Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 534 posts

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#131

Post by enraged_camel »

siliconc0w wrote: post #118

Not saying uber is right or wrong but part of the problem is there aren't any sane rules of what is and isn't sexual harassment - there is mostly just vague case law and public opinion so things are treated 'case by case'. I was told by a HR department that if someone overheard you and misconstrued what you said it still could be harassment even if they don't report to the person talking. No one could agree what was…

Actually, the dictionary definition of sexual harassment is quite clear cut. If you make unwanted sexual advances towards someone, you're sexually harassing them.

I don't know about you, but most people are quite capable of understanding when an interaction is a) sexual in context and meaning and b) unwanted.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#132

Post by reddytowns »

tomlock wrote: post #71
sychophant wrote: post #23

I see nothing wrong with the manager's behavior. Given: ------ - The manager indirectly fished for mutual sexual interest with a subordinate. - Managers and subordinates engage in workplace relationships across the country and the world. They all start with a "proposition" of one kind or another. Only when a manager is shown to abuse their power in support of a personal agenda should there be damages imposed. Not sim…

>Some of the women even had stories about reporting the exact same manager I had reported, and had reported inappropriate interactions with him long before I had even joined the company. It became obvious that both HR and management had been lying about this being "his first offense", and it certainly wasn't his last. Within a few months, he was reported once again for inappropriate behavior, and those who reported h…

How does this contradict what the parent poster said?

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#133

Post by [deleted] »

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #90
camdenlock wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty sad that this comment is being flagged into /dev/null. The points are at least thoughtfully constructed and deserve proper responses from those who disagree, not just knee-jerk slamming of the flag button. Conversation is all we have. Let's make use of it.

OK, let's have the conversation, tell me how this wasn't blatant sexual harassment?

[deleted]

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#134

Post by analogmemory »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #54
farnsworth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are some typical corporate American companies that have this problem. But I would argue that (almost?) all tech companies have this problem.

What?? Everywhere I worked a screenshot like what she's describing would get you fired. Over office chat even?? It's not even hearsay. Someone can bring up the exact chat history.

Ok, how many people have you seen get fired for this?

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#135

Post by jimmywanger »

enraged_camel wrote: post #131
siliconc0w wrote: post #118

Not saying uber is right or wrong but part of the problem is there aren't any sane rules of what is and isn't sexual harassment - there is mostly just vague case law and public opinion so things are treated 'case by case'. I was told by a HR department that if someone overheard you and misconstrued what you said it still could be harassment even if they don't report to the person talking. No one could agree what was…

Actually, the dictionary definition of sexual harassment is quite clear cut. If you make unwanted sexual advances towards someone, you're sexually harassing them. I don't know about you, but most people are quite capable of understanding when an interaction is a) sexual in context and meaning and b) unwanted.

> If you make unwanted sexual advances towards someone, you're sexually harassing them.

That's untrue. It has to pass a bar of being "frequent and severe". (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm)

With your "clear cut definition", simply asking somebody out on a date that you work with is sexual harassment if he/she doesn't want to go.

Which is ridiculous on the face of it, because if you don't make some sort of advance, you'll not know if it's unwanted or not.

The language "severe" is ambiguous, but asking somebody out once to dinner should not be a fireable offense. Telling somebody what you would like to do to them sexually should be.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#136

Post by siliconc0w »

mistercow wrote: post #126
siliconc0w wrote: post #118

Not saying uber is right or wrong but part of the problem is there aren't any sane rules of what is and isn't sexual harassment - there is mostly just vague case law and public opinion so things are treated 'case by case'. I was told by a HR department that if someone overheard you and misconstrued what you said it still could be harassment even if they don't report to the person talking. No one could agree what was…

Is this issue really one that needs to be addressed in the context of this topic? It's not like what she described is remotely one of those cases. Just because the line is blurry, doesn't mean that every case is a shade of gray.

The blurry line creates these scenarios because people aren't provided a clear cut standard to adhere to.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#137

Post by xor1 »

reddytowns wrote: post #128
xor1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think women just are naturally or at least culturally (does the difference matter in this case, really?) more social This is really sexist.

Is sexism a blindfold? A noiseless barrier where nothing can pass through? I would define sexism to be believing facts solely based on a persons gender. This does not mean that if you had evidence that one sex was better at something, and you reached a conclusion based on that, then that would be sexist. For example, it's quite obvious that men are taller and stronger than women. It's not sexist to say that, as it's…

There's something wrong with the way you think if you view an accusation directed towards a statement as an accusation towards the person who said it instead.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#138

Post by siliconc0w »

enraged_camel wrote: post #131
siliconc0w wrote: post #118

Not saying uber is right or wrong but part of the problem is there aren't any sane rules of what is and isn't sexual harassment - there is mostly just vague case law and public opinion so things are treated 'case by case'. I was told by a HR department that if someone overheard you and misconstrued what you said it still could be harassment even if they don't report to the person talking. No one could agree what was…

Actually, the dictionary definition of sexual harassment is quite clear cut. If you make unwanted sexual advances towards someone, you're sexually harassing them. I don't know about you, but most people are quite capable of understanding when an interaction is a) sexual in context and meaning and b) unwanted.

It's not clear cut - that is what i'm saying - ask any employment law lawyer. There is a morass of uncertainty when it comes to this topic. That is partly why this is such a hotly debated issue.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#139

Post by camdenlock »

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #90
camdenlock wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty sad that this comment is being flagged into /dev/null. The points are at least thoughtfully constructed and deserve proper responses from those who disagree, not just knee-jerk slamming of the flag button. Conversation is all we have. Let's make use of it.

OK, let's have the conversation, tell me how this wasn't blatant sexual harassment?

I don't recall suggesting that it wasn't. I'm just saddened that a thoughtful reply gets bombed because it expresses unpopular opinions. I'd much rather see a rigorous discussion vs. a shout-down.

You'll have to pose this question to the OP.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#140

Post by aisofteng »

enraged_camel wrote: post #120
aisofteng wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the allegations are true, yes, heads should roll. Why are there no examples of this wealth of evidence that has been claimed to exist?

I think what the parent is implying is that it would be career suicide for anyone to make such serious accusations unless they have considerable evidence to back them up. I mean let's face it: Susan doesn't stand to gain much from publicly accusing her former employer of harboring and shielding sexual harassers, but she has a lot to lose. Heck, she probably has hurt her employment prospects quite a bit, since many fu…

I will preface this comment by saying that I think this may be a true allegation just as much be a false allegation; I, like any other Internet commenter, do not know enough to be able to judge.

What I do want to say, however, is that in the United States there is, in fact, currently a culture that not only favors women making accusations of sexism and harassment, but also one that makes it taboo to express the normal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" in cases when the accuser is a woman.

To be clear, I am not saying that this accusation must be necessarily false or with some sort of ulterior motive. As far as I can tell, there are more than a few places in the US where this sort of thing not only exists but is considered normal, and that is a legitimate issue that needs correction ASAP.

But we still have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and we do have the effect I mentioned above in cases where the accuser is female. In this case, we have a blog post and nothing more, and so I think it is not only premature but also morally and ethically wrong to bring the pitchforks out immediately.

Post reply on HN