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

Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 282 posts

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#121

Post by moomin »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #6

The article doesn't discuss the seniority of the fired employees. It's very hard to distinguish between scapegoating and actually working to fix the problem without that information. The problem with Uber isn't that some employees engage in sexual harassment. The problem is that there's a culture where sexual harassment isn't taken seriously, is tolerated if the perpetrators are "high performing" in other respects, a…

The real question is: did senior people in HR have to walk? If they did, you can feel reasonably confident their replacements won't repeat their behaviours. I'll remind everyone that we're talking about an HR department that repeatedly lied to its employees and did their damndest to shield bad people. If that isn't fixed, you can be guaranteed it'll happen again, whether or not another Fowler decides to do the world a solid and go public.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#122

Post by wellboy »

randyrand wrote: post #57

I just want to say, for every person in disgust of Uber and their sexual harassment scenario, there are many more of us that just don't care. Of course, most that don't care don't comment. So the comment section is not a good view of public opinion. Just the vocal minority.

Not caring about sexual harassment is like not caring about racism, homophobia and similar human rights violations. So not sure if that's the kind of person you want to be.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#123

Post by quaunaut »

macspoofing wrote: post #108
sulam wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have independently verified Susan Fowler's claim that her management chain didn't treat her case seriously. And by that I mean with a member of her management chain. If an entire chain of management and HR don't treat a claim like that seriously (no one has disputed the claim), there is absolutely a cultural problem.

>I have independently verified Susan Fowler's claim that her management chain didn't treat her case seriously. And by that I mean with a member of her management chain. I never doubted her account. But it is anecdotal, and you can't extrapolate her singular experience to the entire company.

Many other women have come forward, including those IN Uber HR.

How many have to before it isn't a "singular experience"?

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#124

Post by macspoofing »

5ilv3r wrote: post #88
macspoofing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Seems risky to hire a recent Uber employee at this point because bringing a toxic sexist into the company can inflict massive damage. Jesus. They are still people. You want to ostracize them from all society and prevent them from earning a living in their chosen career? 'Sexual harassment' is also a catch-all term that can encompass all kinds of actions. It could involve a clueless, inexperienced 20-something asking…

> inexperienced 20-something Well, if he learns and grows from the experience, maybe he'll end up better than the ones that didn't fuck up. --Former stupid as fucking fuck 20 year old

That's my point exactly. Tech companies are full of dumb 20-somethings who will make dumb 20-something mistakes. This may result in them getting reprimanded or terminated which will serve as a learning experience. But OP went further. She/He characterized them as "toxic" and potentially inflicting massive damage on the new company's culture with the implications that no company should hire them. Disgusting.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#125

Post by Tenhundfeld »

randyrand wrote: post #91
ebcode wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is an interesting comment because of its paradoxical nature. You seem to be implying that you yourself "don't care", but then say that those that don't care don't comment, and yet here you are commenting, which would imply that you do indeed care. But then, you only care enough to say you don't care, and that there are "many more" people like you. But I don't see anyone else saying "hey, we don't care" on this…

I'll help solve the paradox. "Don't care" can refer to at least 3 things: 1. don't care that there is sexual harassment at Uber 2. don't care about sexual harassment like that occurred at Uber 3. don't care that other people think most people care My comment is about those that check off all 3. They are the majority, and they don't comment. For me, I only check off #1 and #2, hence the comment.

I think part of the response you're getting is that "I don't care" is still vague.

It could mean you don't find it interesting or relevant to your life. Or it could mean you don't think sexual harassment is morally wrong. Or something else.

For example, I could say that I "don't care" about cholera deaths in Africa. I think it's a tragedy and hope the situation improves, but I'm not seeking out news about it or basing life-decisions around it. I "care" but I don't really care... at least not to the point that it changes my behavior.

Then again, I'm not jumping into discussions on cholera stories to tell people how much I don't care about cholera deaths. So, it feels like you're trying to make some big statement, e.g. taking a stand against "political correctness" or claiming sexual harassment isn't morally wrong.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#126

Post by moomin »

kbenson wrote: post #102
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #6

The article doesn't discuss the seniority of the fired employees. It's very hard to distinguish between scapegoating and actually working to fix the problem without that information. The problem with Uber isn't that some employees engage in sexual harassment. The problem is that there's a culture where sexual harassment isn't taken seriously, is tolerated if the perpetrators are "high performing" in other respects, a…

> The article doesn't discuss the seniority of the fired employees. It's very hard to distinguish between scapegoating and actually working to fix the problem without that information. It's probably important to consider that even with those numbers, you wouldn't know whether it was scapegoating or not. All they would do would be to allow you to make assumptions, which is more about your preconceptions of what you th…

Sooner or later you've gotta decide who to believe. The person with nothing to gain by reporting it, or the company with everything to gain by denying it.

Besides, it isn't hearsay, the allegations have been made by some of the victims. Hearsay is something else.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#127

Post by watwut »

1024core wrote: post #47
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be able to do both with far fewer than 12,000 people. I suspect that the bulk of those people are doing something else.

Well, no one's stopping you from starting a competitor. Since you can do it with far fewer people, you should be profitable in no time. Good luck!

If he started as a competitor, he would likely did out that he needs a lot of people on non programming positions.

Also, even if you managed to do similar with less people, it still would not be enough unless he would also be willing to break the law as uber is known for.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#128

Post by patmcguire »

gaius wrote: post #85
polishTar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firing 2 or 3 people might be symbolic. Firing >20 isn't.

... out of 12000 tho'

It's only out of the 200 or so reports they had, I think a lot of people didn't bother because they didn't think it would be taken seriously. Once it's clear it might actually work more will come up

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#129

Post by mandevil »

mlindner wrote: post #110
ramshanker wrote: post #11

Does it make having "Uber" in your Career Profile look bad now? Even if someone wants to genuinely switch job within next few month out of Uber, It would raise eyebrows at next interview table. So Uber gonna have very mall attrition rate now. Every action has both side of coin. :)

If having Uber in my career profile makes me look bad to a prospective company then I don't want to work at that company. If the company policy I'm applying to is so toxic that they feel the need to purge people for minor things then I would never want to work there.

Excuse me, sir or madam. You seem to have accidentally included sexual harassment in the category of "minor things." I presume that you are not such an awful human being that you actually believe this, so I would suggest choosing your words more carefully in the future so that people don't accidentally consider you terrible.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#130

Post by ScottBurson »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #64
djsumdog wrote: post #14

Feels somewhat symbolic at this point. The massively corrupt shop decides to fire a bunch of people who max out the acceptable level of corruption. Even how they hired Holder feels like a PR tactic; a man who was against all the US torture techniques ( http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-rescue-of-eric-holder... ) and yet prosecuted no one. He is the image of a career, PR frontman. I'm still going to take Lyft ove…

I disagree. This is the proper course of action when you have a harassment problem. Fire people. It's fine if you want to take Lyft... I have been choosing Lyft from the beginning. But I applaud Uber for doing this investigation. I'm honestly baffled that people are criticizing them for it. If there are people the investigation missed, that's a problem, but it's a separate issue and we have no evidence of it at this…

I don't think people are literally criticizing Uber for doing this investigation; I think they're just skeptical that it represents a real change of heart on the part of upper management including Kalanick. Until there's been a substantial period of time over which the change in behavior has been clear and consistent, I think that skepticism is warranted.
Post reply on HN