Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/11/business/11reuters-uber-board-ceo.html
109 comments
[deleted]
My understanding is the other board members combined have more voting control than Travis individually.
So yes, they could, but the power isn't distributed evenly, so it's not as simple as getting >50% of votes.
So yes, they could, but the power isn't distributed evenly, so it's not as simple as getting >50% of votes.
They prob cant fire him but they can say that hes a big punching bag right now and bringing extra negative attention and he needs a break.
Zuckerberg didn't need a break and Facebook turned out fine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165566/Mark-Zuckerb...
All the company needs is some pressure to shore up some long overdue culture debt. This is the fastest growing company in history after all. Not every aspect of the company was going to come out of the over perfectly baked when you grow that quickly. Uber isn't the first successful startup with this issue and it won't be the last.
Replacing the leader would be a terrible mistake. I'm not a religious person, but I do wish more people were familiar with the lesson taught in the parables of the Lost Son, Lost Sheep or Lost Coin. Redemption is always possible. Society as a whole would be much better off if we gave more people a chance to redeem themselves. Not considering people capable of redemption and considering people deserving of punishment without mercy is the reason we (the United States) have the disaster that is the largest incarcerated population in the World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165566/Mark-Zuckerb...
All the company needs is some pressure to shore up some long overdue culture debt. This is the fastest growing company in history after all. Not every aspect of the company was going to come out of the over perfectly baked when you grow that quickly. Uber isn't the first successful startup with this issue and it won't be the last.
Replacing the leader would be a terrible mistake. I'm not a religious person, but I do wish more people were familiar with the lesson taught in the parables of the Lost Son, Lost Sheep or Lost Coin. Redemption is always possible. Society as a whole would be much better off if we gave more people a chance to redeem themselves. Not considering people capable of redemption and considering people deserving of punishment without mercy is the reason we (the United States) have the disaster that is the largest incarcerated population in the World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
I'm not sure the problems at Facebook were in the same league as those at Uber. See eg. "How true are Katherine Losse's allegations..." on Quora https://www.quora.com/How-true-are-Katherine-Losses-allegati...
I don't see any reason why Charlotte Willner's account of what happened at Facebook couldn't apply just as easily to Uber. What makes you say that things are not in the same league? Katherine Losses' allegations are as salacious as anything I've heard about Uber (or many other successful early stage tech companies for that matter)
Liane Hornsey was formerly the VP of People Operations at Google for like 5 years I think. I'm far more inclined to believe her account of what things are like than any journalist lazily trolling for any disgruntled former employee to recount a story that will generate ad impressions.
After five months of examining the company's culture,
Uber's new human resources officer, Liane Hornsey
concluded that the firm's treatment of women was no
worse than what occurs at other companies.
Uber's biggest employee problems are pay and pride, not
sexism, says HR boss “Wherever I have worked, I have
seen things that are not great for women,” Hornsey said
in a USA TODAY interview. “I don’t think it’s about tech,
or this city or this company. I think it’s about the
world of work, and I think that it’s something that we
have to take really super seriously.”
Liane Hornsey was formerly the VP of People Operations at Google for like 5 years I think. I'm far more inclined to believe her account of what things are like than any journalist lazily trolling for any disgruntled former employee to recount a story that will generate ad impressions.
Well, companies are not religious cults. And ceos are way overrated in the US. I feel like Travis is way to egocentric and that's bad for company http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/its-time-end-cult-ceo/leade...
It's kind of ironic that that article uses Elon Musk as his example, especially in light of this first hand account of an accomplish rocket scientist explaining how impressed he was with Elon Musk learning rocket science by himself.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket-...
I generally agree with the sentiment that we should end the cult of the CEO, but that doesn't negate the fact that some CEOs might actually deserve the praise and respect they get.
Until you've actually worked directly for the Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerbergs, Travis Kalanicks and Steve Jobses of the world, you shouldn't dismiss that they might have actually earned cults they've created.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket-...
I generally agree with the sentiment that we should end the cult of the CEO, but that doesn't negate the fact that some CEOs might actually deserve the praise and respect they get.
Until you've actually worked directly for the Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerbergs, Travis Kalanicks and Steve Jobses of the world, you shouldn't dismiss that they might have actually earned cults they've created.
I think redemption is definitely important space to allow for, however it probably shouldn't mean keeping everything as it is. Or rather, Kalanick can still redeem themself not as the CEO of Uber
Now there is reporting that Chief Business Officer, Emil Michael is out as well. [1][2] I guess the Holder investigation wasn't as toothless as people had initially worried.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/emil-michael-uber-chief-busin...
[2] https://www.axios.com/top-uber-exec-emil-michael-to-resign-2...
