This stinks of scapegoating, of cover up, of distraction.
I'm sure Uber hopes this is a best/least impact course of action for them to begin to erase last week's terrible publicity from everyone's minds.
They
a. Fire someone who has only been there a month -- so don't lose too hard employee investment wise.
b. Happened to find someone to fire who fits extremely well into a narrative that makes it appear as though they are toughening up and tackling the root of these recent sexual harassment accusations when in reality the good old boys will be sticking around.
Capitalism may improve greatly once we have robot overlord higher-ups that are optimized for economic success only and not power drunk once they don a suit, prove they are a little more cunning and opportunistic than most people that still have fully operating empathetic brain parts, and are, quite frankly often the most idiotic but belligerent (read infantile) people in the room--though of course if some current top-dogs design/get a stake in the business logic of our future corporate AIs I'm sure our mechanized leaders will be just as ruthless and scummy.
I suspect there's a host of tie wearing, sycophantic, despicable wretches out there for every corporate leader to whom one could actually ascribe any virtue or nobility--to one whom you can call leader without having the taste of vomit well up in your mouth.
I'm not sure if that's a problem caused by capitalism or merely exacerbated by it. Chicken/egg sort of thing.
Of course I can only draw upon my limited experience, but I've met very few people in high stakes positions at major companies that I actually liked or even considered intelligent and deserving of the benefits they receive--then again ours is often a system of reward based on raw time spent and bribes offered rather than actual merit. Furthermore, it's an unfortunate fact that valuable qualities are often uncoupled; the person of great intellect may well be a piss poor leader nine times out of ten. Granted, anyone in a higher-up position at a major company has a hell of a lot of stress, responsibility, and pressure on them, but that does not legitimate disgusting behavior as an acceptable outlet, nor does it legitimate chest buffing since effective leadership at major corporation scale often relies on the minor leadership and autonomy of subordinates anyway.
Kalanick probably has an ordered list of employees he's ready to fire until this thing goes away. I wouldn't even put it beyond him to hire someone just so he can fire them after a month or two.
I don't know about you, but I would much rather work for a person than a machine. You can bargain with a person. And people have limited attention spans.
I am definitely not looking forward to robot overlords, and I think that touting them as some sort of panacea is absurd. You just replaced an opaque decision-making process with an incredibly fast/efficient opaque decision-making process.
Why did Google let an executive who had credible complaints against him resign on his own, and even threw a goodbye party for him? I can only imagine how the victim felt when he or she heard about that party.
If credible illegal behaviour has happened, why did Google not forward the information to law enforcement?
If Amit did do something bad, allowing him to resign makes Google complicit in letting him off the hook scot free. In that case how would the poor victim feel?
If Amit did not do something bad, how can he ever clean his name from the allegation?
Really poorly handled by Google. And now made even worse by leaking stuff to the press. Stuff like that belong in a court of law, not in some HR department.
Travis is such a coward. How is firing someone hired last month going to fix the rampant toxicity over at Uber? I think the biggest action Travis could take is stepping down as CEO. It sounds like he is central to all of the reports of the culture of sexism and harassment over at Uber we've heard thus far. Travis needs to go, the entire HR team needs to go and all higher up executives and management staff needs to go as well.
This will only happen if he's forced out or there's a massive internal strike at Uber. I imagine he has to have something over on the board (e.g. proof of their knowledge/complicity in covering up sexual harassment), given how obviously toxic he is. And from the interactions I've had with Uber employees on this forum, there are no lengths they won't go to rationalize the most obviously horrific behavior on the part of Uber's leadership.
I'm not optimistic, but then again we seem to be living in quite the era for black swans.
I recommend that you read Brad Stone's new book on Uber and Airbnb. You'd get a sense of how much Uber means to Travis. In my opinion, the last thing he'd do is to step down (I am not making a comment whether he should or shouldn't—it's just something that I clearly don't see happening voluntarily.)
I agree that something drastic has to happen to show goodwill to Uber's current employees, but I think what you are asking for, practically speaking, is for them to shutdown. I don't know what the best option is, but shaking up management that much, from what I have experienced, is a death sentence for a company.
I feel bad for Susan and Amy; I also feel for the good employees at Uber. It would be good to get a little more context from Susan and Amy to see how systemic this harassment really is/was. Some of it reads like lots of people were complicit, but I have to imagine there are/were a good portion of good people there who were not. As a man I embarrassingly feel like I am completely oblivious to harassment of women in the workplace, because I'm not complicit in it, and I don't have close enough relationships with woman colleagues for them to divulge this kind of personal information. I would hope there are a lot of people that were innocuously oblivious to it... if not that would be sickening.
> Travis is such a coward. How is firing someone hired last month going to fix the rampant toxicity over at Uber?
There's no suggestion that he believes it will. But in the event that somebody withheld information about the reason for their dismissal or exit from a previous role, he's within his rights to terminate their employment. (And probably correct to do so IMO.)
