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

I am an Uber survivor

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 841 posts

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#481

Post by UncleMeat »

lr4444lr wrote: post #462
enraged_camel wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She posted anonymously, BUT also went out of her way to provide an awful lot of information about herself. Information that her ex-coworkers could presumably verify and figure out her real identity (especially since Uber seems to have very few women in engineering positions). Based on the article, she is: 1) A woman in her late 20s 2) who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on database and networking scalabil…

But the OP's point stands generally: If this were a smear campaign by a competing company, how different would it look? I sympathize greatly with Ms. Fowler not least because she put her reputation out there and claimed to have documentation of the specific offenses, which a decently respectable journalism outfit like the NYTimes could fact-check. Fowler's story could be exaggerated, but I have reasonable doubt that…

It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#482

Post by mememachine »

xapata wrote: post #480
mememachine wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, and I don't disagree about any of this (nor does anything I have said so far). I think you're missing my point here. Also I'd appreciate a response in the other threads we have!

I apparently am missing your point entirely as most of your comments seem directly contradictory to the idea that harassment can be objectively observed.

What do you mean by "objectively observed"? Obviously im not asking in general, but in this case.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#483

Post by xapata »

mememachine wrote: post #479
xapata wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> autistic I wasn't suggesting that, but rather thinking through the logical consequences of your arguments. I don't like psychological labels, as I think personalities are too varied to form good clusters. > no respect An interesting stance. I suppose there's no benefit to further discussion.

The "logical consequences" you've throught through dont come from my argument. They sound vaguely like my argument, but theyre not mine, and you know that. This is why I dont respect you, roughly.

I'm somewhat amused by the fact that if we were workplace colleagues, I'd probably report this discussion to HR.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#484

Post by indifferentalex »

bigiain wrote: post #413
indifferentalex wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, this is the only thing that I've been wondering, otherwise it really is, for me personally, the end of any interaction with the company, it is unforgivable if true.

Do you have _any_ basis at all for your suggestion that _all_ of the stories you hear in private and public about the leadership and management of Uber being toxic all the way from the top are ever worth "wondering" about their truthfulness? Is _any_ of Uber's public behaviour worthy of giving them the benefit of the doubt? They're rotten through and through - and here you have the audacity and insensitivity to quest…

Yeah I do: everyone can lie. Also, innocent until proven guilty, don't just believe what you hear, etc. I see the smoke, I know that by practically all chances there's a fire, but before I grab my pitchfork and go on a crusade telling everyone and anyone to never use uber again (which I will quite soon judging by the escalation and their inability to handle the accusations only adding to the likeliness of their guilt) I would like to make sure I'm 100% sure that what's been said is true. No need for more zealots, one's already in the whitehouse.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#485

Post by relics443 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #404
jastingo wrote: post #257

I'm not in the business of defending Uber - quite the contrary - but reading through the comments it seems that most people are assuming that this post by an anonymous person is 100% true. These types of posts are worrying to me. Why could this post not have been crafted by someone at Lyft? Or one of Uber's many other detractors? Given the PR nightmare that Uber is in why not pile on while the public seems primed for…

She posted anonymously, BUT also went out of her way to provide an awful lot of information about herself. Information that her ex-coworkers could presumably verify and figure out her real identity (especially since Uber seems to have very few women in engineering positions). Based on the article, she is: 1) A woman in her late 20s 2) who used to work at Uber in Engineering working on database and networking scalabil…

Or that was all made up? Who is in a position to know every employee at Uber, so they can verify that this person actually existed, AND that they actually wrote it?

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#486

Post by bigiain »

Kiro wrote: post #343
user5994461 wrote: post #84

> It was normal for me to get to work at 7 in the morning and leave late at night with only a thirty minute break in between. Yep, sounds like a bad place to work. Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley, there is really no need to put up with that or wait for evil managers to make the place hell.

> Just a reminder that you can change jobs after 6 months in the valley What does this mean?

They're _probably_ implying that 6 month stints on your CV don't look "bad" to a hiring manager.

I'm not in the valley, but here (in Sydney) I tend to ask questions about people changing jobs in 12 months or less, and more than one 6 month stint (especially consecutive ones) is a serious red flag (mostly due to local employment law and practices). There are a set of people who "interview well", but cant actually cut it in the roles they land - these people can _usually_ stick it out and fake their way through a 6 or 12 month stretch before getting fired or leaving because they know it's inevitable if they don't.

One six month stint in the middle of 18+ month stretches and you'll probably at least get an interview with questions asked about the short job (with even vaguely plausible answers "I hated the commute", "the manager I was working for left, and I didn't enjoy it as much after" would all be fine, if delivered with sincerity)

3 six month stints in a row, without provided upfront and verifiable explanations "these two were contracting engagements, that one was a company that folded 6 months after I started", you'll most likely not make it to the phone screen stage.

It's certainly different in the valley - but I still question how much a string of 6-ish month stints on your cv is gonna be read down the track...

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#487

Post by leroy_masochist »

grandalf wrote: post #360

I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best. I had a person on my team once who I did not hire but who had a reputation for being one of the smartest and most capable engineers. As his new manager, I expected that I'd soon promote him. But then I saw that he treated others on the team very poorly and often said highly inappropriate se…

> I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best.

Based on anecdotal experience I think this is quite true. It's almost like the dark side of the Taleb chapter that was on HN the other day...just as Taleb trusts the disheveled butcher-looking doctor more than the elegant and refined one because the fact that the unkempt one has made it this far without looking like a professional underscores his actual professional skill[0], it really seems to me that some founders/senior execs instinctively prefer hiring assholes, because assholes must be really good at what they do -- look at how far they've come despite being an asshole!

[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#488

Post by mpweiher »

bigiain wrote: post #435
mpweiher wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I severely doubt such a contract would hold up in court.

Are you certain enough of that you'd personally risk taking on Uber's legal team using your own time, money, and reputation?

Let's just say that I was a little sad that my case (not Uber) was settled via the works-council dispute resolution mechanism...

So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#490

Post by mememachine »

xapata wrote: post #483
mememachine wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "logical consequences" you've throught through dont come from my argument. They sound vaguely like my argument, but theyre not mine, and you know that. This is why I dont respect you, roughly.

I'm somewhat amused by the fact that if we were workplace colleagues, I'd probably report this discussion to HR.

Ok.
Post reply on HN