Uber CEO to take leave(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Uber CEO to take leave
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/uber-ceo-to-take-leave-diminished-role-after-workplace-scandals
197 comments
FWIW, I had a very similar experience and have a friend who had the same. Very off-putting. I was in the second round on-site and more or less felt like I probably had the job in the bag, still at the end when I met w/ the hiring manager I told him I appreciated the time but it wasn't for me. And wow, that pissed him off. Good riddance.
Sometimes I wish I had the energy to follow through all the way to the end of a process even when I know I'm not interested in working somewhere.
Waiting till they give you an offer and turning them down is probably the only way to get companies with terrible interview processes to treat their own interview behavior as signal.
Waiting till they give you an offer and turning them down is probably the only way to get companies with terrible interview processes to treat their own interview behavior as signal.
[deleted]
"... the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience"
Incredible. Isn't this how mafia organizations hire?
I don't know if this interview method would expose Uber to liability under organized crime laws, but maybe it should.
Incredible. Isn't this how mafia organizations hire?
I don't know if this interview method would expose Uber to liability under organized crime laws, but maybe it should.
Breaking the law in front of your peers is seen, apparently, as a good way to build trust in criminal organisations.
Having sat through it (but not having experience in law) I don't believe it would.
I'm sure the interviewer and the rest of Uber would say they didn't break the law; only that they enabled and took maybe encouraged others to.
I'm sure the interviewer and the rest of Uber would say they didn't break the law; only that they enabled and took maybe encouraged others to.
Not a lawyer, but.. If they admitted this much I'm pretty sure that would count under RICO. After all, mafia bosses never actually kill anyone or sell drugs.. they only 'enable' and 'encourage' others to..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru...
"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru...
"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]"
> never returned my calls or contacted me to say if I got the job or not.
That is very unprofessional. Saddens to hear that.
That is very unprofessional. Saddens to hear that.
Getting ghosted seems pretty common, especially with newly-large companies.
Perhaps they realized he was "trying to use them to counter offer another company".
So you think they magically determined he, not only didn't want to work there but that he wanted an offer to utilize as leverage elsewhere.
They couldn't develop a set driving car without stealing, I somehow doubt they figured out mind reading.
They couldn't develop a set driving car without stealing, I somehow doubt they figured out mind reading.
I think they just didn't think I was a fit, which I take as a complement. I could have played the part better but I went through the interview like any other and actually said at some point that "I don't like disruption was a core business practice".
I had a phone interview with them 2 years ago and the interviewer was in the room with two other _very chatty_ people and the three of them were engaged in a separate conversation from my interview pretty much the entire time. I cut that one short and don't regret it in the least.
This is so vague it almost sounds like trolling. What did they specifically ask in regards to breaking the law?
Run a cab company without a cab license, but pretending it's not a cab company by not paying your employees a fixed salary nor giving your employees benefits. That's generally breaking the law in many parts around the world.
All they asked me for was a similar experience, not if I had broken the law. The example and question were based on their Core Value of 'Persistent Confrontation' which basically was spun to mean 'don't stop if you know you're right' but I took actually meant 'don't reevaluate your position in the face of new information'.
I'm being somewhat vague on purpose; some level of NDA got signed and my username doesn't exactly keep me anonymous.
I'm being somewhat vague on purpose; some level of NDA got signed and my username doesn't exactly keep me anonymous.
A core value is "Persistent Confrontation"? Insane.
[deleted]
That aggressive nature is both the reason they have problems and the reason they have been so successful.
Re: being successful because they have an aggressive internal culture, is that really true?
[deleted]
Exactly. Let's continue this conversation after a couple years.
>> That aggressive nature is both the reason they have problems and the reason they have been so successful.
It might be the reason they're currently the most successful company in that market BUT Lyft and others aren't dealing with the sort of mess Uber currently is. Maybe that aggressiveness will bite back hard enough that another company will be winning that market long-term.
It might be the reason they're currently the most successful company in that market BUT Lyft and others aren't dealing with the sort of mess Uber currently is. Maybe that aggressiveness will bite back hard enough that another company will be winning that market long-term.
I really don't buy the Travis Kalanik hate. Yeah, Uber started out as your typical SV unicorn (bro warts and all). Yeah, Uber's entire business model can be described as "grey-area" at best and its business practices as sometimes exploitative.
But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade. This is exactly how FB started out. And this follows every rule in the startup book to a tee. Look, we can't have it both ways, guys. The recent stuff about Travis has been downright witch-hunty. I mean, every single article about the "leaked" memo was headlined as "You can have sex with your coworkers -- if..." I mean, come on.
There was literally nothing wrong with the email, but every single paper covered it in some weird passive-aggressive way. Same with the previous story where TK gets in the altercation with the Uber driver on video. Travis was (yet again) 100% in the right there, but everyone spun it like he was being some kind of asshole, when the driver blindsided him.
To be honest, I'm no Travis Kalanik fanboy (in spite of sharing the same alma mater), but the guy obviously knows what he's doing. He found, by accident or not, a market desperately in need of disruption and absolutely nailed it. Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him (cut him some slack; his mom just passed away). I don't really understand why.
But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade. This is exactly how FB started out. And this follows every rule in the startup book to a tee. Look, we can't have it both ways, guys. The recent stuff about Travis has been downright witch-hunty. I mean, every single article about the "leaked" memo was headlined as "You can have sex with your coworkers -- if..." I mean, come on.
There was literally nothing wrong with the email, but every single paper covered it in some weird passive-aggressive way. Same with the previous story where TK gets in the altercation with the Uber driver on video. Travis was (yet again) 100% in the right there, but everyone spun it like he was being some kind of asshole, when the driver blindsided him.
To be honest, I'm no Travis Kalanik fanboy (in spite of sharing the same alma mater), but the guy obviously knows what he's doing. He found, by accident or not, a market desperately in need of disruption and absolutely nailed it. Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him (cut him some slack; his mom just passed away). I don't really understand why.
> There was literally nothing wrong with the email
There were at least two things wrong with the email, from my perspective as a guy who's been around plenty of benign bro culture.
1. Explicitly mentioning "sex" as opposed to "relationship" or "dating", and talking about it so casually, sets a very aggressive tone. 20-something guys with lots of hormones will definitely hear that tone and push hard for sex during the trip (the implication is that there will be lots of it, and nobody wants to be left out). Females reading this surely know that they'll receive lots of attention and advances during the trip, whether they want it or not – even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent, it's still uncomfortable for those who want to be professional and avoid work relationships.
2. "Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML." Implication there is that there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with. If you're a female subordinate of the CEO whom he speaks with somewhat flirtily, you can infer that he's thinking "FML, I wish I could sleep with her".
There were at least two things wrong with the email, from my perspective as a guy who's been around plenty of benign bro culture.
1. Explicitly mentioning "sex" as opposed to "relationship" or "dating", and talking about it so casually, sets a very aggressive tone. 20-something guys with lots of hormones will definitely hear that tone and push hard for sex during the trip (the implication is that there will be lots of it, and nobody wants to be left out). Females reading this surely know that they'll receive lots of attention and advances during the trip, whether they want it or not – even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent, it's still uncomfortable for those who want to be professional and avoid work relationships.
2. "Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML." Implication there is that there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with. If you're a female subordinate of the CEO whom he speaks with somewhat flirtily, you can infer that he's thinking "FML, I wish I could sleep with her".
barleyworth, I believe the email was written in a humorous way. If it was a serious email, with that sex point in it, then I agree it would have been weird, and wrong.