I'm definitely not on Uber's side in this and would not be surprised if it's completely true, but is there clear evidence that Travis is the root of the problem? I see that HR doesn't want to fire people he's fond of, but is that on orders from Travis himself?
I think he probably should resign anyway just as a good faith gesture, but I'm curious how culpable he is personally.
I'd fire someone if they'd been a harasser in the past, even if my image was already impeccable. As much as this move seems to be about improving image, it doesn't need to be (I mean: that's not the only good reason to fire someone who concealed past sexual harassment allegations).
“Harassment is unacceptable in any setting,” Mr. Singhal said in a statement. “I certainly want everyone to know that I do not condone and have not committed such behavior. In my 20-year career, I’ve never been accused of anything like this before, and the decision to leave Google was my own.”
So the implication is then what? Uber made the whole thing up? He's never been accused before he was accused at Google, or before he was accused in the media?
I remember when Singhal's hiring was discussed here on HN last month. People wondered what would attract Singhal to Uber. Now we know: the company culture.
> someone held accountable for their behavior while at Uber
You mean "alleged behavior" and "while not at Uber".
None of these Uber claims have been substantiated at all, and he was fired as a face-saving move, rather than having anything at all to do with the current alleged scandal.
Looks like they hired him without complete background check. Its good attempt. This will look like PR stunt unless they step-up and take action on their long-term employee(s) - regardless of high performer or not - who might have involved in the harassments.
Folks, look.. I'd love to hop on the Uber hate wagon, but they didn't take liberties with my personal info in a malicious way, change the level of their service or drastically change the terms of the agreement. That and they provided a service that I still find useful and commensurate for what I pay. I could not care less what social struggles take place internally, and my once a month fare doesn't do much to further any ill wills being schemed in a dark room somewhere at Uber HQ. Don't construe this as me endorsing any bad actors; I'm simply wondering how much of this outrage among HN posters is really translating to Lyft and Taxi conversions, and how much of it is just internet outrage and virtue signaling puffery.
Using "virtue signaling" is in vogue, and I don't like it. Yes, the idea is real, but it has become an easy way of dismissing the legitimacy of the person it is invoked against, without doing any work to actually support the accusation.
It is also telling that it is used exclusively to undercut progressive stances -- things like feminism, liberal immigration policies, fair pay, etc. It is never used to undermine the position of someone who who has made a typically conservative stance. Let me demonstrate.
Statement 1: "I wouldn't want to work there because they have a reputation as having a sexist work environment."
Rejoinder 1: "Your obvious virtue signaling is a joke. I don't care what you think."
Statement 2: "I believe in the constitution and believe guns are a significant foundation to the freedoms we enjoy."
Rejoinder 2: "You are just virtue signaling. Ooh, look at me, I'm such a patriot. Ha ha."
Why is it we only see type 1 rejoinders and not type 2?
Could you explain more the point of your post? Because to me it seems like you're saying that Ubers behaviour is acceptable as long as they make money. Did I misunderstand?
Does it really matter? Uber is more popular than the other services, but it's still not profitable on its own and it is not established enough that it can afford too many major PR hits.
If nothing else, this will hurt their hiring on every level, which does hurt the company in the long run.
It must feel like hell to be working at Uber and wake up everyday to this news. On the other side some people crave the drama, this is surely up to the standards. What's next? Travis is supporting Trump?
I have no idea what the allegations made against Singhal are, or whether there is any veracity to them, but I do know that if we treat allegations as a guilty verdict, then allegations, whether honest or not, become an extremely powerful, career ending strike against someone.
I understand why Uber would drop him, even if just for PR purposes, but I'm curious why a forum which is so concerned with upholding of classic American values(as discussed during the recent Trump EO banning certain people from certain states) would be willing to dismiss another American virtue: innocent until proven guilty.
Regardless of whether Amit is a scapegoat, we clearly need to applaud Uber for encouraging this resignation. Another high level executive with sexual harassment history is not needed, and I hope this signals a change of direction for Uber that is followed up by further cleaning of house.
[+] [-] voidhorse|9 years ago|reply
I'm sure Uber hopes this is a best/least impact course of action for them to begin to erase last week's terrible publicity from everyone's minds.
They a. Fire someone who has only been there a month -- so don't lose too hard employee investment wise. b. Happened to find someone to fire who fits extremely well into a narrative that makes it appear as though they are toughening up and tackling the root of these recent sexual harassment accusations when in reality the good old boys will be sticking around.
Capitalism may improve greatly once we have robot overlord higher-ups that are optimized for economic success only and not power drunk once they don a suit, prove they are a little more cunning and opportunistic than most people that still have fully operating empathetic brain parts, and are, quite frankly often the most idiotic but belligerent (read infantile) people in the room--though of course if some current top-dogs design/get a stake in the business logic of our future corporate AIs I'm sure our mechanized leaders will be just as ruthless and scummy.
I suspect there's a host of tie wearing, sycophantic, despicable wretches out there for every corporate leader to whom one could actually ascribe any virtue or nobility--to one whom you can call leader without having the taste of vomit well up in your mouth.
