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

201–210 of 534 posts

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#201

Post by nxtrafalgar »

jimmywanger wrote: post #135
enraged_camel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision"

Seems pretty clear-cut to me?

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#202

Post by afarrell »

tunesmith wrote: post #119
deminature wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suing is a surefire pathway to being made a pariah, case in point Ellen Pao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins

That article doesn't support anything about her being a pariah.

Anecdotally, I can confirm that most mentions of her on Reddit that I've seen are very pejorative toward her.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#203

Post by Chinjut »

gkoberger wrote: post #19

One thing that every employee needs to understand is that HR is not your friend. No matter how friendly or helpful they seem, their job is not to protect you. It's to protect the company.

There is a corollary of this which is underappreciated as well: your employer (the whole company, not just HR) is not your friend. No matter how friendly or helpful they seem, their job is not to protect you. It's to protect themselves.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#204

Post by benchaney »

tomlock wrote: post #197
benchaney wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You implied it very strongly, and in the absence of that implication, your comment has essentially no meaning.

I think its quite telling that you find a comment where I suggest actually talking to women to be meaningless unless there's the implication of offense.

Well when you look at what you said to talk to them about, it really is.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#205

Post by logicallee »

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…

Hi, Sychophant. First, could you please re-read the original blog post[1] very carefully. I do not feel that you read it carefully the first time.

Second, can you please explain this sentence: "I was then told that I had to make a choice: (i) I could either go and find another team and then never have to interact with this man again, or (ii) I could stay on the team, but I would have to understand that he would most likely give me a poor performance review when review time came around, and there was nothing they could do about that."

-> Please explain, in your own words, why HR said the manager would likely give Fowler a poor performance review?

(Alternatively, I am also open to your replying that upon reflection you have realized that you did not read the post carefully enough, and that your original point was completely wrong and that this is tantamount to the manager saying "Have sex with me or I will fire you." Also even if you don't go that far, for the record, please agree that saying "have sex with me or I will fire you" to a direct report is wrong. If you don't see anything wrong with saying that, either, then we will have to get down to basics.)

Finally, the name you have chosen here (sycophant) means "a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage", so please declare that you have no conflict of interest (or declare/disclose your conflict of interest, such as if you are an Uber manager or employee yourself, or have any other relationship with Uber, which you should disclose.)

In any case, do take the time to reply. Thank you.

[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#206

Post by mistercow »

siliconc0w wrote: post #136
mistercow wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. This scenario has nothing to do with ambiguous definitions. The ambiguity in the definition of sexual harassment does not leave any possibility for what this guy allegedly did. This is a case of someone flagrantly disregarding acceptable standards for workplace behavior, despite having previously gotten in trouble for the same behavior. You can't say "the line is blurry!" when you're five timezones away from the line, and you've been repeatedly told that you're on the wrong side of it.

It really sounds like you're trying to fit this case to an agenda that's important to you, and you're working against your own interests by doing that. Bringing up ambiguous definitions in the context of a clear cut case discredits the idea that ambiguity is a problem. You'd be better off just accepting that this case is blatant, and saving the arguments about ambiguous definitions for a time when they're actually relevant.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#207

Post by ZeroGravitas »

discodave wrote: post #169
xiphias wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure..the thing I don't understand is why she didn't go to a lawyer? That would have been the next logical step for me. At least 1 person should get to prison if there is enough evidence collected by multiple women.

I used to have this attitude until I heard harassment stories from two close personal friends in the last year. It's really hard to come forward, especially if you're early in your career and struggled to get any job in the first place. Apart from potentially being difficult emotionally there are tons of negative outcomes that could come from taking the legal route Here's a list of potential negative outcomes of lawy…

I just came from a different thread on HN, where highly compensated software developers were afraid to even point out to their managers that what they were suggesting was a bad idea for the company. People literally fearing for their jobs, because they want to do their jobs well and not just blindly follow orders that will be costly to their employer.

So you can imagine how many multiples of that it is when you're trying to rock the boat on harassment.

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#208

Post by tomlock »

benchaney wrote: post #204
tomlock wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its quite telling that you find a comment where I suggest actually talking to women to be meaningless unless there's the implication of offense.

Well when you look at what you said to talk to them about, it really is.

Their experiences, anecdotes, complaints and feelings of personal safety are meaningless?

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#209

Post by letientai299 »

discodave wrote: post #169
xiphias wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure..the thing I don't understand is why she didn't go to a lawyer? That would have been the next logical step for me. At least 1 person should get to prison if there is enough evidence collected by multiple women.

I used to have this attitude until I heard harassment stories from two close personal friends in the last year. It's really hard to come forward, especially if you're early in your career and struggled to get any job in the first place. Apart from potentially being difficult emotionally there are tons of negative outcomes that could come from taking the legal route Here's a list of potential negative outcomes of lawy…

I feel sad that there's are so many reasons that stop you to d the RIGHT THING.

What is the better way then, beside leaving the company despite doing your job very well?

Re: Uber Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims by Ex-Employee

#210

Post by benchaney »

tomlock wrote: post #208
benchaney wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well when you look at what you said to talk to them about, it really is.

Their experiences, anecdotes, complaints and feelings of personal safety are meaningless?

No, but it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Post reply on HN