But the whole email right from the first word to the last was written in a jovial manner with plenty of jokes in it. So I dont feel it was that bad.
I can understand that Travis was trying to create a party atmosphere after all of them worked really hard to get to where they are. Imagine, if you and your colleagues worked day and night for years and then finally you reached a milestone -- you might want to celebrate and have some fun! I think Travis was just trying to setup the jovial atmosphere so that people do not just have a standard corporate event.
But the whole email right from the first word to the last was written in a jovial manner with plenty of jokes in it. So I dont feel it was that bad.
I can understand that Travis was trying to create a party atmosphere after all of them worked really hard to get to where they are. Imagine, if you and your colleagues worked day and night for years and then finally you reached a milestone -- you might want to celebrate and have some fun! I think Travis was just trying to setup the jovial atmosphere so that people do not just have a standard corporate event.
acchow(2)
> ... mentioning "sex" as opposed to "relationship" or "dating" ...
Sex is a natural human activity. People fuck all the time. People especially fuck at parties where there's alcohol involved.
> ... even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent ...
Uh, what? The entire point was to ask for consent. I can't speak to your other hypothesizing about tone, or what 20-something guys might or might not do.
> ... there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with ...
Not sure where you're getting "many." Regardless, Travis probably wants to sleep with some of his employees, but he's leading by example and not pursuing. Again, I can't speak to your mental gymnastics as to what an employee might infer or not.
I can only read what's in the email.
Sex is a natural human activity. People fuck all the time. People especially fuck at parties where there's alcohol involved.
> ... even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent ...
Uh, what? The entire point was to ask for consent. I can't speak to your other hypothesizing about tone, or what 20-something guys might or might not do.
> ... there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with ...
Not sure where you're getting "many." Regardless, Travis probably wants to sleep with some of his employees, but he's leading by example and not pursuing. Again, I can't speak to your mental gymnastics as to what an employee might infer or not.
I can only read what's in the email.
That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting.
Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
> That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting.
Given the setting (an alcohol-filled after-work work party), I fundamentally disagree.
> Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
My comment didn't mention women, men, or anything in between, because, hey, men sometimes have sex with men! You'll notice that Travis' email didn't mention women either.
Since I love channeling my inner Scalia, I'm just going to say that, in general, you're doing yourself a disservice by not being a textualist. With that said, I'm not going to be baited into defending a straw man, many years of philosophy trained me well :)
Given the setting (an alcohol-filled after-work work party), I fundamentally disagree.
> Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
My comment didn't mention women, men, or anything in between, because, hey, men sometimes have sex with men! You'll notice that Travis' email didn't mention women either.
Since I love channeling my inner Scalia, I'm just going to say that, in general, you're doing yourself a disservice by not being a textualist. With that said, I'm not going to be baited into defending a straw man, many years of philosophy trained me well :)
The way women are treated is not a straw man here, it is directly related to why Uber and Kalanick in particular have been under as much scrutiny as they have. I believe what is trying to be explained is that unless you know what it is like for your job to hinge on your decisions regarding sex, and anything sex adjacent (ie. what you wear to work, whether you are flirtatious or not, whether you keep up with 'the boys' after work etc) it would be hard to understand why it is very important that sex and work be kept separate, and why professionalism is important. Many women are threatened by men in the workplace in various way, not the least of which using sex as a hiring/firing decision. When that is the general culture for women in the workplace, this email really reads more as 'if you aren't interested in sex (or being asked for sex by your colleagues), this probably isn't the party for you'. Except missing parties can also mean missing key networking opportunities and thus losing traction in the corporate world.
lol, next time read the philosophy books better
"inner Scalia"? "Straw man?"
You're being dismissive and aggressive to what purpose?
You're being dismissive and aggressive to what purpose?
"Inner Scalia" was a joke because you're reading too much into what I said and Scalia was, famously, a staunch textualist.
And your straw man is this: "Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture."
And your straw man is this: "Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture."
But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade. This is exactly how FB started out. And this follows every rule in the startup book to a tee.
None of these things are even remotely true. Uber is treated the way it is because the Uber culture and ethos have been uniquely shitty among startup unicorns/tech giants. At this point, I grant you that it's become an overblown witch hunt, but this developed over the course of years. Travis had every opportunity to see the reputation they were building, and he didn't give a shit, so now this is what happens.
None of these things are even remotely true. Uber is treated the way it is because the Uber culture and ethos have been uniquely shitty among startup unicorns/tech giants. At this point, I grant you that it's become an overblown witch hunt, but this developed over the course of years. Travis had every opportunity to see the reputation they were building, and he didn't give a shit, so now this is what happens.
Well said. I remember when Zuckerberg declared that privacy was a thing of the past. Now Facebook offers the Privacy Checkup once per month, at least.
Everyone kept complaining that drivers were being paid nuts and what did Uber do? Started arbitraging between riders and drivers to get even more out of every ride.
Also, the parent says "successful startup [...] first decade." What is a valid definition of startup? Is Uber starting-up forever?
Everyone kept complaining that drivers were being paid nuts and what did Uber do? Started arbitraging between riders and drivers to get even more out of every ride.
Also, the parent says "successful startup [...] first decade." What is a valid definition of startup? Is Uber starting-up forever?
> I don't really understand why.
When something like this happens, it's because the story runs counter to the listener's / reader's deepest assumptions and the foundations of their Weltanschauung.
E.g., you're a deeply religious conservative, and you hear a story about a gay couple who are great parents, you block it out.
You're a Democrat and you hear about Hillary making millions from speeches to Wall Street tycoons, you block it out.
You're a MAGA type of person, and you hear anything negative about Trump, you block it out.
You bite hook, line and sinker into the whole free market thing, Ayn Rand for the win, and you hear anything bad about some entrepreneur who made a fortune, you block it out - you ain't got no time for that, cause you've got empires to build.
---
What we do not perceive says more about us than what we do perceive.
When something like this happens, it's because the story runs counter to the listener's / reader's deepest assumptions and the foundations of their Weltanschauung.
E.g., you're a deeply religious conservative, and you hear a story about a gay couple who are great parents, you block it out.
You're a Democrat and you hear about Hillary making millions from speeches to Wall Street tycoons, you block it out.
You're a MAGA type of person, and you hear anything negative about Trump, you block it out.
You bite hook, line and sinker into the whole free market thing, Ayn Rand for the win, and you hear anything bad about some entrepreneur who made a fortune, you block it out - you ain't got no time for that, cause you've got empires to build.
---
What we do not perceive says more about us than what we do perceive.
Giant freelance marketplaces tend to be lightning rods for outrage largely because of their tendency to directly drive down wages. Search this site for any of the large developer marketplaces and you'll be hard pressed to find a kind word being said about them. This effect automatically creates a sizeable constituency hell bent on exposing your wrongs and it's downhill from there from a PR perspective.
Eh? He and others were looking at a rape victim's medical records, apparently with the conviction that she was making it up and was paid by their competitor to smear them. If that doesn't raise concerns about the company's culture, I don't know what will. There are few precedents for such shitty conduct in the 21st century corporate world.
Honestly, I think this has more to do with Uber's inability to become profitable than genuine concern for these problems. People have know about these problems but ignored them for exactly the reasons you describe. I'd say the investigation is almost a pretext.