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/emil-michael-uber-chief-busin...
[2] https://www.axios.com/top-uber-exec-emil-michael-to-resign-2...
Well CEO's mother passed away and father is still in hospital. I feel his absence is totally normal IMO. Most of Uber news on this board are total click baits. I agree with many people who feel the anti-Uber lazy reporting is out of control.
You misunderstood. This is not about a current absence of the CEO, this is about the board debating to potentially force the CEO to take leave of absence.
The funny thing is that Kalanick may be pushed out over sexual harassment of a few people. Not for systematically underpaying several hundred thousand people. Not for creating a financial structure that's about a year from collapse.
The sexual harassment is more unusual and thus attention-worthy, though. We're so used to large corporations routinely screwing over their employees that it just becomes par for the course, and results in class-action settlements and maybe a few news articles but nothing else. Rampant sexual harassment at a company, however, is more newsworthy, and gets people paying attention.
I thought the problem was overpaying several hundred thousand people?
Or undercharging several hundred thousand customers? (Not earning enough)
Demand would drop if they charged more. This would have the following potential results:
- all driver earn more per trip, but may not make more per hour since there would be fewer trips to accept
- drivers who see a drop in the number of trips will be earning less or will have to exit the market if they don't earn enough.
- only when some drivers choose to exit the market would the remaining drivers be able to earn more per trip and and accept the same number of rides per hour.
Any company following Uber's loss leading strategy at the end of the day is fomenting more liquidity in order to gauge how much more demand there is at a lower price point. That gives them a profitability target to work towards by becoming more efficient.
- all driver earn more per trip, but may not make more per hour since there would be fewer trips to accept
- drivers who see a drop in the number of trips will be earning less or will have to exit the market if they don't earn enough.
- only when some drivers choose to exit the market would the remaining drivers be able to earn more per trip and and accept the same number of rides per hour.
Any company following Uber's loss leading strategy at the end of the day is fomenting more liquidity in order to gauge how much more demand there is at a lower price point. That gives them a profitability target to work towards by becoming more efficient.
This may not be the place for it, but: what's the deal with Uber not rolling out in Western Canada? I know the government hates them, but didn't they launch illegally like...everywhere else?
Vancouver was one of the first cities they launched in. And one of the first they got booted out of.
My personal theory is we're actually a crap market for Uber. We'd obviously love ride sharing but realistically the alternatives (transit, walkability, car share) are simply quite good. Even our cabs aren't that expensive compared to other cities where Uber has really caught on. We'd use Uber, just not that much.
My personal theory is we're actually a crap market for Uber. We'd obviously love ride sharing but realistically the alternatives (transit, walkability, car share) are simply quite good. Even our cabs aren't that expensive compared to other cities where Uber has really caught on. We'd use Uber, just not that much.
Vancouver is getting Uber back by end of 2017:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-taxi-1.401...
They operate in Calgary and Edmonton.
Heck, Alberta is providing a model for how to regulate and insure Uber drivers. The only reason the rollout was paused last year was because the insurance issue couldn't be resolved in time. That has since been resolved and Uber is absolutely operating in the province.
Hasn't he already put a lot of eggs in that Chinese company?
Well his parents just had an accident, too...
davidpelayo(1)
thrwitaway11(1)
Something wrong about this: someone in power being held accoutable for their incompetence and bad behavior. Or did he just loose some rich people too much money?
What incompetence? This guy built $70B company from scratch in markets which had regulations and very active taxi unions lobbying against the very existence of the company. More importantly, Uber has helped improve the lives of hundreds of millions of commuters across the globe.
What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?
Also, it is important to understand that his "always hustling" and "being ruthless" or "never say die" attitude are a double edged sword. The same attitude has served him very well when taking on local governments to push his service through - but is creating a number of challenges at running a company which has now become quite big.
What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?
Also, it is important to understand that his "always hustling" and "being ruthless" or "never say die" attitude are a double edged sword. The same attitude has served him very well when taking on local governments to push his service through - but is creating a number of challenges at running a company which has now become quite big.
While yes, he achieved a lot, I cannot agree on praising him.
This reminds me of all the marketing gurus from 5 years ago that were selling rich quick schemes. They sold a product, they got rich, but in the end they were scamming regular people.
While Travis is not scamming anyone, the methods are similar. Get rich by exploiting barely legal methods, unethical ways and ride to the fame using someone else money.
While Travis is not scamming anyone, the methods are similar. Get rich by exploiting barely legal methods, unethical ways and ride to the fame using someone else money.
I'd argue to build a company like Uber, he needed to stay on the edge of law given the archaic regulations and active lobbying by incumbents. Eventually, the improvement in the quality of life of 100s of millions of users who use Uber regularly vindicates his efforts.