I'm not sure if that's a problem caused by capitalism or merely exacerbated by it. Chicken/egg sort of thing.
Of course I can only draw upon my limited experience, but I've met very few people in high stakes positions at major companies that I actually liked or even considered intelligent and deserving of the benefits they receive--then again ours is often a system of reward based on raw time spent and bribes offered rather than actual merit. Furthermore, it's an unfortunate fact that valuable qualities are often uncoupled; the person of great intellect may well be a piss poor leader nine times out of ten. Granted, anyone in a higher-up position at a major company has a hell of a lot of stress, responsibility, and pressure on them, but that does not legitimate disgusting behavior as an acceptable outlet, nor does it legitimate chest buffing since effective leadership at major corporation scale often relies on the minor leadership and autonomy of subordinates anyway.
Hierarchies are foolish.
[+] [-] test1235|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinceguidry|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allengeorge|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhgjklj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] argonaut|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|9 years ago|reply
Seems like he resigned before being dismissed. As for the party, it was organized by his friends at Google.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] shaqbert|9 years ago|reply
If Amit did do something bad, allowing him to resign makes Google complicit in letting him off the hook scot free. In that case how would the poor victim feel?
If Amit did not do something bad, how can he ever clean his name from the allegation?
Really poorly handled by Google. And now made even worse by leaking stuff to the press. Stuff like that belong in a court of law, not in some HR department.
[+] [-] DigitalSea|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphonsegaston|9 years ago|reply
I'm not optimistic, but then again we seem to be living in quite the era for black swans.
[+] [-] hvass|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcw|9 years ago|reply
I feel bad for Susan and Amy; I also feel for the good employees at Uber. It would be good to get a little more context from Susan and Amy to see how systemic this harassment really is/was. Some of it reads like lots of people were complicit, but I have to imagine there are/were a good portion of good people there who were not. As a man I embarrassingly feel like I am completely oblivious to harassment of women in the workplace, because I'm not complicit in it, and I don't have close enough relationships with woman colleagues for them to divulge this kind of personal information. I would hope there are a lot of people that were innocuously oblivious to it... if not that would be sickening.
[+] [-] georgespencer|9 years ago|reply
There's no suggestion that he believes it will. But in the event that somebody withheld information about the reason for their dismissal or exit from a previous role, he's within his rights to terminate their employment. (And probably correct to do so IMO.)
[+] [-] madeofpalk|9 years ago|reply
I mean, he's the CEO. He's probably going to be the one common thread between _everything_ that happens at Uber.
Not to say that he isn't at fault for anything, but it seems disingenuous to try and make this connection.
[+] [-] meowface|9 years ago|reply
I think he probably should resign anyway just as a good faith gesture, but I'm curious how culpable he is personally.
[+] [-] obstinate|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rattray|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ensorceled|9 years ago|reply
There is not enough evidence from this one act to make ANY judgment on whether Uber is fixing their problem or carrying on as usual.
[+] [-] startupdiscuss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FireBeyond|9 years ago|reply
That reads to me as "until now".
> and the decision to leave Google was my own
"We need you to resign immediately, or we will have no option but to terminate your employment." "Then I choose to resign."
[+] [-] fullshark|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freyr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmywanger|9 years ago|reply
You mean "alleged behavior" and "while not at Uber".
None of these Uber claims have been substantiated at all, and he was fired as a face-saving move, rather than having anything at all to do with the current alleged scandal.
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bla2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runesoerensen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jameskegel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tasty_freeze|9 years ago|reply
It is also telling that it is used exclusively to undercut progressive stances -- things like feminism, liberal immigration policies, fair pay, etc. It is never used to undermine the position of someone who who has made a typically conservative stance. Let me demonstrate.
Statement 1: "I wouldn't want to work there because they have a reputation as having a sexist work environment."
Rejoinder 1: "Your obvious virtue signaling is a joke. I don't care what you think."
Statement 2: "I believe in the constitution and believe guns are a significant foundation to the freedoms we enjoy."
Rejoinder 2: "You are just virtue signaling. Ooh, look at me, I'm such a patriot. Ha ha."
Why is it we only see type 1 rejoinders and not type 2?
[+] [-] izacus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikdaheratik|9 years ago|reply
If nothing else, this will hurt their hiring on every level, which does hurt the company in the long run.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] shard972|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkslave|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|9 years ago|reply
I understand why Uber would drop him, even if just for PR purposes, but I'm curious why a forum which is so concerned with upholding of classic American values(as discussed during the recent Trump EO banning certain people from certain states) would be willing to dismiss another American virtue: innocent until proven guilty.
[+] [-] coryfklein|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] partycoder|9 years ago|reply
Leaking cherry-picked names to the press and scapegoating will not calm things down.
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
Its almost as if the suits treat it like social leprosy.
[+] [-] known|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodgerd|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|9 years ago|reply
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13751469 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] patmcguire|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] weekay|9 years ago|reply