I am with you. I see nothing wrong with this email either. People fuck!
Looks like it offended a bunch of regressive men and women.
Looks like it offended a bunch of regressive men and women.
golbez(3)
He presided over a culture of widespread sexual harassment that has been echoed repeatedly by multiple employees and you don't really understand why he's being criticized?
Cool story, bro.
Cool story, bro.
Uber has 12000 employees; 20 were reprimanded for sexual harassment. That's 0.001%
>Uber has 12000 employees; 20 were reprimanded for sexual harassment. That's 0.001%
Well those are the ones that were actually fired.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/uber-h...
Seemingly:
215 issues investigated
100 dismissed
57 still under investigation
31 in counseling or training
7 reprimanded in writing
more than 20 fired
215/12000 is near to 2%, such a number of "cases", even if half of them are dismissed should trigger each and every possible alarm.
Well those are the ones that were actually fired.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/uber-h...
Seemingly:
215 issues investigated
100 dismissed
57 still under investigation
31 in counseling or training
7 reprimanded in writing
more than 20 fired
215/12000 is near to 2%, such a number of "cases", even if half of them are dismissed should trigger each and every possible alarm.
What percentage do you need it to be to acknowledge sexual harassment is a problem in that company?
Why not flip it around a bit: what percentage do you think?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for Uber or sexual harassment or any nonsense like that.
I (seriously) just want to know if you're advocating for giving every company with a > 0.0% harassment rate the Uber treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for Uber or sexual harassment or any nonsense like that.
I (seriously) just want to know if you're advocating for giving every company with a > 0.0% harassment rate the Uber treatment.
I'm not the one dismissing a blatant problem based on a tiny percentage value. We've seen in various accounts that many incidents were swept under the rug because the person was a supposed "high performer". Then there is the recent email issue. This suggests that the problem is top-down in the company. When the problem is top-down, surely you deserve such treatment?
Right! The issue is management sweeping the allegations under the rug.
A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug (in my opinion at least–I don't read HN religiously).
That, I think, leads us to where we are right now: a comment thread that's basically about "what's the minimum number of sexual harassments can occur before a company has a 'problem'?"
I'm not trying to pick on you, so I apologize if I come across that way.
A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug (in my opinion at least–I don't read HN religiously).
That, I think, leads us to where we are right now: a comment thread that's basically about "what's the minimum number of sexual harassments can occur before a company has a 'problem'?"
I'm not trying to pick on you, so I apologize if I come across that way.
> A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug
If you have a large number of harassment incidents, it's completely relevant to question if there is a culture problem in the company (a problem which was denied outright by the parent commenter), and IMO this is what HN seems to be doing. Especially when you have accounts of Uber having a "frat" culture trickling down from the CEO and some senior executives condoning (this is probably too strong a word) such behavior.
My point is Uber isn't being treated unfairly by any means.
If you have a large number of harassment incidents, it's completely relevant to question if there is a culture problem in the company (a problem which was denied outright by the parent commenter), and IMO this is what HN seems to be doing. Especially when you have accounts of Uber having a "frat" culture trickling down from the CEO and some senior executives condoning (this is probably too strong a word) such behavior.
My point is Uber isn't being treated unfairly by any means.
The rate is a red herring, it's the reaction when it was reported.
Imagine if your local PD reported that they only ignored .01% of 911 calls. Would you find that acceptable?
Imagine if your local PD reported that they only ignored .01% of 911 calls. Would you find that acceptable?
I don't disagree. The the parent comments focused on how often the harassment happened—not Uber's response—so it piqued my curiosity.
How many high level departures do you need to read about to acknowledge Uber is doing something about it?
Maybe if it went all the way to the top, and Travis Kalanick himself stood down for a while, maybe then you'd ease off?
Maybe if it went all the way to the top, and Travis Kalanick himself stood down for a while, maybe then you'd ease off?
Did I say Uber isn't doing anything about it? The parent comment dismissed a clear problem in the company and was being all revisionist now that TK is on a leave by saying that he's a ruthless business leader running a typical SV unicorn and is being treated "unfairly". I pointed out that he failed to see a problem.
Details matter--get this one right, please!
Twenty were _fired_ for sexual harassment issues.
Given what we know of Uber's internal culture, my money says that many, many more were counseled, reprimanded or whatever than just those twenty.
Twenty were _fired_ for sexual harassment issues.
Given what we know of Uber's internal culture, my money says that many, many more were counseled, reprimanded or whatever than just those twenty.
IIRC, of the 215 cases that were investigated, 20 resulted in termination, some 17 resulted in warnings (i.e. if HR hears complaints about you again, you're fired), and some 27 resulted in counseling. The rest were found to be either simple enough to resolve with a conversation, or about ex-employees, or lacking information, or unfounded accusations.
There's now a new anonymous hotline where employees can report harassment, so presumably any new reported cases will be investigated by the law firm that was hired for this.
There's now a new anonymous hotline where employees can report harassment, so presumably any new reported cases will be investigated by the law firm that was hired for this.
Please revisit basic arithmetic.
So far.
It's not the count of disciplinary actions of any sort, not even the count of cases that were investigated, and certainly not the count of incidents, full stop.
20/12000 = 0.001666...
20/12000 ≠ "0.001%"
So far.
It's not the count of disciplinary actions of any sort, not even the count of cases that were investigated, and certainly not the count of incidents, full stop.
20 out of 200 cases found by the investigation. Who knows how many others were not logged or never reported.
Yeah, and at other companies, they're handled internally with respect and compassion. That's why you don't read about them in Medium posts where the employee repeatedly points to appalling failures within the organization.
Actually, you probably can. It's just that no one cares about "Initech corp" or whatever, while Uber's name alone guarantees headlines.
That's 0.2%, not 0.001%.
HR lie to multiple victims of harassment to protect the harasser. This does not happen in normal companies. This is not about the number of harassers, but systemic protecting of them.
Isn't the problem more about how the company handled the complaints? Your record on shutting that stuff down once it's reported should be flawless - Uber's isn't.
Sexual harassment cases are like cockroaches: by the time you see one, you can be sure there's lots more crawling around behind the walls.
20 have been reprimanded so far
It is a complete shame that some SJW cause like the contemporary definition of sexual harassment (like talking about ones sex life at work[1]) can be considered more important than revolutionizing transportation.
[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
> There was literally nothing wrong with the email
I have worked in tech for 30 years and have never seen anything even approaching the content of that email. It was completely unprofessional in every way.
I have worked in tech for 30 years and have never seen anything even approaching the content of that email. It was completely unprofessional in every way.
It's kind of sad that my standard for Uber was so low that after I read the email, I concluded that it was super unprofessional, but at least he made it explicit to not fraternize with someone within your chain of command and to get consent.
But yeah, still gross.
But yeah, still gross.
My thoughts were largely "this is probably the phrasing most likely to actually get his staff to moderate their behaviour in the mentioned ways, so I don't blame him for writing it that way" ... combined with "I do, however, absolutely blame him for letting a culture develop where that was the most effective phrasing"
[deleted]
> this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade.
Why? Can you not think of any massively successful startups that didn't rely on exploitative grey-area business practices?
Why? Can you not think of any massively successful startups that didn't rely on exploitative grey-area business practices?
Can you?
Microsoft Antitrust nightmare that probably set them back 5 years. Google for invading our privacy, they are still fighting big important battles in Europe. Facebook for similar privacy invasion, the whole beacon debacle.