> What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?
At the risk of going on a tangent - isn't this ad hominem? Imagine for a second, someone profoundly successful made the statement OP made. Does your outlook change then?
I'd say no because nobody, not even Sergei and Larry, not even the devil incarnate at the database company, not anyone in silicon valley has done what Travis and his team have done.
I was never a fan of ubers because like Dropbox I thought it was too simplistic and too easily replaceable. I've become more wary of the anti uber propaganda lately. I'm more suspicious of the press than ever. When I read some news all I can think of is which ax are they grinding there. The constant onslaught of anti uber propaganda makes me think something is wrong here.
If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?
I was never a fan of ubers because like Dropbox I thought it was too simplistic and too easily replaceable. I've become more wary of the anti uber propaganda lately. I'm more suspicious of the press than ever. When I read some news all I can think of is which ax are they grinding there. The constant onslaught of anti uber propaganda makes me think something is wrong here.
If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?
For what it's worth anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't have rung true for me nearly as well had a friend not driven for Uber and reported back how little he got payed.
I know my story is an anecdote but I can't help but feel that it's not an uncommon experience for drivers to feel taken advantage of or that the anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective if their most visible public faces didn't feel used by the company.
I know mine is an anecdote and should be taken with a heavy grain of salt but I can't help but imagine that if Uber drivers as a whole were happier and better comped, say with in app tipping, that the overall perception of Uber would be better and drivers would be much more excited to recommend the service to their friends and family.
I know my story is an anecdote but I can't help but feel that it's not an uncommon experience for drivers to feel taken advantage of or that the anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective if their most visible public faces didn't feel used by the company.
I know mine is an anecdote and should be taken with a heavy grain of salt but I can't help but imagine that if Uber drivers as a whole were happier and better comped, say with in app tipping, that the overall perception of Uber would be better and drivers would be much more excited to recommend the service to their friends and family.
Can you share some numbers, what did your friend make.
I don't remember specifics but it was less than federal minimum wage, partially because the area was over saturated with drivers and partly because the biggest cab route in the city is off limits to Uber.
A driver friend showed me his phone. His best was about $1800 a week. He said he has met people who have had over $2.5k weeks. The hours are horrible though.
I'd say the goal is not to maximize driver earning but rather to minimize rider pain. If drivers make more in the process that's great. If not, it is not our concern.
I'd say the goal is not to maximize driver earning but rather to minimize rider pain. If drivers make more in the process that's great. If not, it is not our concern.
anti-Uber for this reason is just a specific case of Luddism. Just replace "Uber" in "anti-Uber" with whatever company would have instead driven down salaries in this industry and eventually put drivers out of work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Elevator Operators: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b235dc58a1cfb3bef06fdd...
Switchboard operators: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/23/bc/a4/23bc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Elevator Operators: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b235dc58a1cfb3bef06fdd...
Switchboard operators: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/23/bc/a4/23bc...
"If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?"
Maybe not foster a culture of sexual harassment? Maybe not hire private investigators to tail reporters?
Seriously, everything bad that's come on Uber lately is no one's fault but their own. They, and no one else, performed these actions.
Maybe not foster a culture of sexual harassment? Maybe not hire private investigators to tail reporters?
Seriously, everything bad that's come on Uber lately is no one's fault but their own. They, and no one else, performed these actions.
double edged sword and/or two sides of the same coin
I would much rather celebrated people who having choice between gain and morality choose morality. Uber behavior made it harder for less law breaking less immoral to succeed for a time.
"Being ruthless" is not double edged sword - it is simply unethical behavior that gives you advantage. That is all there is to it. More ethical CEOs face challenges too, pretty much the same challenges.
"Being ruthless" is not double edged sword - it is simply unethical behavior that gives you advantage. That is all there is to it. More ethical CEOs face challenges too, pretty much the same challenges.
It's not necessarily that Travis acknowledges that he acts immoral. After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers. Surely he slipped with the whole UberX and driver's pay going way to low, but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market. Would be interesting to hear how he feels about that whole thing and whether he regrets doing the thing which he essentially had to do.
In regard to self-driving, Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business if Uber didn't start getting on the same train. In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
In regard to self-driving, Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business if Uber didn't start getting on the same train. In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
> but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market
> Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business
That is exactly what I am talking. "I wanted to win against them" might be an explanation, but not a freaking excuse. Having choice between getting advantage and not doing something unethical, Uber consistently chosen unethical. Feeling bad about those things once you get caught is probably nicer then not feeling bad, but does not make all that much difference in real world. How you feel does not changes impact of your actions on other people nor their morality.
> After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers.
