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

Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 241 posts

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#111

Post by fred_is_fred »

throwaway3332 wrote: post #103

This Uber story, where scandals just kept dropping struck me as very suspicious. Like Google just randomly got CCed by a supplier? You want me to believe that? I was suspicious but who could be behind it, and why? Who is telling people to air the dirt that's undoubtedly very real, but that they have been just sitting on for a long time, at this particular moment? I recently learned that Kalanick is very close to Trum…

Are you claiming that Jeff Jones applied for a took a job with Uber just so he could resign 6 months later to create a controversy?

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#112

Post by xrayspec »

CydeWeys wrote: post #8

Uber doesn't have a prayer of rehabilitation until Kalanick himself goes. The rot goes straight up to him. Jeff Jones was a much more recent acquisition who came from staid corporate America (Target) -- I don't think he was the problem.

Oh please. Jeff Jones knew what he was signing up for.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, "that Uber didn't go crazy; that Uber went Uber"

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#113

Post by ivraatiems »

Anderkent wrote: post #108
ivraatiems wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?

I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done. When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing…

You didn't really answer my question, but I think the answer can be inferred: A law Uber finds unuseful is any law that costs them money. Why do you trust Uber with this power? Why would you trust _any_ corporation with this kind of power? They are not and will never be your ally. They are only out for themselves. Laws at least are meant to apply to everyone. You may agree with their individual decisions, or you may be against the individual laws they choose to violate, but the overall idea of "it's OK for them to break the laws I agree are bad" doesn't work when they start breaking ones you _don't_ agree are bad. You cannot and should not give them that kind of trust.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#114

Post by ivraatiems »

Anderkent wrote: post #110
matt4077 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. There's an established process for that. And on the empirical level, it's not enough to show that customers and drivers are choosing to do business with Uber. If that were the standard, not single law protecting workers, customers, or third parties wo…

> Kalanick or you don't get to decide which laws are stupid and should therefore be broken. Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break. > There's an established process for that. And the process pretty much always starts with people deciding to disobey the law, and the law being adjusted later on to match public expectations. > Also, 'jurisdiction' means something…

> Every person for themselves decides which law they should obey and which ones they should break.

Corporations are not people. And even if we're only talking about Kalanick, while one may choose what laws to break or not, that doesn't exclude one from prosecution for laws one has broken. You don't get to pick and choose like that.

Your basic proposition here is that rules you don't like shouldn't have to apply to you. Society cannot function that way.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#115

Post by throwaway3331 »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #111
throwaway3332 wrote: post #103

This Uber story, where scandals just kept dropping struck me as very suspicious. Like Google just randomly got CCed by a supplier? You want me to believe that? I was suspicious but who could be behind it, and why? Who is telling people to air the dirt that's undoubtedly very real, but that they have been just sitting on for a long time, at this particular moment? I recently learned that Kalanick is very close to Trum…

Are you claiming that Jeff Jones applied for a took a job with Uber just so he could resign 6 months later to create a controversy?

No, I didn't mean to imply that. I'd say either he is not part of the shadiness at all, or he left because someone applied pressure on him recently.

But this is just my guesswork.

(Switching account because I didn't store the old password... Wrote this password down)

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#116

Post by zaphar »

bsg75 wrote: post #21

> He is leaving after apparently deciding the current controversies are too much to handle. Not exactly leadership material. Edit: Apparently an unpopular opinion. Do those here think otherwise given he joined the company less than a year ago (and is thus not part of the original culture), but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck?

Your comment is probably getting downvoted because it makes some unvalidated implied assumptions that may not be true. I would absolutely leave a position like that if I discovered that the company didn't actual have the will to do what was necessary in order to fix the problems. A year would certainly be enough time to determine that and Jeff Jones departure could just as easily be read in that way rather than a lack of leadership.

On the other hand the article also says that he doesn't really like conflict so that it may be that the very toxic culture he would need to be fixing is distasteful enough to him that he just doesn't want to deal with it. This doesn't say anything disparaging about him other than perhaps that he is sane and rational and Uber has a really big culture problem.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#117

Post by GauntletWizard »

ivraatiems wrote: post #80
Anderkent wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" Yep, that's called civil disobedience. As long as they pay the fines, I don't think it's wrong to break a bad law.

Do you believe, then, that Uber breaks these laws as a form of protest, rather than because they want to maximie profit and eating the fines won't hurt their bottom line? What evidence do you have to support that belief, if so?

Why not both? Do you think that ending segregation wasn't also a major opportunity booster for the african american community? Is it impossible for something in your own interest to also be just?

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#118

Post by djsumdog »

M_Grey wrote: post #104
kosei wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if this update came before the HN share, but this is a very explosive statement from Jones: “It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business."

In the most polite and urbane way possible, he's calling them toxic; in a world full of pretty toxic people and practices, he's calling them out. Until this moment I wasn't sold on the idea that Uber was going to actually die from this, now...

It's dangerous to make predictions like that. We've seen worse companies last longer.

In the 2008 financial crisis, people from the bottom to the top committed outright fraud; swallowing up other banks whole (PNC bought National City for $5 billion; then got a $5 billion tax credit .. they bought National City for free .. NC wasn't allowed to apply for TARP).

Ford sold tank treads to Germany. IBM made punch cards for the SS. BP got the UK and US to remove the democratically elected leader of Iran and install a dictator. United Fruit and everything they did in South America

Wal-Mart is still around, and Amazon has turned into the new Wal-Mart. Uber could die tomorrow or last another 50 years. I don't think any of this is make or break.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#119

Post by aianus »

CydeWeys wrote: post #30
MichaelBurge wrote: post #28

I wonder if it's a good idea to apply to Uber. With all the controversy, you could argue for a pretty good salary bump or signing bonus to compensate. Though, if executives are quitting after 6 months even before their stock vests, maybe it's more than just the outrage machine news clamoring for clicks and views.

There's lots of other companies out there that are paying good salaries that don't have these problems. It doesn't make sense to me to seek out a ship that's taking on water to sign up for. I know some Uber employees and none of them are happy with the situation.

Of course it makes sense, they would be more desperate to hire and you would have less competition from others who have ethical problems with Uber.

Re: Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting

#120

Post by goseeastarwar »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #90
dhruvrrp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because kalanick and early investor control the class B stocks, which means they control the voting power. Additionally kalanick has been outspoken about running uber himself so its unlikely that he'll step down.

Im guessing if uber crashes and burns, it will make investors re-evaluate stock-but-no-control deals.

If only that were true. Lots of VC is simply FOMO at any cost.
Post reply on HN