per their expectations. Chauvinistic, racist and homophobic attitudes were far too normal at Uber. Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe. It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them. They had private chats where guys wrote sexual fantasy stories about female colleagues and supervisors where they performed all sorts of demeaning acts on the women. I confronted the guys on my team whenever they passed lewd comments about female supervisors but never felt comfortable confronting guys who were not in my team.
Sounds to me like it was her team members also.
Sounds to me like it was her team members also.
I am also assuming some fancy MBA jerk.
She specifically mentions confronting members of her team.
From the article:
> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved.
This was every douchebag in high school who would laugh at me for being interested in computers back in the early '00s. And now they're programmers 15 years later. Brogrammer culture squicks me out in several ways, but mostly because the same people who laughed at, mocked, and belittled anyone interested in programming are now invading our industry and driving the decent folk out.
> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved.
This was every douchebag in high school who would laugh at me for being interested in computers back in the early '00s. And now they're programmers 15 years later. Brogrammer culture squicks me out in several ways, but mostly because the same people who laughed at, mocked, and belittled anyone interested in programming are now invading our industry and driving the decent folk out.
What point are you intending to communicate here?
That there is a stereotype that people interested in software engineering are "nerds" who are losers and picked on in school? That the stereotype is accurate, and "yet again" software engineers bully other people because they were bullied?
That there is a stereotype that people interested in software engineering are "nerds" who are losers and picked on in school? That the stereotype is accurate, and "yet again" software engineers bully other people because they were bullied?
Not sure what kinds of companies you've worked at, but from what I've seen, founders, execs, and their inner circles aren't nerds.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -John Dalberg-Acton. It saddens me how much I have seen that quote play out in my life...
It's honestly part of such a good quote, I feel compelled to post the rest.
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science."
How right has he been proven, before and after his time? From athletes to politicians, from Steve Jobs to Winston Churchill.
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science."
How right has he been proven, before and after his time? From athletes to politicians, from Steve Jobs to Winston Churchill.
[deleted]
Not sure I understand this. This guy doesn't sound like a nerd at all. More like a BSD.
It's not just _one_ guy being talked about.
[deleted]
Two comments
Future Amy's should always be prepared to start recording at a moment's notice. Think Roger Ailes
If you ignore a verbal wrong said to someone else and you don't say something, then it is like you said it yourself.
Future Amy's should always be prepared to start recording at a moment's notice. Think Roger Ailes
If you ignore a verbal wrong said to someone else and you don't say something, then it is like you said it yourself.
> Future Amy's should always be prepared to start recording at a moment's notice
It's not always that simple. California is a 2-party consent state. INAL, but my understanding is that a private conversation (in a non-public place) means all parties have an expectation of privacy, which makes recording that conversation without the consent of all parties a felony.
Presumably, getting consent from your harasser to record their words and actions would be troublesome...
Again, not a lawyer, but that's what I've come to understand as a CA resident.
It's not always that simple. California is a 2-party consent state. INAL, but my understanding is that a private conversation (in a non-public place) means all parties have an expectation of privacy, which makes recording that conversation without the consent of all parties a felony.
Presumably, getting consent from your harasser to record their words and actions would be troublesome...
Again, not a lawyer, but that's what I've come to understand as a CA resident.
You can record things like keeping a journal.
"1/1/20 My manager made me feel uncomfortable again today by discussing swim-suits and his upcoming trip to X. I tried to leave the room but he closed the door and asked me if I liked to..."
It doesn't have to be electronic in nature.
"1/1/20 My manager made me feel uncomfortable again today by discussing swim-suits and his upcoming trip to X. I tried to leave the room but he closed the door and asked me if I liked to..."
It doesn't have to be electronic in nature.
Except that the offense seems to be a misdemeanor (max incarceration is not > 1 year), I think your description is correct.
What are they going to do? Sue you? This stuff is hard to prosecute. And if they start prosecuting... well... then their sexual harassment behavior will be made public.
Unfortunately, as but one option, yes.
Assuming it gets to that. Your tape won't see the light of the courtroom because it'll be ruled inadmissible (fruits of the poisoned tree).
It'll be sealed by the court over the felony hearing because it contains statements that could be materially damaging to be released (that the person said them is not in question, unfortunately, more their 'expectations', right or wrong, when they said them). Won't get out that way.
Oops. They got leaked, overtly or covertly? During one of those trials? Look forward to contempt proceedings.
After the trial, look forward to defamation proceedings.
Assuming it gets to that. Your tape won't see the light of the courtroom because it'll be ruled inadmissible (fruits of the poisoned tree).