But somehow when taxi companies are as greedy as him and as unjust as him, then it is bad. Or rather, this was just populism/propaganda to turn people against competitors and regulators - to gain advantage for himself.
> In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
Yeah and Paris taxi driver who cut tires of Uber car did what was necessary to fight Uber. Sure he essentially did what he had to do and sure since he certainly feels bad about it after being caught then it is fine.
I mean, if I claim my collegue achievments my own or badmouth him behind back to make him look less capable and put myself up, then I am just essentially doing what I have to do, right?
> Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business
That is exactly what I am talking. "I wanted to win against them" might be an explanation, but not a freaking excuse. Having choice between getting advantage and not doing something unethical, Uber consistently chosen unethical. Feeling bad about those things once you get caught is probably nicer then not feeling bad, but does not make all that much difference in real world. How you feel does not changes impact of your actions on other people nor their morality.
> After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers.
But somehow when taxi companies are as greedy as him and as unjust as him, then it is bad. Or rather, this was just populism/propaganda to turn people against competitors and regulators - to gain advantage for himself.
> In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
Yeah and Paris taxi driver who cut tires of Uber car did what was necessary to fight Uber. Sure he essentially did what he had to do and sure since he certainly feels bad about it after being caught then it is fine.
I mean, if I claim my collegue achievments my own or badmouth him behind back to make him look less capable and put myself up, then I am just essentially doing what I have to do, right?
Does all this begin with the premise that law-breaking is by necessity immoral?
No, I don't think that all law-breaking is by necessity immoral. People who broke the law and printed illegal literature in soviet block are heroes. Or people who helped runaway slaves. Eduard Snowden broke the law and I find it perfectly fine. If you don't stop at stop sign on bicycle, I don't find it particularly immoral.
However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above categories.
However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above categories.
People saving me from being scammed are also heroes.
Even if they are breaking corrupt laws passed by the lobbyists working for the incumbents? Regulatory capture is a thing that harms society and Uber has done more to undo that harm than in this industry than anyone else.
If that would be true, they would not push for change in locations where regulations were sane. If they stood for pure market only, they would not sabotage competitors. They have their own lobbyist pushing for whatever suits them.
He's not doing it because of that, though. He's doing it to get money. If he really felt that way, he'd be living to remove those laws.
> was a necessary measure
Ah yes, the favorite excuse of scoundrels. It was "necessary".
Of course it was also "necessary" for Uber drivers to feed their kids. But hey, can't worry about that, we gotta disrupt!
Ah yes, the favorite excuse of scoundrels. It was "necessary".
Of course it was also "necessary" for Uber drivers to feed their kids. But hey, can't worry about that, we gotta disrupt!
> doing the thing which he essentially had to do
That's not how morality works.
That's not how morality works.
"[...] in markets which had regulations [...]"
Sounds like some guys during the prohibition if they could have filed for an IPO.
Sounds like some guys during the prohibition if they could have filed for an IPO.
I agree that what Uber have done --and are still doing-- is particularly impressive, and took a particular type of leader and team. There is no current comparison I can think of.
I also agree strongly with another poster that the current vein of media focus on Uber is suspicious. It makes me worry about lazy reporting --any story about Uber gets noticed, no matter how irrelevant-- and also about who is actively funding an anti-Uber PR campaign - big established taxi companies, possibly? As time goes on, the media's approach makes me more and more sympathetic towards Travis and Uber, not less.
However... everyone should have some standards. It should be possible to run a high-achieving company without requiring or tolerating behaviour ranging from sexism to overt harassment. And the recent example of a rape victim's medical records being acquired and shared is particularly egregious - irrespective of their suspicions, that was well beyond a line, and the perpetrator should have been immediately fired.
I'm always a fan of the newspaper test - don't do anything you'd be ashamed of appearing on the front page of a major newspaper. Many of the things that Uber are criticised for, they'd probably be (rightly) proud of being publicised. But not all.
I also agree strongly with another poster that the current vein of media focus on Uber is suspicious. It makes me worry about lazy reporting --any story about Uber gets noticed, no matter how irrelevant-- and also about who is actively funding an anti-Uber PR campaign - big established taxi companies, possibly? As time goes on, the media's approach makes me more and more sympathetic towards Travis and Uber, not less.
However... everyone should have some standards. It should be possible to run a high-achieving company without requiring or tolerating behaviour ranging from sexism to overt harassment. And the recent example of a rape victim's medical records being acquired and shared is particularly egregious - irrespective of their suspicions, that was well beyond a line, and the perpetrator should have been immediately fired.
I'm always a fan of the newspaper test - don't do anything you'd be ashamed of appearing on the front page of a major newspaper. Many of the things that Uber are criticised for, they'd probably be (rightly) proud of being publicised. But not all.
