The board can't force him out if he doesn't want to go, can it? (Due to his special shares) Can the company thrive with someone else running it? And will it be obvious enough for Travis to see this? (How do you fight all the local taxi commissions without a combative streak?)
I wonder if this will eventually cause companies to think twice about this type of governance.
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.
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.
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.
That's excessively cynical. They have a lot of problems but keep in mind the reason this article exists is that they're doing an internal investigation and there's a potential for a big shakeup to address some of these problems.
There's plenty of time to be cynical later if it turns out this is just kabuki theater. I'm suspending judgment until we see what will actually change.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
[+] [-] mathattack|8 years ago|reply
I wonder if this will eventually cause companies to think twice about this type of governance.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arikr|8 years ago|reply
So yes, they could, but the power isn't distributed evenly, so it's not as simple as getting >50% of votes.
[+] [-] kunaalarya|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WisNorCan|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/emil-michael-uber-chief-busin...
[2] https://www.axios.com/top-uber-exec-emil-michael-to-resign-2...
[+] [-] furioussloth|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uhnuhnuhn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CydeWeys|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fullshark|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dacox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobyjsullivan|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] smnrchrds|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Velin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidpelayo|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moxious|8 years ago|reply
There's plenty of time to be cynical later if it turns out this is just kabuki theater. I'm suspending judgment until we see what will actually change.
[+] [-] thrwitaway11|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dboreham|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] product50|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jeffjose|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|8 years ago|reply
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.'"
[+] [-] enraged_camel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philovivero|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffjose|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] golemotron|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kolbe|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] twblalock|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eropple|8 years ago|reply
I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those board members were rich before Uber and will be rich after Uber dissipates.
[+] [-] tawawern|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] infamouscow|8 years ago|reply