181–190 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're all top performers.
What does that even mean at Uber? They burn more money than everyone else?
When someone senior gets fired, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, it's all PR.
You are assuming that the allegations are true. From what I've heard, it seems plausible that the alleged culture may exist at this company. But I don't take allegations to be true simply because they have been made - as is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the legal system of the United States, the correct perspective.
At this point, considering both the detailed description and the public record showing that Emil Michael and others at the very top of Uber like to behave like drunken frat boys, that standard seems easily met to me.
I find it disconcerning that they did regular performance reviews, and she aparrently scored very highly on them. But later those ratings were discounted by some "hidden" factor. Why would I waste time on performance reviews when I'm not openly giving feedback to the employee? How can an organization efficiently distribute team members based on metrics derived from performance reviews when there is such an impactful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telling a victim that they should expect to be abused further (in the form of a negative review) does not minimize boat rocking or protect the interests of the organization. It leaves them open to lawsuits and antagonizes the victim into further action. And if it was true that they were protecting the manager because he was high-performing, why would you make this explicit. It just makes no sense and reeks of one sid…
I agree that HR should not behave in the ways it's claimed they did. However, based on my perception of Uber's willingness to ignore rules, I find it believable that they could have an HR department that thinks such actions are a good choice; I also wouldn't be surprised if they don't do any of the state mandated harassment training either for all employees or the addition training for managers. I also believe the cl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should be able to go Yes, in theory. But most HRs "protect the org" in the most short sighted way possible
That's a sweeping statement that I utterly disagree with. We do HR software, I've interacted with many HR people at many companies and I've never even heard of anything as outrageous as the behavior described in this case. In no way is it the way"most HRs" behave.
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…
"Anything could be harassment" and "nobody could live their normal life by these standards" are straw men and don't reflect reality much. It's neither particularly hard to tell, nor would treating people properly turn work life into a totally grey and amorphous existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want to make it sound like it's vague what sexual harassment really is. But your boss stating he wants to have sex with you, I think that's quite a clear-cut case.
It's really not though. The problem only exists because our society has an unhealthy attitude about sex. If we all had a perfectly healthy attitude about sex, the mere admission of the fact that someone feels sexually attracted to someone else would be a nonissue. But the world isn't ideal, and there's a whole host of misogyny, fear, taboos, antiquated traditions, and stupid people. So we have a problem. Your boss st…
Your boss by definition is in a position of power over you. If they date you (let alone ask for sex in this manner!), they can be seen as exploiting their power over you, or you being treated differently in return for sex. That just doesn't work. It's always unethical, regardless of consent of the employee (who might also be too afraid to say no).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we just avoid sexual conversations at work? That's a pretty simple rule that negates all the complexities of determining what type of sexual discussion is and isn't sexual harassment. I've sometimes heard the argument that such a notion is puritanical and sterile but honestly I am just not at all interested in sexual banter at the workplace and I feel like nothing of value is lost if I don't have to overhear rema…
We can (and I, personally, do) but that isn't a practical standard. Healthy humans are sexual ones and especially when you have younger people working 60+ hours with a close group you will have people talking about sex. That should be expected but the current legal standard doesn't allow for that.
In the appropriate context, of which the workplace is not one. There are other places where individuals make an effort to curtail sexual discussion (church, the dinner table, around small children, within earshot of their parents), so I think it is well within the capabilities of healthy young professionals to generally keep sex out of the workplace.
> when you have younger people working 60+ hours with a close group you will have people talking about sex.
Well perhaps they shouldn't. Of course, sex or topics of a sexual nature might come up, just as say, the color of your last bowel movement might come up, but I'd argue that it shouldn't be a topic of regular discussion and that a culture that aims to defer such discussions to a venue outside of the workplace is a good idea precisely because it is impossible to manage the variable spectrum of comfort in sexual discourse among individuals, especially among a diverse workforce (and not just with regard to gender, but also age, cultural and religious background, as well as sexual experience, history and maturity).
> That should be expected but the current legal standard doesn't allow for that.
The current legal standards certainly allow for it, the bar for sexual harassment in a legal sense is generally pretty clear (proving what actually transpired is sometimes a different story), but what tends to be less clear is company policy regarding the fine line between what is permissible and what is inappropriate. I think the spectrum of what is considered over the line varies so wildly that the only sensible approach is "just don't bring it up".