> What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?
It's true, I haven't condoned obtaining the confidential medical records of a rape victim by my direct report, ignored dozens of sexual harassment complaints by my employees, or attempted to suppress an HR complaint about me taking my managers to an escort bar in Korea.
I am being deliberately facetious, but your argument "what have you done lately?" is a double edged sword. Yeah, nobody here has done what Travis did running Uber - including all the shit (both proven and allegedly).
It's true, I haven't condoned obtaining the confidential medical records of a rape victim by my direct report, ignored dozens of sexual harassment complaints by my employees, or attempted to suppress an HR complaint about me taking my managers to an escort bar in Korea.
I am being deliberately facetious, but your argument "what have you done lately?" is a double edged sword. Yeah, nobody here has done what Travis did running Uber - including all the shit (both proven and allegedly).
Indeed. Most of this thread comes across incredibly reductionist as if it were possible to categorize someone as good or evil. Surely Travis acts as an effective executive in some cases and a poor one in others. Context has deep importance in evaluating people.
Kalanick deserves respect, undoubtedly. If he is wise, he will also recognize that some compartmentalization or evolution in how he approaches the whole endeavor is a natural part of the growth of an entity entering a more stable and mature phase. You do not fight the same battles in the whole war.
They're now losing market share to Lyft. A lot of it coincides with stuff he has done to bring the company bad PR.
It's LOSE, not loose. Sorry, this is apparently the one occurrence that sent me over the edge.
Lose rhymes with news. Loose rhymes with Bruce. If you can say "Bruce is in the news," you're halfway there.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bruce+news&kp=-2&ia=news
You can lose a fight, lose money, lose your wallet. You can fight a losing battle, you can be a loser baby. Rikki shouldn't lose that number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqf35Rm1Fg&t=00m23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA
You can be born to lose like Ray Price or Ray Charles. Or you can be born to lose like Lemmy. Or like Johnny Thunders you can be born to lose, but then everybody always wonders if it's really "Born Too Loose." Don't pay attention to that shit yet, that's far too advanced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4fMEJUDhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLowvi4bP18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoDCEKZyQw
Loose is mainly an adjective as in loose booty, loose women, loose screws. You can hold on loosely, you can bust loose; you have the choice of givin it up or turnin it loose, you can be on the loose, or you can be let loose from the noose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIIErMKNnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwHi10qX8u8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921kqkHOHDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&t=00m31s
You can't really loose too many things (as a verb), unless you want to sound somewhat archaic... but if you did, it would essentially mean "turn loose" or "make loose." Like "Loose the hounds" or "Loose the shackles," or "Loose the fury of Hell itself upon those who mix up 'loose' and 'lose.'"
Lose rhymes with news. Loose rhymes with Bruce. If you can say "Bruce is in the news," you're halfway there.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bruce+news&kp=-2&ia=news
You can lose a fight, lose money, lose your wallet. You can fight a losing battle, you can be a loser baby. Rikki shouldn't lose that number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqf35Rm1Fg&t=00m23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA
You can be born to lose like Ray Price or Ray Charles. Or you can be born to lose like Lemmy. Or like Johnny Thunders you can be born to lose, but then everybody always wonders if it's really "Born Too Loose." Don't pay attention to that shit yet, that's far too advanced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4fMEJUDhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLowvi4bP18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoDCEKZyQw
Loose is mainly an adjective as in loose booty, loose women, loose screws. You can hold on loosely, you can bust loose; you have the choice of givin it up or turnin it loose, you can be on the loose, or you can be let loose from the noose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIIErMKNnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwHi10qX8u8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921kqkHOHDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&t=00m31s
You can't really loose too many things (as a verb), unless you want to sound somewhat archaic... but if you did, it would essentially mean "turn loose" or "make loose." Like "Loose the hounds" or "Loose the shackles," or "Loose the fury of Hell itself upon those who mix up 'loose' and 'lose.'"
Both actually. When the long-term prospects of the company are dragged down because of the CEO, its time for some changes.
The article mentions he still has voting control, so I would stay tuned. The board appears to have no teeth as far as Kalanick is concerned.
Wow, this has almost dropped off the front page. I guess the Uber fans are out in force...
Or maybe people just don't care anymore for NYtimes articles that cite "source." Fabricated clickbait is real.
Travis Kalanick's rise was the result of Silicon Valley's sincere yearning for an irreverent CEO when Steve Jobs passed away. We were collectively willing to overlook any blemishes in the young company, which set up for failure in the long run.
