Live data from Hacker News

A profound apology

newsroom.uber.com

341–350 of 406 posts

Re: A profound apology

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the "profound" in "please accept my profound apology" can't likewise be a comment on the depth and sincerity of the apology, a trait the issuer is similarly uniquely equipped to describe? Come on. I get all the backlash against Uber — the outrage they're experiencing is rightly deserved — but this is truly asinine.

I still think my initial reaction was reasonable, albeit subjective. But ya, we can stop debating semantics now.

FWIW I thought the same thing. It's an artless word choice by someone without enough experience of real life.

Re: A profound apology

#342
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Bloomberg article - > In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. The least a CEO could have said is to thank the driver for his feedback and promise to look into it. Just because you're disrespectful doesn't mean the CEO of a consumer facing company can treat its p…

> The least a CEO could have said is to thank the driver for his feedback and promise to look into it. saying "thank you, I'll look into it" is politics. I think many appreciate honesty more. In this case that honesty costs.

CEOs of multinational companies with tens of thousands of employees (or contractors - whatever) are politicians, I think.

Re: A profound apology

#343
post #275
post #124

Here's the conversation that took place: Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months. Fawzi: It’s good. Travis: You probably saw some email. Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices. Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black. Fawzi: But in general. Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out…

This comment on reddit explains it well /r/cars/comments/5wrdk2/comment/decxcxi

Why didn't you post the full link?

Re: A profound apology

#344

It takes a certain kind of person to declare that their own apology is "profound".

That was the first thing that caught my attention. Travis' statement reeks of narcissism and grandiosity. The understatement is "extreme." "My job as your leader," -- it's an episode of Lost? The remedy is to behave in a way ..."that makes us all proud."

Of course, we elected a narcissistic and grandiose president, so there's nothing new here.

Re: A profound apology

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the video humanizes Uber drivers - the people who have the most to lose when Uber brass damage the company through scandal and mismanagement. The fact that Kalanick dismisses the driver's opinions on what might be good for the company reveals the fragility of his ego. If he'd listen to the opinions of the people who actual make Uber work, he might learn a lot.

The drivers are just a stopgap until most Uber rides are self driving cars. They're all screwed in the end anyway.

The problem is, Uber will be gone too, unless they will provide a valet service or become a brand for one of the big car companies.

Re: A profound apology

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People relied on Uber For future reference, that is always a bad idea no matter what the company.

Most people don't have the ability to choose not to rely on their employer.

But most can choose to work only for those they trust.

Re: A profound apology

#347

The driver covertly filmed a passenger during a ride he was being paid for and disclosed the footage to a news organisation. This is extremely unethical IMO. Even if this is the CEO of Uber, it is entirely inappropriate, and he IMO is still entitled to an expectation of privacy equally as you or I would when we are paying for the exclusive private hire of a vehicle.

Being the driver of a passenger car for hire is one of the more dangerous occupations. I would expect that every last one of them would have a forward-facing dash-cam, an inside camera that covered the entire passenger seating area, and possibly also cameras covering the external approaches to the vehicle doors.

The driver or cab company owns the car, and they have the same right to film the customers for the safety of the driver as a convenience store does to promote the safety of its clerks and cashiers.

You are correct that it is unethical to release that footage in most circumstances, without it being evidence of a crime, but the CEO of a company like Uber might be considered a public figure, and if you want other people to be ethical in their dealings with you, you must also be ethical in your dealings with them. I think we never would have seen this video if the driver didn't think that Uber's top-level management pulled a bait-and-switch on him with respect to the recruiting promises versus the actual income. If you act like an ass, you shouldn't expect discretion from anyone.

Were this an ordinary passenger that engaged in a mildly argumentative conversation with the driver, yes, that would be very unethical to post the video without explicit two-party consent. But for the guy that technically signs your paychecks and controls whether you get fares or not and how much you get for them, having a conversation about the business? I'd say that's fair game.

There was a #DeleteUber campaign going on well before this became public, and the reasons for that come from the company's management culture. If he's going to apologize for anything, he still has a lot more to answer for.

Re: A profound apology

#348
post #326

> By now I’m sure you’ve seen the video where I treated an Uber driver disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My job as your leader is to lead…and that starts with behaving in a way that makes us all proud. That is not what I did, and it cannot be explained away. > It’s clear this video is a reflection of me—and the criticism we’ve received is a stark reminder that I must fundamentall…

You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded: Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not…

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate.

At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why.

I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver".

This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.

Re: A profound apology

#349
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why this is getting downvotes. There is a lot of insight about the situation in the linked comment.

Except it's not linked. It's an unclickable relative URL. Also, if I wanted to read about this on Reddit, I'd be over on Reddit. I'm here because I want to read the comments from HN users.

Clickable - https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/5wrdk2/car_that_uber_...

Full text of /u/clonetent's comment:

"It's their xchangleasing leasing program. It's basically a sub prime car loan like from the housing bubble days.

You use Uber as your income verification and they'll let anyone lease a car provided they do X amount rides each week regardless of credit. They require a three year lease, you a have month to back out but after that you're on the hook for the car 100%. So if Uber cuts it's rates they still have same payment but less fare money each month. They did this to a lot of people and it's well known within the company that a lot of Uber black drivers were screwed when this happened.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-ub...

He leased a 2016 Toyota Corolla from Xchange in November, paying $155 a week. Two months later, Uber slashed fares nationally. Soon Hofstede had trouble keeping up with his payments. He went from making $200 in a weekend to $140 in a weekend, he said. "It got to the point that I would drive just to meet my payment," he said. "If you were short on your payment for a week it would roll onto the payment for next week. It starts adding up."

In this guys case they did a similar program for uber black years ago. Then they changed which cars were considered black cars. If I remember right a year after they started the program they changed which cars were considered "black" cars and this guys Lexus?? Was no longer a black car. They said it couldn't exclusively be used for black and had to pick up Uber X riders as well. Uber x pays a lot less. The people this happened to were basically bait and switched when Travis changed the terms on them. He can refuse uber x rides and only pick up uber black riders but if he refuses more than 45 rides in a month he's fired and forever banned from Uber but still on the hook for the car lease. The old Uber black leases started around 4k or 5k a month(I forget which cars but this was for a base "black car") but they made 6k to 8k, 10k a month back then depending on market. They cut rates and required you to pick up cheaper fairs and you're underwater. That's the 97k he's talking about. A lot of Uber black leases were repo'd because after this change their leases were more than their entire monthly wage. That's the personal responsibility Travis wants him to have. It's "Sorry the market change, too bad".

Also the market changed or I mean people did. They just stopped using Uber black. I mean if you're taking at 10 or 20 minute ride across town are you really so vain to need a uber black. Turns out actually rich people are cheap and flocked to Uber x. That's why Travis mentioned their reducing the amount of drivers beacuse the number or riders also drop double screwing guys like this.

Now let me say YES Travis is correct the guy is responsible for his desisions and things don't always work out like you'd expect. That said I see the guys side he made a 3 year commitment to Uber he couldn't walk away from and everything he was promised changed."

Re: A profound apology

#350
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded: Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not…

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handfu…

Beyond the fact that there's no employer/employee relationship between Kalanick and the driver, I don't think the specifics of the business partnership they have much matters. Nor does the amount of market power the driver has. The driver has a specific grievance. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he clearly has standing to relate it to Kalanick.

Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.

Post reply on HN