The only issue is, not everyone cares about sexual harassment. So there could still be a competing company where sexual harassment claims are not taken as strongly and still be successful.
No, because sexual harassment is illegal. That's probably why they'll be sued into oblivion.
But given that the legal system has failed them so far at least this is putting obvious pressure on them. This is only happening because the legal system has failed them.
> It's not like some really unpopular celebrity said "They're my favorite company"
Didn't the "delete Uber" campaign start the other week because of connections with the Trump administration? At least that's how folks I know on Facebook phrased it.
There was a bit of a mess around their messaging (I don't know exactly what) and Trump's immigration ban, that was one of the flare ups.
I was thinking something more like if Bill Cosby had said he takes uber all the time when the allegations came out about him or a 'Uber Serial Killer' was found. If they were associated through no fault of their own with something VERY unpopular.
I'm not sure if the Trump thing qualifies, but it was a bit of a mess and I'm not clear on exactly what went down, but my sense is it wasn't exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.
Uber is an object lesson in thinking you can get away with destroying all your social capital because you're pig-in-shit deep in piles of VC cash. Whether they survive or get taken to the slaughterhouse, they're never gonna shed the stink.
In which the Uber stockholders discover that extremely aggressive, sometimes illegal behavior is no substitute for a proper economic moat, and that "an app that calls a nearby taxi" is not too hard for someone else to do. And that building a market based on brand reputation only works if your brand really IS good, and people never find out that you've always been a bunch of "just wanting a C-Class" dickbags.
I feel terrible for the employees there who aren't part of the mess that management created.
Not so much for the management or investors. This industry (it's mainly in the Bay area and "startup culture" in general, but it exists outside it as well) is rife with intolerant, sexist, ego-driven boys in adult male bodies. It's well past time to correct that problem.
Well they are part in a company that is trying to destroy the livelihood of hard working taxi drivers partly by pushing illegal practices. And please don't assume that the taxi business needs disruption globally because the place where you live can't regulate taxis properly.
That's a separate issue from this. One I have mixed feelings about, because in general employees, even software sector employees in the Bay Area, have less choice and agency when it comes to employment than the capital owning class has. So while they are helping a company break the law I'm not so quick to make them accomplices per se.
It's not really separate because their problem is the baseline amorality of their company culture. The disregard for laws, threatening journalists, subprime lending, and abusive work practices are all part and parcel of this. Maybe years ago you could have excused this all away, but at this point you're throwing your lot in with this pattern of sociopathic behavior, hoping that Kalanick's gaslit apologies will guarantee your stock options.
I'm hoping you're using "your" to refer to Uber employees and shareholders. I'm not either of those things. I can't really agree or disagree with you. You make some valid points, but I think it's also valid to note that employees--even ones who sign up with Uber going forward--generally haven't as much choice and that some of them, at least, are signing on for lack of alternatives.
You have to "beg" for them to delete your account. It's not automatic. But I have a feeling that once they do so, and marking them as spam in Google would do even more damage.
Interesting phrasing. Very self-focused. Seems more consistent with their behavior to date than with a newfound sense of remorse, but it's easy to focus too much on too little.
Uber employees, do you think there's meaningful change coming?
Whining self-pity is usually bullying jerks' other go-to mood.
I honestly don't expect their behavior to change. I no longer use Uber, although this is a useful post - I never got around to actually deleting the account.
We're sorry to see you go, {first_name}. We've marked your account to be deleted. Please bear in mind that we cannot recover your account after it has been deleted.
You can always create an account again in the future if you change your mind! You can do so by visiting get.uber.com.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you need anything else.
I provided a reason (scabbing during the NYC strike), and they sent me a topical response:
---
We share your concern that this ban will impact many thousands of innocent people. That’s why Uber is committed to financially compensating drivers affected by the ban, so that they can continue to support their families while they are prevented from returning to the US. For more information you can read our CEO’s statement at: http:// t.uber.com/eo.
While I’m sorry to hear about your concerns, I’ve gone ahead and deleted your account as requested.
Of course, if I can assist with anything further please let me know.
Received the same response when I cited the same reason for deleting (among a few others).
Interesting that this PR push comes in the very message that confirms your account has been deleted (and after they warn it can't be brought back). It's past the point of potential retention without attribution gymnastics.
They know you're gone, it's just an attempt to impact sentiment enough to discourage you from encouraging others to quit.
>The spokeswoman said Uber sent the message to about 40 users who specifically referenced the allegations while deleting their accounts. She also said Uber has stopped sending the message to customers
Yep - just posted my response because thought it would be interesting to see others. Anyway, seems like they have some functionality to provide canned responses based on events and the reason you provide.
Forget Uber, that's history, but I hope management and H.R. in other companies take note. I hope MBA and H.R. school read that blog post and study it carefully.
I used to use Uber even if I disliked them because they were just so much cheaper. But I think I am just willing to pay more just to avoid paying Uber.
I used to think this - turns out when I deleted Uber and started using on of my local taxi co-op apps, the regular-ish trips I used to do with Uber were within a couple of dollars of the cab fare I've been getting charged - sometimes less expensive in a cab.
Agreed. The behavior Uber has been called-out for is childish, cruel, and strongly indicative of a need for mature supervision.
That this supervision didn't exist reflects poorly on the VCs: they are either so hands-off they don't know what's going on in the company they've invested millions of dollars in or so callous as to not care.
That's an interesting point. Was Uber able to hide these issues from the VCs, or were the VCs aware of this? If they were aware, did they care? None of the possibilities reflect well on the investors.
They used to, back around the turn of the century. Yahoo and Google, to take just two examples, got older and more experienced CEOs to supplement the youthful founders as the companies grew.
My impression is that doing it that way is a bit old-school now. Investors would rather bet on the founders doing it Gates-style by pure intellect and vigor.
I wouldn't expect VC investors to be brilliant at crisis management. Most things they invest in have inconsequential failure modes. Babysitting founders is against their nature, too. More women partners and board members would help.
That phrasing is a bit unfortunate ("Babysitting...women partners and board members would help"). Do you mean that having more women partners and board members will bring a different perspective on leadership, or that women are better suited to babysitting the man-child types that infest the industry?
One hopes there would be fewer tech-bro founders needing minding, and that founders would model their management's sex diversity after their funders. Lack of more than tokenism in women and minorities is self-perpetuating, and unless you fix it at the origin, the statistics, never mind the motivation, of fixing it later are always pretty grim.
The popular opinion in the other front-page uber story seems to be that investors should shut up and "be a team player" and that questioning the company is a "breech [sic] of trust"
not necessarily referring to this specific Uber scenario:
How do we justify it being okay to date a coworker, but morally wrong to ask him/her on a date or for sex?
full disclosure: I'm currently dating a coworker. Though she was the one that asked me out
Of course, asking repeatedly can become harassing. But for the other cases, if you genuinely think the person you are asking might like you, I don't see why it should be illegal to ask them out or to have sex. Isn't that all this Uber guy was guilty of?