There are a lot of things that they probably did wrong, but not to the extend that the press is picturing it.
Agreed 100% w/ dvt.
Microsoft Antitrust nightmare that probably set them back 5 years. Google for invading our privacy, they are still fighting big important battles in Europe. Facebook for similar privacy invasion, the whole beacon debacle.
There are a lot of things that they probably did wrong, but not to the extend that the press is picturing it.
Agreed 100% w/ dvt.
I could be missing some shady history, but off the top of my head how about Square?
Edit: Dropbox, Craigslist, GitHub, PayPal, Instagram, Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter
Anyone feel free to jump in if I'm ignoring any exploitation or shadiness.
Bad examples: Spotify and Snapchat.
Edit: Dropbox, Craigslist, GitHub, PayPal, Instagram, Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter
Anyone feel free to jump in if I'm ignoring any exploitation or shadiness.
Bad examples: Spotify and Snapchat.
A few seconds on google:
http://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-fi...
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/09/spotify-illegal-m...
http://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-fi...
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/09/spotify-illegal-m...
Thanks. This seems unconfirmed but pretty believable, so strike Spotify off my list.
Craigslist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.
Github: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Departure_of_Tom_Presto...
Paypal: https://www.google.com/search?q=paypal+scandal&rlz=1C5CHFA_e...
Twitter: https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+harassment+problem&r...
Square: http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-square-coo-resigned-after...
So your list has dwindled to just Dropbox and Instagram.
Github: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Departure_of_Tom_Presto...
Paypal: https://www.google.com/search?q=paypal+scandal&rlz=1C5CHFA_e...
Twitter: https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+harassment+problem&r...
Square: http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-square-coo-resigned-after...
So your list has dwindled to just Dropbox and Instagram.
Craigslist: That lawsuit came well over a decade after it launched, so that's not an example of something startups are forced to do to succeed.
Github: The point I'm arguing against is the idea that startups have to use exploitative and legally questionably business practices to succeed. This Github thing sucks, but it doesn't really have anything to do with business practices, and obviously nobody is arguing that startup leaders have to to be sexist to succeed.
PayPal: That scandal looks like it's related to PayPal Credit, which they acquired a decade after PayPal was founded. Not an example of something startups have to do to succeed.
Twitter: This is somewhat debatable, but it's a reasonable point. Maybe Twitter wouldn't have succeeded if it tried to stamp out harassment early on.
Square: Similar to Github. This sucks, but it's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. It is possible and relatively common for a startup to find massive success without relying on exploitation and potentially illegal business practices.
Github: The point I'm arguing against is the idea that startups have to use exploitative and legally questionably business practices to succeed. This Github thing sucks, but it doesn't really have anything to do with business practices, and obviously nobody is arguing that startup leaders have to to be sexist to succeed.
PayPal: That scandal looks like it's related to PayPal Credit, which they acquired a decade after PayPal was founded. Not an example of something startups have to do to succeed.
Twitter: This is somewhat debatable, but it's a reasonable point. Maybe Twitter wouldn't have succeeded if it tried to stamp out harassment early on.
Square: Similar to Github. This sucks, but it's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. It is possible and relatively common for a startup to find massive success without relying on exploitation and potentially illegal business practices.
Snapchat? The early version of the app was literally only used by sexting teenagers in Orange County high schools.
No. That's what out of touch adults in tech thought.
Reasonable point.
I would like to add that Square internally has a very oft-repeated (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) mantra of "break the rules, not the law", and IMO a pretty strong moral compass in general.
TK has the unfortunate habit of leaving a trail of history of screwing his employees, and that shit stinks, and sticks.
You either: Treat your employees well such that they will go to war for you because protecting your interests is as important as protecting themselves and their own interests.
OR
Be the unbendable, spotless and ruthlessly calculating leader raising a horde of mindless robots. You churn them out and turn them over as soon as they're used up, but there's no room for you to be a flawed human being.
Can't have the cake and eat it too. Know thyself, and choose your path.
You either: Treat your employees well such that they will go to war for you because protecting your interests is as important as protecting themselves and their own interests.
OR
Be the unbendable, spotless and ruthlessly calculating leader raising a horde of mindless robots. You churn them out and turn them over as soon as they're used up, but there's no room for you to be a flawed human being.
Can't have the cake and eat it too. Know thyself, and choose your path.
Machiavelli outlined the choice in 'The Prince': To be loved to to be feared?
Remember the the conclusion the Italian came to: Fear is more stable, become feared.
Remember the the conclusion the Italian came to: Fear is more stable, become feared.
Yeah, I don't think The Prince was intended to be taken normatively.
By no means was I suggesting to take 'The Prince' as a manual, that would be dumb and really evil. The methods outlined in it can be seen in TK's actions. Well, that or (invoking Hanlon's Razor) they are just plain dumb.
I think Ayn Rand's oeuvre does a better job of explaining Kalanick's gestalt than Machiavelli's, but I might very well just be biased as regards one of those authors, and their "philosophy"...
Machiavelli also warns not to become hated which seems to be a growing sentiment from the industry towards Uber.
In his satirical work.
No, for real though, I thought Machiavelli said it was satirical after torture. Honestly, though, I don't actually know if is was intended as satire from the start. Was it?
He wrote it shortly after being tortured by the Medici; it wasn't published until after Machiavelli's death [although it was likely circulated before then].
You are not supposed to run a massively successful startup by blatantly breaking every single consumer protection law that gets in the way of your profit margin.
The e-mail by itself isn't the only problem. It's that it's just one line in a list of unethical, illegal or abusive behaviour that's as long as his arm.
Keep in mind - this is also the guy that stole money from the IRS (By funding his previous company with money he was supposed to withhold for employee income taxes... And by not charging taxi/sales taxes on Uber rides in many, many jurisdcitions), from drivers (By dramatically cutting their share of fares - after many of them were locked into long-term leases for their vehicles - leases sold to them by Uber), and who has blatantly lied to the public. (About Uber's background check policies, or the lack thereof. While having the audacity to charge riders a 'background check fee'.)
If running a successful startup requires being a completely terrible corporate citizen, then the valley needs to be burnt to the ground, before it drags the rest of us down with it.
The e-mail by itself isn't the only problem. It's that it's just one line in a list of unethical, illegal or abusive behaviour that's as long as his arm.
Keep in mind - this is also the guy that stole money from the IRS (By funding his previous company with money he was supposed to withhold for employee income taxes... And by not charging taxi/sales taxes on Uber rides in many, many jurisdcitions), from drivers (By dramatically cutting their share of fares - after many of them were locked into long-term leases for their vehicles - leases sold to them by Uber), and who has blatantly lied to the public. (About Uber's background check policies, or the lack thereof. While having the audacity to charge riders a 'background check fee'.)
If running a successful startup requires being a completely terrible corporate citizen, then the valley needs to be burnt to the ground, before it drags the rest of us down with it.
These are consumer protection laws in name only. The laws/rules/regulations that Uber is breaking are first, foremost, and pretty much exclusively protecting the taxi industry.
I'm glad that you feel confident that no background checks, no vehicle inspection checks, no in-between-ride insurance, no transparency into surge pricing, no adherence to accessibility requirements, as well as getting grey-balled off the system (If Uber suspects you work for a municipal government or law enforcement) are run-arounds to spurious, burdensome, and unnecessary laws.