I sometimes wonder if Steve Jobs had still been alive, would he have been revered as much as he was in the 2010s? His management style would have sooner or later caused permanent damage to someone you and I personally know. And that's where we'd have drawn the line.
I sometimes wonder if Steve Jobs had still been alive, would he have been revered as much as he was in the 2010s? His management style would have sooner or later caused permanent damage to someone you and I personally know. And that's where we'd have drawn the line.
I think it's important to notice that what you are talking about is a zeitgeist change. In the time that Jobs was building organizations the consensus was that work (particularly work by engineers with options) was a voluntary contract and if you didn't like how you were being treated you moved to another job.
The flip side to your point that no one articulates today is that some people with thicker skin like very challenging environments - like a Jobs-ian company that makes them feel like they are part of a a group of with real intensity that is changing the world, and Apple surely did.
Where we mess up today is in thinking that there is one right type of work experience for everyone.: the mythical "we" that you write about in "And that's where we'd have drawn the line."
Maybe it's better to have many diverse workplace cultures and let people chose among them based upon their individual wants and temperaments.
The flip side to your point that no one articulates today is that some people with thicker skin like very challenging environments - like a Jobs-ian company that makes them feel like they are part of a a group of with real intensity that is changing the world, and Apple surely did.
Where we mess up today is in thinking that there is one right type of work experience for everyone.: the mythical "we" that you write about in "And that's where we'd have drawn the line."
Maybe it's better to have many diverse workplace cultures and let people chose among them based upon their individual wants and temperaments.
a Jobs-ian company that makes them feel like they are part of a a group of with real intensity that is changing the world, and Apple surely did.
Yeap, it sure did:
We were reluctant to show it to Steve, knowing that he would want to commandeer it, but he heard about it from someone and demanded to see it. We showed it to him, and, unfortunately, he loved it. But he also insisted that Apple owned all the rights to it, even though we had developed it in our spare time.
Steve couldn't insist that Apple owned all of it, because Bill Budge wasn't an Apple employee at the time. But Steve could claim complete ownership of the interface card, which he said was developed with Apple resources. Burrell and I were pretty upset, because we did it on our own time and thought that we should be compensated, but it's really hard to argue with Steve, especially about money.
Can't you just feel the unity of the group? /s
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Apple_II_Mouse_Ca...
Yeap, it sure did:
We were reluctant to show it to Steve, knowing that he would want to commandeer it, but he heard about it from someone and demanded to see it. We showed it to him, and, unfortunately, he loved it. But he also insisted that Apple owned all the rights to it, even though we had developed it in our spare time.
Steve couldn't insist that Apple owned all of it, because Bill Budge wasn't an Apple employee at the time. But Steve could claim complete ownership of the interface card, which he said was developed with Apple resources. Burrell and I were pretty upset, because we did it on our own time and thought that we should be compensated, but it's really hard to argue with Steve, especially about money.
Can't you just feel the unity of the group? /s
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Apple_II_Mouse_Ca...
[deleted]
This. So much this. Diversity of workplaces is something we should celebrate, yet the media and activists are keen on converting every workplace into their ideal. Not everyone desires to work at the same company. Some people want to work at an Apple, some want to work at a s Google, some just want to work on a hippie commune/coop, and some want to work at a high pace, high states, only the toughest, most productive, most driven survive company like Uber.
If you don't like how a company is run, you have two options: 1) build the company culture of your dreams from scratch from first principles 2) let someone else do all the hard work of creating value and then show up later and colonize that company and try to change its culture to match your ideal. Hopefully, if you're enlightened you've given some though to how to maintain the positive aspects of that company's culture before you attempt to foist upon its employees your ideal of how it should function.
At the end of the day, employment is at will. If someone doesn't like the way a company is run, they should try to change it from the inside as an employee or move on to another company if they fail to change it. Outsiders, on the other hand, should stay out of it. If you don't like how a company is run, and you don't work there, fuck off. If you really want a company to be run differently, get hired there so your financial success is at least aligned with all the other employees before you try to influence the culture.
If you don't like how a company is run, you have two options: 1) build the company culture of your dreams from scratch from first principles 2) let someone else do all the hard work of creating value and then show up later and colonize that company and try to change its culture to match your ideal. Hopefully, if you're enlightened you've given some though to how to maintain the positive aspects of that company's culture before you attempt to foist upon its employees your ideal of how it should function.
At the end of the day, employment is at will. If someone doesn't like the way a company is run, they should try to change it from the inside as an employee or move on to another company if they fail to change it. Outsiders, on the other hand, should stay out of it. If you don't like how a company is run, and you don't work there, fuck off. If you really want a company to be run differently, get hired there so your financial success is at least aligned with all the other employees before you try to influence the culture.