It'll be sealed by the court over the felony hearing because it contains statements that could be materially damaging to be released (that the person said them is not in question, unfortunately, more their 'expectations', right or wrong, when they said them). Won't get out that way.
Oops. They got leaked, overtly or covertly? During one of those trials? Look forward to contempt proceedings.
After the trial, look forward to defamation proceedings.
You don't leak it during the trial. You do it before any trial even happens, or before anyone even knows that you have the video. You just create your secret video, and then release it to the media.
Then they COULD come after you later, but they almost certainly won't succeed. Recording crimes or sexual harassment pretty much never gets you in trouble.
This whole court situation where sexual harassment never gets punished works both ways.
Yes, it is difficult for these people to get punished. But it is equally difficult to punish people who retaliate against harassers.
The courts aren't the point anyway. Sure you aren't going to win a court case. But uber would still fire the guy. At will employment.
It doesn't matter if the secret video is illegal evidence. Uber can still fire the guy anyway, because they can fire people for any or no reason at all. And other companies can also refuse to hire him.
Also, if the culprit is an uber exec, it is not like they could sue anyone. That would look extremely extremely bad if Uber started suing women who were harassed. There goes billions of dollars.
Then they COULD come after you later, but they almost certainly won't succeed. Recording crimes or sexual harassment pretty much never gets you in trouble.
This whole court situation where sexual harassment never gets punished works both ways.
Yes, it is difficult for these people to get punished. But it is equally difficult to punish people who retaliate against harassers.
The courts aren't the point anyway. Sure you aren't going to win a court case. But uber would still fire the guy. At will employment.
It doesn't matter if the secret video is illegal evidence. Uber can still fire the guy anyway, because they can fire people for any or no reason at all. And other companies can also refuse to hire him.
Also, if the culprit is an uber exec, it is not like they could sue anyone. That would look extremely extremely bad if Uber started suing women who were harassed. There goes billions of dollars.
It might not see the courtroom, but you can be damn sure it will see the front page of TechCrunch, The Verge, the New York Times, etc.
I think public opinion backlash would be far too great for Uber to do anything about that but tuck their tail inbetween their legs and whimper away.
I think public opinion backlash would be far too great for Uber to do anything about that but tuck their tail inbetween their legs and whimper away.
I've stood up for other people before and I can tell you that most of the time it doesn't lead to a happy ending.
I question myself what would happen if she openly scream at his face with a nice: Why don't you go and f...
It would be remarkably easy for the author to validate the authenticity of her post by adding a picture of a pay-stub with blacked out identifying information / names / amounts.
Or alternatively publish the story with a news agency as a protected source under a pseudonym.
Uber deserves what they have coming to them at the moment, but an anonymized post that fits perfectly into the Uber / sexism / hostile work place with no evidence should be treated as suspect.
Or alternatively publish the story with a news agency as a protected source under a pseudonym.
Uber deserves what they have coming to them at the moment, but an anonymized post that fits perfectly into the Uber / sexism / hostile work place with no evidence should be treated as suspect.
I don't believe HN should be front paging anonymous content without some proof of having worked at Uber.
The front pageness is a function of the credibility and interestingness of the articles posted.
HN is not journalism, it's a water cooler. There's some rules for decorum but little to no editorial function.
HN is not journalism, it's a water cooler. There's some rules for decorum but little to no editorial function.
I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think this comment should be downvoted to oblivion. It is worth keeping in mind that these allegations are being made anonymously.
That said, given the level of detail and the consistency with other reports we've heard, I think this report sounds pretty credible.
That said, given the level of detail and the consistency with other reports we've heard, I think this report sounds pretty credible.
I'd rather have it there. Sure, there's no supporting evidence, but I want those still working at Uber to read it. They're in the position to decide whether it accords with their experience. Sometimes it can be hard to see what's in front of your face.
If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, please flag it.
It is totally understandable why she chose to be anonymous. I would let the readers decide, if they find any content shared on HN useful or not.
So, people should only bring up horror stories about their workplaces if they also expose themselves to legal or extra-legal retaliation?
Is a "ubersurvivor" hashtag really what's needed?
WARNING: this comment is not a safe place and contains my opinions.
Victim praising will do nothing to change Uber's behavior. Expecting Uber to change anything as the result of your words is a fools errand. The more likely outcome is Uber will only harden it's shell. Do you expect one of the most highly praised startups of the last decade to suddenly find religion and say, "oh we were wrong, you are all right? (and actually mean it)"?