I mean, I have the unreasonable expectation that my taxi drivers aren't rapists, or haven't had recent DUIs, that their insurance will cover them while they are on the job, and that the ADA will come down like a metric tonne of bricks on them if they refuse to pick up disabled passengers... But perhaps that's too much to ask from a radical world-changing inspired baller.
(As with the rest of the transportation industry, the regulations require all those things have been written in blood.)
I mean, I have the unreasonable expectation that my taxi drivers aren't rapists, or haven't had recent DUIs, that their insurance will cover them while they are on the job, and that the ADA will come down like a metric tonne of bricks on them if they refuse to pick up disabled passengers... But perhaps that's too much to ask from a radical world-changing inspired baller.
(As with the rest of the transportation industry, the regulations require all those things have been written in blood.)
Were the taxi background checks in New York and San Francisco more comprehensive than those done by Uber?
Yes, they were, and yes, they are. Uber wasn't even doing background checks at the start, and they aren't doing fingerprint checks. They are quite literally, matching people's names. This has a huge false positive, and false negative rate.
Never mind that circumventing their background checks is also trivial - many drivers have gotten friends and relatives to create their accounts. This flies under the radar, because Uber doesn't care - they need more drivers.
They could, of course, calm these concerns by being transparent about their process (Or just doing the same that taxi companies do.) They don't, and they aren't, though.
[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
Never mind that circumventing their background checks is also trivial - many drivers have gotten friends and relatives to create their accounts. This flies under the radar, because Uber doesn't care - they need more drivers.
They could, of course, calm these concerns by being transparent about their process (Or just doing the same that taxi companies do.) They don't, and they aren't, though.
[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
Yes, I've read it all and feel much more confident stepping into an Uber than into a taxi. I'm hardly alone. It's not a rare or unusual view like you're trying to present it.
It's not like Uber is a rape fest touring the world in beat up lemons. In fact, I never even had an impolite conversation with the driver. It's just enforced with a different mechanism than background checks and inspections.
Frankly, I find the American paranoia behind running background checks on everyone much more bizarre than taking a ride in a stranger's car. And I highly doubt their effectiveness in a world where Reality Winner holds a (much harder to come by) security clearance.
It's not like Uber is a rape fest touring the world in beat up lemons. In fact, I never even had an impolite conversation with the driver. It's just enforced with a different mechanism than background checks and inspections.
Frankly, I find the American paranoia behind running background checks on everyone much more bizarre than taking a ride in a stranger's car. And I highly doubt their effectiveness in a world where Reality Winner holds a (much harder to come by) security clearance.
Do we need to run background checks on the guy who puts cheese on your taco at Taco Bell? Or on a window-washer? Probably not.
Do we need to run a background check on the guy who may be driving around an intoxicated woman at 3 am in the morning? Yes, yes, and a million times, yes.
Maybe also check to make sure that he doesn't have a few DUIs to his name. Or, you know, a pattern of riders complaining about their driver being buzzed. They aren't even sticking to their own policy, there.
https://www.thefix.com/uber-faces-11-million-fine-over-drunk...
Do we need to run a background check on the guy who may be driving around an intoxicated woman at 3 am in the morning? Yes, yes, and a million times, yes.
Maybe also check to make sure that he doesn't have a few DUIs to his name. Or, you know, a pattern of riders complaining about their driver being buzzed. They aren't even sticking to their own policy, there.
https://www.thefix.com/uber-faces-11-million-fine-over-drunk...
If they really believed that then they should have fought those laws in the political arena rather than just ignoring them.
ruthless business leader
That's what people don't like. The people who are most vocal don't like the "do anything it takes" approach.
That's what people don't like. The people who are most vocal don't like the "do anything it takes" approach.
Being a ruthless business leader does not mean allowing a toxic culture to exist under your leadership.
Being ruthless doesn't mean sending an executive to another country to get medical records on someone who is filing a lawsuit.
It doesn't mean having an HR department that ignores sexual harassment
If you cannot separate the two then that's a very big problem
Being ruthless doesn't mean sending an executive to another country to get medical records on someone who is filing a lawsuit.
It doesn't mean having an HR department that ignores sexual harassment
If you cannot separate the two then that's a very big problem
> But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade. This is exactly how FB started out.
"A famous man once paraphrased, 'We create our own role models.'" -- Tony Stank
"A famous man once paraphrased, 'We create our own role models.'" -- Tony Stank
there is likely more to the story - the volume of negative stories across all mediums really stinks - I fully expect it to come out that negativity was heavily funded at some point
I get some newsworthy things have happened there - but you'd expect that with such explosive/disruptive growth story
I know a lot of people who use Uber - they love the service - and it's become a verb - the online/media profile I see of the company has no resemblance to how everyone I interact with see it irl
I get some newsworthy things have happened there - but you'd expect that with such explosive/disruptive growth story
I know a lot of people who use Uber - they love the service - and it's become a verb - the online/media profile I see of the company has no resemblance to how everyone I interact with see it irl
He could have toned down the "playboy flair" and bro attitude as the company got larger and many of these PR issues would have been avoided (or would have been less of an issue). Perhaps just tell the cab driver that you will look into the issue rather than try to win an argument. Many of the things he has done are not wrong in a vacuum, but are not the right way of doing things when you want to run an inclusive company with a good culture.
I agree with most of what you said. But I guess what you are missing is that huge outrage machines like Twitter, FB and new generation online media did not existed 10 years back or at least in this form and with such global reach.
So many powerful people in past have had it easy for their less than perfect behavior.
So many powerful people in past have had it easy for their less than perfect behavior.
This isn't just the press covering Uber in a negative way.
I had been hearing horrible stories in private from former and current Uber engineers for several years before the first big press stories broke and personal blogs about Uber went viral. I wasn't surprised in the slightest that the press starting covering these Uber culture issues in a negative way, I was surprised that it took so long before they picked up the story and did.
Several engineers that I have talked to over the years had already been turning down Uber recruiters specifically because of Uber's culture problems, and I had already turned down their recruiters a few times as well as recommended to others to do the same. Their culture has been hurting the company for a long time, and its long past time for them to do something about it. If that means Kalanik needs to be ousted then they should just go ahead and do it now.
I had been hearing horrible stories in private from former and current Uber engineers for several years before the first big press stories broke and personal blogs about Uber went viral. I wasn't surprised in the slightest that the press starting covering these Uber culture issues in a negative way, I was surprised that it took so long before they picked up the story and did.
Several engineers that I have talked to over the years had already been turning down Uber recruiters specifically because of Uber's culture problems, and I had already turned down their recruiters a few times as well as recommended to others to do the same. Their culture has been hurting the company for a long time, and its long past time for them to do something about it. If that means Kalanik needs to be ousted then they should just go ahead and do it now.
>But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade.
Is this sort of behavior what we'd like to condone? I mean you even admit that its business practices are sometimes exploitative and that's what? How we're supposed to do things? "Grey-area" is a pretty large understatement as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...
>There was literally nothing wrong with the email
4) Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic "YES! I will have sex with you" AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command. Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML
How do you not see the problem with this? Travis is a full-grown adult, he's not even some kid fresh out of college and this is the culture he's setting? We've already seen the results of this culture through Susan Fowler and others.
>Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
Well first it needs to run a profit...