As it turns out, "employment at will" isn't "the end of the day". And "people on the outside" won't "stay out of it".
Because if they did, we'd still have slavery, 8-year-olds in coal mines, and women in the kitchen.
So I'll continue to make my opinion known, as a consumer no longer using Uber, as a citizen supporting laws mandating sane employment law, as a software engineer discouraging everyone from taking a job at Uber, and as an investor making sure none of his money ever ends up at Uber.
And luckily, CEOs are much further, generally, than these Randian fantasies of masculinity. They have, for example, mostly recognised that it costs them money to rely exclusively on white bros in their 30s with identical experiences.
Because if they did, we'd still have slavery, 8-year-olds in coal mines, and women in the kitchen.
So I'll continue to make my opinion known, as a consumer no longer using Uber, as a citizen supporting laws mandating sane employment law, as a software engineer discouraging everyone from taking a job at Uber, and as an investor making sure none of his money ever ends up at Uber.
And luckily, CEOs are much further, generally, than these Randian fantasies of masculinity. They have, for example, mostly recognised that it costs them money to rely exclusively on white bros in their 30s with identical experiences.
> Because if they did, we'd still have slavery, 8-year-olds in coal mines, and women in the kitchen.
Which of these are examples of at-will employment? Your argument is a strawman.
Here is the wikipedia article on at-will employment for your edification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Which of these are examples of at-will employment? Your argument is a strawman.
Here is the wikipedia article on at-will employment for your edification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
> rely exclusively on white bros in their 30s with identical experiences.
According to Uber's diversity report, the racial composition of its workforce approximately matches the racial composition of San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alemeda counties, and its gender composition is roughly in line with the industry average in the Bay Area and is really no different than the gender composition at companies like Google or Facebook.
According to Uber's diversity report, the racial composition of its workforce approximately matches the racial composition of San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alemeda counties, and its gender composition is roughly in line with the industry average in the Bay Area and is really no different than the gender composition at companies like Google or Facebook.
Part of that choosing company process, if it has to work, is that people criticize and talk openly. Like instead of using euphemisms like "challenging" when what they mean is "easy work but backstabbing culture" or "passionate" when they mean "a lot of signaling required". It may mean that yes, some companies are sexist and others are cringy ridiculous sjws, but now the moment you openly talk about either heaven help you.
Collectively, we don't openly criticize or nor attempt to fairly characterize cultures. We talk in euphemisms, like "alpha" when we mean "overbearing narcissistic jerk" or "laddish" when we mean "lazy jerk". We talk about "meritocracy" when number one advice for job seekers is "networking", whether you appear confident matters more then whether project you are responsible for is mess and who you are friend with matters more then anything in that company.
If people have to have fair chance to choose companies, then it needs to be fine for people who work or worked in those companies criticize without being punished for it. That is not exactly the case now - now you need to have good friends in that company to figure that out.
Collectively, we don't openly criticize or nor attempt to fairly characterize cultures. We talk in euphemisms, like "alpha" when we mean "overbearing narcissistic jerk" or "laddish" when we mean "lazy jerk". We talk about "meritocracy" when number one advice for job seekers is "networking", whether you appear confident matters more then whether project you are responsible for is mess and who you are friend with matters more then anything in that company.
If people have to have fair chance to choose companies, then it needs to be fine for people who work or worked in those companies criticize without being punished for it. That is not exactly the case now - now you need to have good friends in that company to figure that out.
but not at the expense of offending anyone who is potentially not even part of that group
Nobody thinks Kalanick's brohaviour is in any way similar to Steve Jobs.
Jobs was (sometimes) hard on people when he felt it would lead to a better product. Kalanick allowed a toxic work environment to spread because he though it was funny.
Jobs was (sometimes) hard on people when he felt it would lead to a better product. Kalanick allowed a toxic work environment to spread because he though it was funny.
Sorry to be crass, but fuck this. I hate Travis's attitude as much as anyone, but no man who has achieved something as great as Uber deserves to go out like this--at the hands of some board members who rode his coat tail to riches.
Reminds me of Apple marginalizing Steve Jobs. Fuck that. I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground, not some cowardly vote from the board.
Reminds me of Apple marginalizing Steve Jobs. Fuck that. I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground, not some cowardly vote from the board.
The board didn't ride his coattails -- the board's money is the reason the company still exists.
Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
The board has a right to make sure the company is run well -- they company gave the board that right in exchange for the board's money. If the CEO is hurting the company, its investors, and its employees, it is good for the board to step in and prevent him from doing so, even if he was the founder.
Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
The board has a right to make sure the company is run well -- they company gave the board that right in exchange for the board's money. If the CEO is hurting the company, its investors, and its employees, it is good for the board to step in and prevent him from doing so, even if he was the founder.