People vote with their feet (Milton Friedman). Talk is cheap (Fat Tony). If you want to start a revolution, don't try to change others, change yourself (Jordan Peterson).
Uber is suffering for its transgressions in the form of talent loss. Susan Fowler indicated the number of female engineers at Uber significantly reduced during her time there. The nice thing about employment at will is that it works both ways. It's scary to leave a high-profile high-status job and go into the unknown; it's also a very powerful action.
WARNING: this comment is not a safe place and contains my opinions.
Victim praising will do nothing to change Uber's behavior. Expecting Uber to change anything as the result of your words is a fools errand. The more likely outcome is Uber will only harden it's shell. Do you expect one of the most highly praised startups of the last decade to suddenly find religion and say, "oh we were wrong, you are all right? (and actually mean it)"?
People vote with their feet (Milton Friedman). Talk is cheap (Fat Tony). If you want to start a revolution, don't try to change others, change yourself (Jordan Peterson).
Uber is suffering for its transgressions in the form of talent loss. Susan Fowler indicated the number of female engineers at Uber significantly reduced during her time there. The nice thing about employment at will is that it works both ways. It's scary to leave a high-profile high-status job and go into the unknown; it's also a very powerful action.
For those wondering, Fat Tony is a character in The Black Swan (and not meant to be the rapper of the same name).
Seems to me there are 4 issues here:
1. Racism.
Not okay. Fire him.
2. Sexist behavior
Not okay. Warn and then fire him.
3. Working people hard
That's okay. I was made to work hard. Long days no breaks hard deadlines. That's the world we live in.
4. How this affected her
I'm sorry she went through this and it's not okay. How she chooses to feel and deal with this are under her control. She shouldn't have perpetuated her pain by staying in the situation.
1. Racism.
Not okay. Fire him.
2. Sexist behavior
Not okay. Warn and then fire him.
3. Working people hard
That's okay. I was made to work hard. Long days no breaks hard deadlines. That's the world we live in.
4. How this affected her
I'm sorry she went through this and it's not okay. How she chooses to feel and deal with this are under her control. She shouldn't have perpetuated her pain by staying in the situation.
> How she chooses to feel and deal with this are under her control. She shouldn't have perpetuated her pain by staying in the situation.
Can you understand how hard it is for someone to leave a job after a short amount of time, knowing that every future employer will see that on your resumé?
Can you understand how hard it is for someone to leave a job after a short amount of time, knowing that every future employer will see that on your resumé?
Yes. Because I've done it. And you tell people it wasn't a good fit. And if it's uber you tell them it's because uber is a bunch of jerks.
Far easier when you're a 40-something male engineer with a large resumé than a relatively green female engineer who will already contend with some people who think she's not a culture fit, based solely on gender.
1,2. Why is racism considered a fireable offense, but sexism they should get a warning first? Either give them a warning on both or fire on both.
3. I think many would argue that we shouldn't have to live in a world where long days with no breaks is the accepted standard. I've worked that way, 10 hour days, 6-7 days a week, it's not sustainable and leads to burnout, poor quality work, and grumpy employees.
3. I think many would argue that we shouldn't have to live in a world where long days with no breaks is the accepted standard. I've worked that way, 10 hour days, 6-7 days a week, it's not sustainable and leads to burnout, poor quality work, and grumpy employees.
I think you are right on the first part. I don't view racism and sexism as exactly the same type of thing. Racism is just evil, and sexism is sometimes just ignorance (he hits on her and doesn't know it's not wanted). But, same ignorance could be argued for racism, even though I think it's different. I dont think uber wants or cares for my opinion, but if it's beyond the pale, in both case, fire on first offense. Else, one warning and then out.
Your second paragraph suggests an ideal that we should aspire to but it's not the reality for startups and high growth industries. If we seek out this part of this industry we shouldn't bellyache about the hours.
Your second paragraph suggests an ideal that we should aspire to but it's not the reality for startups and high growth industries. If we seek out this part of this industry we shouldn't bellyache about the hours.
s/world/city/
> 3. Working people hard
That's okay. I was made to work hard. Long days no breaks hard deadlines. That's the world we live in.
No, it's not okay. But this one is not the company's problem; it's on the union, or lack thereof.
No, it's not okay. But this one is not the company's problem; it's on the union, or lack thereof.
This is why I'm skeptical of Uber's promise to investigate these allegations. When I heard that they had retained Eric Holder to investigate, my knee-jerk reaction was petty and cynical: "Great, retain a Chicago politician so you know you'll get the answer you're paying for."
I was a little disappointed in myself at the time, but damn. With this company, I'm starting to think that impression might have been on the money.