>I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him
Travis is the worst vision of this sort of techno-utopian capitalism. He's a billionaire running a company which can't make a profit. A business which breaks the laws in almost every country it enters, which doesn't seek to even understand why the regulation it is breaking exists in the first place. He runs the company like a frat house. This company also has two viable paths to profit:
Is this sort of behavior what we'd like to condone? I mean you even admit that its business practices are sometimes exploitative and that's what? How we're supposed to do things? "Grey-area" is a pretty large understatement as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...
>There was literally nothing wrong with the email
4) Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic "YES! I will have sex with you" AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command. Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML
How do you not see the problem with this? Travis is a full-grown adult, he's not even some kid fresh out of college and this is the culture he's setting? We've already seen the results of this culture through Susan Fowler and others.
>Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
Well first it needs to run a profit...
>I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him
Travis is the worst vision of this sort of techno-utopian capitalism. He's a billionaire running a company which can't make a profit. A business which breaks the laws in almost every country it enters, which doesn't seek to even understand why the regulation it is breaking exists in the first place. He runs the company like a frat house. This company also has two viable paths to profit:
1) Become a monopoly and raise prices.
2) Automate his employees (drivers) away.
He is telling people not rape people and not have sex with your subordinates. It seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe the wording could be better, but it isn't too scandalous.
But the point is that how you say things matters. In a more corporate environment there's rules about "relationships with colleagues". In Uber's case it's more like "don't have sex behind the bar (unless she says yes)".
In a corporate environment there are no emails telling people not to throw a keg off a roof because it is already expected that you behave with a certain level of decorum. Travis sending an email worded that poorly tells us a lot about his thought processes and because it's directly from him to his workforce it specifically tells us how it is that he perceives the employees of Uber. Mainly that he's a "bro" and his employees are all "bros" too so go have a fun time and do whatever bro, just don't get me in trouble. That's a problem.
In a corporate environment there are no emails telling people not to throw a keg off a roof because it is already expected that you behave with a certain level of decorum. Travis sending an email worded that poorly tells us a lot about his thought processes and because it's directly from him to his workforce it specifically tells us how it is that he perceives the employees of Uber. Mainly that he's a "bro" and his employees are all "bros" too so go have a fun time and do whatever bro, just don't get me in trouble. That's a problem.
I think every good workplace tries really hard to discourage relationships between employees, even if they can't ban them outright (because people will be people).
The basic problem is that, you go to work to work. If you go to a bar or a club or a party or a bookstore and someone there is coming on too strong, you can leave. It's nicer if the club or host or bar or bookstore makes them leave, but whatever, there are other bars, better bookstores. If you're at your job and a customer or a fellow employee is coming on too strong, and your employer doesn't do anything about it, you have the choice of "dealing with it" or "not having a job".
And people need a job; they're there so they can pay for rent and food and (if they're lucky) change the world for the better. Even if you work at an online matchmaking company, you're going to work to find dates for customers, not for yourself. Any finer discussion of the appropriate way or time or number of times to ask your coworker in accounting out is completely missing the point: your coworker in accounting shouldn't have to put up with any number of advances, no matter how mild, when they only show up at work each day to do accounting.
The basic problem is that, you go to work to work. If you go to a bar or a club or a party or a bookstore and someone there is coming on too strong, you can leave. It's nicer if the club or host or bar or bookstore makes them leave, but whatever, there are other bars, better bookstores. If you're at your job and a customer or a fellow employee is coming on too strong, and your employer doesn't do anything about it, you have the choice of "dealing with it" or "not having a job".
And people need a job; they're there so they can pay for rent and food and (if they're lucky) change the world for the better. Even if you work at an online matchmaking company, you're going to work to find dates for customers, not for yourself. Any finer discussion of the appropriate way or time or number of times to ask your coworker in accounting out is completely missing the point: your coworker in accounting shouldn't have to put up with any number of advances, no matter how mild, when they only show up at work each day to do accounting.
[deleted]
Just because someone is "really smart" does not give them license to be "really dumb" when it comes to enabling an inclusive culture, in a company where they have the responsibility of being it's CEO: vis-a-viz, being responsible for the company's employees.
He facilitated a workplace culture that, whether my omission or commission, was toxic for some of the people who worked there. Even if that was 0.001% and he wasn't demonstrably trying to bring that number down, he failed. Being a CEO is not "just" about bringing in profits at any cost, including that of the welfare of the employees.
He facilitated a workplace culture that, whether my omission or commission, was toxic for some of the people who worked there. Even if that was 0.001% and he wasn't demonstrably trying to bring that number down, he failed. Being a CEO is not "just" about bringing in profits at any cost, including that of the welfare of the employees.
> But this [grey-area, sometimes exploitative] is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade.
No, no it's not.
> This is exactly how FB started out.
People keep comparing Uber to Facebook. "Facebook acted shitty, therefore acting shitty is part of the recipe for a successful startup."
It's not.
In fact, your comment is evidence of how destructive some of this unethical behavior can be: It can directly influence future founders and give them a pass on their own unethical and shitty behavior. "Facebook did it, so it must be okay." "Uber did it -- it's just part of how startups work."
But it's not.
No, no it's not.
> This is exactly how FB started out.
People keep comparing Uber to Facebook. "Facebook acted shitty, therefore acting shitty is part of the recipe for a successful startup."
It's not.
In fact, your comment is evidence of how destructive some of this unethical behavior can be: It can directly influence future founders and give them a pass on their own unethical and shitty behavior. "Facebook did it, so it must be okay." "Uber did it -- it's just part of how startups work."
But it's not.
While I do think you have a point regarding how the company is run in a general sense like most start-ups should run (at least according to the ethos on HN), you're down playing the sexual harassment and culture issues by an incredible margin.
People who love iPhone never hesitate to call Jobs a ruthless leader. We as a community are only interested in the benefits while insanely criticising the primary causal factor of it. Same goes with everything abt Travis. He made his mistakes. No cover up in it. But that doesn't mean he's inherently bad or unqualified. Had it been someone else, Taxi industry wouldn't have disrupted. We enjoy the luxury of travelling in Uber or Ola or Lyft which is fundamentally the problem solved by Travis, that's a long forgotten fact. This is again not an excuse for his mistakes but he's been over cut and over punished.
I am doubtful nice, rule following Uber would have ever been able to break in to the markets they did.
There are good examples here and bad ones. We've seen a few bad ones where startup founders do crazy stuff and end up in prison (and a few I suspect will be headed that way.) Whatever Uber did right and wrong, make sure you learn the correct lessons and not the wrong ones.
There are good examples here and bad ones. We've seen a few bad ones where startup founders do crazy stuff and end up in prison (and a few I suspect will be headed that way.) Whatever Uber did right and wrong, make sure you learn the correct lessons and not the wrong ones.
I don't think there's anything gray about a car service booking app. The gray area is Uber's deliberate pushing of legal boundaries and using skechy business practices. Lyft is in the same business and has not become infamous for this kind of thing. They are fairly successful too, even if they are (for now) 2nd place behind Uber. In New York City anyway almost all the drivers are using multiple services anyway so it makes very little difference (in this market).
So why is it that other businesses doing exactly the same thing Uber is doing are able to do it successfully without the legal and cultural issues?
So why is it that other businesses doing exactly the same thing Uber is doing are able to do it successfully without the legal and cultural issues?
[deleted]
One of his parents died and the other was severely injured, no? Who wouldn't take leave under those circumstances?