So this isn't snark: explain to me what Uber's done that's "great"? They burn VC money in a trash bin in pursuit of a business model that looks totally nonviable unless one achieves a monopolistic position or pays below-minimum-wage rates (as that seems to be what the race to the bottom is for drivers).
I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those board members were rich before Uber and will be rich after Uber dissipates.
I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those board members were rich before Uber and will be rich after Uber dissipates.
their drivers are the training set for their self driving cars.
thats how they want to become profitable.
thats how they want to become profitable.
Ahh yes, that self-driving tech that they totally 100% developed on their own and didn't steal from anyone else, right?
what difference does it make to me whether they stole from waymo or not? im not going to white-knight for google.
innocent until proven guilty, btw. some journalist writing something in a newspaper is not proof.
innocent until proven guilty, btw. some journalist writing something in a newspaper is not proof.
The difference being that if they were as unethical with other companies' tech as they were when expanding into markets and failing to protect their employees from harassment, then it could be an existential problem for the company. If their future relies on self-driving tech, which they never get a chance to implement because the only tech they have is stolen and they thus can't use it, they're fucked.
And the relevant legal standard here would be "preponderance of evidence", not "innocent until proven guilty" (which is a right for individual citizens in criminal trials). Corporations aren't fully people yet.
And the relevant legal standard here would be "preponderance of evidence", not "innocent until proven guilty" (which is a right for individual citizens in criminal trials). Corporations aren't fully people yet.
You can say it's a great waste if you'd like. But it is huge. Ubiquitous. World-changing. Uber will be in history books, whether or not it pans out as a valuable company: we'll see. But it has already earned its greatness, even if said greatness was just burning billions of dollars to transform our world.
Uber is going to burn billions of dollars and what change have they affected with it? That taxi companies now have phone apps?
You mean that we can now relaibly summon them to our location? That we can share rides via similar routes? We can cut out the medallion scam, where capital owners can rent seek off of driver's labor? Optimize routes to more efficienly move people and save energy?
... in markets where they can and do operate. Uber might be widely used in large cities but elsewhere it has little impact. Uber exists because American public transportation infrastructure is awful, nonexistent, or otherwise inefficiently designed. If they get to the point of running self-driving car networks then there will be much more to talk about. Until then they've only created a solution for a very small portion of the population.
I'm no fan of uber's ethical track record, but I've had the opportunity to use uber in both Indonesia and Poland, which was extremely convenient. In Poland in particular, I took a taxi from the airport before learning that uber could take me back. I learned while I was there that the taxi driver exploited me because I was a tourist who didn't know the local prices and he could charge 5x normal rates.
You're describing corrupt US markets with somewhat passive operators, but in the rest or the world the story is different. In Scandinavian countries each taxi company has an app, is fairly efficient, and it's just the matter of downloading a bunch of apps. In some Asian and Eastern European markets unlicensed cheaper gypsy taxis are an everyday thing, with a host of problems of their own, so arrival of yet another competitor is not really a game changer.
[deleted]
Yea I think this is really really really stretching things.
I can't tell if this is sincere or satire. :/
> I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground
Why? What immoral bullshit?
Lyft is basically free-riding off Uber. Uber does the heavy lifting taking on the entrenched taxi companies who have insulated themselves from competition via local politics and regulation and Lyft swoops in once the hard work is done, trying to convince customers who have bought into the media narrative that they are the ethical alternative to Uber. I don't buy this narrative. These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press.
Why? What immoral bullshit?
Lyft is basically free-riding off Uber. Uber does the heavy lifting taking on the entrenched taxi companies who have insulated themselves from competition via local politics and regulation and Lyft swoops in once the hard work is done, trying to convince customers who have bought into the media narrative that they are the ethical alternative to Uber. I don't buy this narrative. These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press.
"Why? What immoral bullshit?"
You can't be serious. Hiring private investigators to stalk journalists? Promoting sexual harassment in his company? Obtaining the private medical records of someone raped by one of their drivers?
"These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press."
So nothing wrong with sexual harassment, then?
You can't be serious. Hiring private investigators to stalk journalists? Promoting sexual harassment in his company? Obtaining the private medical records of someone raped by one of their drivers?
"These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press."
So nothing wrong with sexual harassment, then?
If not Lyft it'd be someone else though. There just aren't that many barriers to entry in this space.
> There just aren't that many barriers to entry in this space after Uber does all the hard work of dismantling those barriers.
FTFY.
FTFY.
The market is punishing Uber for a lack of basic human decency. Good.
I wonder if this will eventually cause companies to think twice about this type of governance.