Based on this quote:
"If we are going to work on Uber 2.0, I also need to work on Travis 2.0 to become the leader that this company needs and that you deserve," Kalanick wrote in an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. "During the interim period, the leadership team, my directs, will be running the company."
It appears he is leaving more due to the issues with uber then him mom dying, but I am sure it contributed.
"If we are going to work on Uber 2.0, I also need to work on Travis 2.0 to become the leader that this company needs and that you deserve," Kalanick wrote in an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. "During the interim period, the leadership team, my directs, will be running the company."
It appears he is leaving more due to the issues with uber then him mom dying, but I am sure it contributed.
You're quoting out of context. The first line of the email explicitly says he's taking time off to grieve, reflect and work on himself, in that order (he also enumerates "focus on building a leadership team" as a reason, though I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be done when one's taking time off)
The second paragraph (the one you quoted) is a tie-in to the third paragraph, where he says what's going to happen in terms of leadership during this interim period.
The second paragraph (the one you quoted) is a tie-in to the third paragraph, where he says what's going to happen in terms of leadership during this interim period.
If this were a book or movie, a significant life event like either of those (or both) would be the natural opening of a new arc.
While I sympathize with him for his loss, and think he deserves a leave, this critical part of the leave has nothing to do with bereavement:
> Upon Kalanick’s return, Uber will strip him of some duties and appoint an independent chair to limit his influence, according to an advance copy of a report prepared for the board.
> Upon Kalanick’s return, Uber will strip him of some duties and appoint an independent chair to limit his influence, according to an advance copy of a report prepared for the board.
Losing a parent is a shock, especially when it happens in an unexpected manner like this, but it's something everyone faces and most people don't take extended leaves from work as a result.
Having unexpectedly lost a parent myself, and worked with others who have been through similar circumstances, it is absolutely accepted and expected to take at least a week off, probably longer, if you work for a reasonable company with a reasonable manager. It's one of the most difficult things most people will experience in life. That amount of time is barely enough to get over the initial shock before you half heartedly return to work while beginning to deal with probate, attorneys, settling the estate, and trying to work through your emotions.
I suspect this forum is mostly teens and twenty somethings. We all lose a parent(s). It happened to me and it'll happen to you. It happens all the time with your coworkers, you just don't notice it. People don't take a year off to 'find themselves' after losing a parent. They suddenly have a funeral to plan (and pay for) and then get back to their jobs. That's life.
Also, if you want to get into boating, don't let an animal onto your boat. This accident happened because the family dog stepped in between mom and dad switching passenger/driver positions.
Also, if you want to get into boating, don't let an animal onto your boat. This accident happened because the family dog stepped in between mom and dad switching passenger/driver positions.
People who have to work to maintain housing and a family don't take a year off after losing someone close.
If you have the money and the ability, and the pain is hard enough, why would it be unreasonable to take time off? I haven't lost a parent yet, but I would probably want more than a weekend to grieve.
If you have the money and the ability, and the pain is hard enough, why would it be unreasonable to take time off? I haven't lost a parent yet, but I would probably want more than a weekend to grieve.
it's not unreasonable, but it's also unrelated to a lot of the issues Uber is coming under fire for.
That was the consensus yesterday too.
When it rains, it pours.
Except when it doesn't. That saying is just confirmation bias.
Buried at the very very bottom of the article as a footnote.
Glossing over the tragedy of unexpectedly losing one's mother and almost losing One's father. The media reporting on Uber absolutely disgusts me and demonstrates a culture far more toxic than anything I've heard about Uber.
My bet is that the media doesn't make public any email from Travis about this because it will likely show how the media is grossly misrepresenting things.
FWIW How people read online: why you won't finish this article.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/...
Glossing over the tragedy of unexpectedly losing one's mother and almost losing One's father. The media reporting on Uber absolutely disgusts me and demonstrates a culture far more toxic than anything I've heard about Uber.
My bet is that the media doesn't make public any email from Travis about this because it will likely show how the media is grossly misrepresenting things.
FWIW How people read online: why you won't finish this article.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/...
So Greyball was fake? How about their Hell program? Or the fact that one of their executives illegally acquired a rape victims medical reports and circulated them around the office?
Uber has continuously demonstrated a total disregard for both the law and common decency. They lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.
Uber has continuously demonstrated a total disregard for both the law and common decency. They lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.
Kalanick was aware and had seen the rape victim's health records and apparently it was an attempt (by Emil?) to figure out how to discredit the victim and her accusations.
These are horrific people and while I sympathize with Kalanick over the loss of his mother and his father's situation, I do not wish him any professional success.
These are horrific people and while I sympathize with Kalanick over the loss of his mother and his father's situation, I do not wish him any professional success.
My position here is "I am entirely capable of hating Kalanick and the reporting about Kalanick at the same time".
Most media reporting is disgusting and written primarily to get page views. Facts are selected to support the narrative they are pushing.
That doesn't excuse Kalanik and the way he ran the company.
That doesn't excuse Kalanik and the way he ran the company.
I'm reminded of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect - how we are constantly surprised when the media gets crucial details (which we are personally familiar with) so very wrong in their reporting.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-ge...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-ge...
You think this leave is his choice? I haven't seen anything indicating this was initiated by him or that he was setting the terms of the leave. Further, the board explicitly put in place reduced responsibility after he comes back. This seems very much imposed on him.
On a side note, I would love to see sources that show this is really voluntary. I am very curious about this. I actually think the real reason for his ouster is Uber's in ability to become profitable. A voluntary departure would undercut my thesis and I think it is always important to correct analysis.
On a side note, I would love to see sources that show this is really voluntary. I am very curious about this. I actually think the real reason for his ouster is Uber's in ability to become profitable. A voluntary departure would undercut my thesis and I think it is always important to correct analysis.
My corporate overlord is the good one!
Yeah. His mom died and his dad was severely injured in a boating accident. Very curious there is no mention of that.
Edit: They actually mention it at the end of the article
http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/uber-ceo-parents-tribute-boati...
http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/uber-ceo-parents-tribute-boati...
Right near the end of the article it says:
> Kalanick decided to take a leave while also coping with the death of his mother, whose funeral he attended Friday.
> Kalanick decided to take a leave while also coping with the death of his mother, whose funeral he attended Friday.
Ah thanks, I missed that sentence.
It's simple. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the defamatory narrative they were just itching to write for the rest of the article.
Either that, or they simply didn't know. But I find the latter hard to believe. Even if that detail was missed, it's very poor journalism to not find the full story.
Either that, or they simply didn't know. But I find the latter hard to believe. Even if that detail was missed, it's very poor journalism to not find the full story.
The newscaster did mention that he hasn't been at work since the incident, spending time instead with his dad. It's a challenging time for anyone going through this, even if he's overseen some questionable things at his company.
I may dislike Uber, and Travis, and the worldwide practices of the firm, BUT a tragic loss is a tragic loss. I hope his father recovers completely and that together they will manage to cope with the lose of a Mother and Wife.
(same goes to all who have lost a loved one irrespective of how they run their business)
(same goes to all who have lost a loved one irrespective of how they run their business)
Uber clearly has massive issue internally so far as culture; while it's not as large of a problem as the obvious economic and labor issues of having a non-automated fleet, it's giving up a wicked stink that is causing talented employees to flee. That is a very difficult spiral to get out of.
I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that, but obviously I'm sure the decision is partly, if not mostly due to the tragedy involving his family. On that front, I wish him peace but on everything else, he's been behind the wheel (heh) of what appears to be a pretty toxic company, both in terms of culture and the balance sheet.
I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that, but obviously I'm sure the decision is partly, if not mostly due to the tragedy involving his family. On that front, I wish him peace but on everything else, he's been behind the wheel (heh) of what appears to be a pretty toxic company, both in terms of culture and the balance sheet.
> I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that
Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained the benefit of Uber getting itself in order while TK is on leave:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages...
"Doesn't it seem like a great idea? Everyone understands that Uber needs some change, needs some adults in the room to rein in Kalanick. But it's hard to find someone who wants to waltz in, shake Kalanick's hand, and say "hi, I'm your adult." Presumably Kalanick would give that person a wedgie and retire to his room to sulk. But what if Kalanick weren't there? What if Kalanick took a few months off, Uber hired some adults, they set to work doing adult things, and then by the time Kalanick got back Uber was a well-oiled non-controversial profit-making (why not?) machine? He'd walk in, refreshed and ready to go, and say "hey guys, let's write a sex-party memo." And the COO would say "no that is not appropriate," and the general counsel would agree, and the head of human resources would give him a stern talking-to, and they'd all have each others' backs and the support of the board. The central problem with rebooting Uber's culture is that the culture comes from Kalanick, and he is the boss; the central problems with getting rid of Kalanick are (1) he has super-voting shares and a pretty good lock on the board and (2) he is the visionary behind Uber and might actually be necessary to its success. But getting rid of Kalanick temporarily and voluntarily might give the company time to fix itself and bring Kalanick back as a regular CEO, ensconced in a regular structure of regular corporate behavior."
Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained the benefit of Uber getting itself in order while TK is on leave:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages...
"Doesn't it seem like a great idea? Everyone understands that Uber needs some change, needs some adults in the room to rein in Kalanick. But it's hard to find someone who wants to waltz in, shake Kalanick's hand, and say "hi, I'm your adult." Presumably Kalanick would give that person a wedgie and retire to his room to sulk. But what if Kalanick weren't there? What if Kalanick took a few months off, Uber hired some adults, they set to work doing adult things, and then by the time Kalanick got back Uber was a well-oiled non-controversial profit-making (why not?) machine? He'd walk in, refreshed and ready to go, and say "hey guys, let's write a sex-party memo." And the COO would say "no that is not appropriate," and the general counsel would agree, and the head of human resources would give him a stern talking-to, and they'd all have each others' backs and the support of the board. The central problem with rebooting Uber's culture is that the culture comes from Kalanick, and he is the boss; the central problems with getting rid of Kalanick are (1) he has super-voting shares and a pretty good lock on the board and (2) he is the visionary behind Uber and might actually be necessary to its success. But getting rid of Kalanick temporarily and voluntarily might give the company time to fix itself and bring Kalanick back as a regular CEO, ensconced in a regular structure of regular corporate behavior."
I was prefacing it more in terms of the trickle-down effect; literally thousands of people have been hired into a culture that was mandated by Kalanick. (See PatrickAuld's post on this thread.) Just because he goes away doesn't mean that they all do; if anything, they might view what's happening to Travis as unnecessary, or worse, unfair.
Ergo, there's a ton of timebombs ticking away all over that place. Very possible the irreversible damage has already been done.
Ergo, there's a ton of timebombs ticking away all over that place. Very possible the irreversible damage has already been done.
If leadership is replaced and strengthened, the rest of the corporate structure will fall in line or be terminated. Culture comes from the top.
In theory, yes. In practice, that takes time and probably more time than they have. If you hire this many people into a culture where 'x' was ok last week and off the table this week you end up with the same kind of situation that an incoming government deals with: the civil servants have not changed.
Travis Kalanick is not being stripped of several of his responsibilities because his mother died.
yep. this is the end of the convo. people trying to say "his mom died" is the reason he's built a toxic culture probably have no real attachment to how leaders respond to difficult situaitons.
So, its not really related.
Travis could be (insert inappropriate Godwin's law reference here), but his mom just died. We should cut him some slack for that, at least (do unto others etc).
That's doesn't excuse Uber, but it also doesn't excuse Bloomberg burying the lede like that.
Travis could be (insert inappropriate Godwin's law reference here), but his mom just died. We should cut him some slack for that, at least (do unto others etc).
That's doesn't excuse Uber, but it also doesn't excuse Bloomberg burying the lede like that.
Let's ignore the fact that TK is a garbage fire for a moment and talk about what an utter disaster this move is. A smarter contributor than me write a good article that basically said you shouldn't own something you're not contributing to. By this logic he should be selling his stake right now. Except no-one wants to buy it. Which leaves an IPO, which is a tough ask for a firm that's never made a profit and, AFAICT, not even on the board's radar.
That or this is a temporary face-saving measure that doesn't really change anything, and that's a disaster too.
That or this is a temporary face-saving measure that doesn't really change anything, and that's a disaster too.
> The recommendations included reviewing Mr. Kalanick’s responsibilities and reallocating them, with an increased emphasis on a chief operating officer at the company.
Does that mean moving him from CEO into more of a COO role, or bringing on a COO and reallocating those responsibilities to that person?
Does that mean moving him from CEO into more of a COO role, or bringing on a COO and reallocating those responsibilities to that person?
I'm reminded of Marc Andreessen's guide to startups, particularly on firing executives:
"Demotion as an alternative to firing (or, alternately, "I know, we'll hire her a boss!"). Hate it. Great people don't deal well with getting demoted. There is an occasional exception. Unless you are positive you have such an exception, skip it, and move directly to the conclusion." http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part8.html
"Demotion as an alternative to firing (or, alternately, "I know, we'll hire her a boss!"). Hate it. Great people don't deal well with getting demoted. There is an occasional exception. Unless you are positive you have such an exception, skip it, and move directly to the conclusion." http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part8.html
I think it's a timing thing. From the boards point of view, there is value for Tk to take leave and value for Uber to have someone else at the helm.
Although from TK's point of view it would really suck. It's like loosing your mother and a child.
I read somewhere that the best thing to do to cope with extreme personal tragedies is to keep oneself busy... what's better way to keep oneself busy than to work.
Although from TK's point of view it would really suck. It's like loosing your mother and a child.
I read somewhere that the best thing to do to cope with extreme personal tragedies is to keep oneself busy... what's better way to keep oneself busy than to work.
A couple years overdue. I'm sorry for the man, but this would be necessary regardless of his parent's death.
[deleted]
Maybe you should stop watching too much TV.
Personal attacks get accounts banned on HN, so please don't post like this again. Repetitive spats like the current thread are bad enough as it is.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14546626 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14546626 and marked it off-topic.
kolbe(3)
prediction: this post will have 300+ comments and 300+ votes.
You forgot to guestimate the number of flags.
ABOUT TIME
I like Kalanik because he's not a Stanford|Harvard douche bag. Was he privileged growing up?
Omg, how is THIS the story that is on the top of hacker news?
I want to hear the results of the Holder investigation.
I want to hear the results of the Holder investigation.
[deleted]
I did an interview there this year and it was the most aggressive questioning I've ever had. Two of 5 interviewers were really in my face while architecting systems; it was bizarre and I almost walked out. Nothing compared to the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience I could describe. I told them I have never knowingly or even likely unknowingly broken the law at a job.
I was trying to use them to counter offer another company but in the end they never returned my calls or contacted me to say if I got the job or not.