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

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#211

Post by s73ver »

randyrand wrote: post #158
kevinburke wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harassment encompasses a wide range of behaviors besides "asking another adult if they want to have sex with you," from _continuing to ask someone after they've turned you down_, to inappropriate touching, to quid-pro-quo, where career advancement, or good work assignments, are tied to sexual favors. These offers don't need to be explicit. It's difficult to do your best work when you don't feel safe in the workplace.…

But none of those other behaviors happened at Uber. It was literally someone asking another adult if they want to have sex. How childish are we to get upset over this? I can understand that feeling uncomfortable is not good. Lots of things make lots of people uncomfortable. Maybe the issue is that Americans become uncomfortable too easily? Or do not know how to handle feeling uncomfortable?

"But none of those other behaviors happened at Uber."

That's not true.

"It was literally someone asking another adult if they want to have sex."

Not at all. It was a boss repeatedly asking their subordinate if they want to have sex. Huge difference.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#212

Post by s73ver »

randyrand wrote: post #168
tehwebguy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard not to reply with sarcasm. Other people not caring about sexual harassment makes it worse.

If no one cared, the problem would be solved. That's simple logic right there. An odd unexpected consequence of this is that by trying to get fewer people to care, it is in fact helping to solve the problem.

No, because people not caring would encourage sexual harassment to continue, as there is no consequence for it happening.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#213

Post by tehwebguy »

randyrand wrote: post #191
kevinburke wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people being murdered would not enjoy it. Jesus. Please just stop, you're making a terrible argument.

But that wasn't your argument. In your argument no one cares. Even the people murdered. The argument is sound.

If that was your argument there was no point in posting it.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#214

Post by rdxm »

TokenDiversity wrote: post #182
moomin wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You bring an important point which raises another point- who enabled/let HR do this? And what happened to them? HR doesn't exist in isolation and I've known big firms' HRs to be trigger happy as long as they can justify it.

>> who enabled HR

please tell me this is a joke right? you can't possibly be asking that question seriously..

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#215

Post by brian-armstrong »

macspoofing wrote: post #34
hueving wrote: post #7

I wonder if events like this turn Uber employees who leave around this time into a market of lemons. Obviously nobody will put on their resume that they were fired for sexual harassment so hiring managers will have to wonder if a person who left Uber recently was fed up or fired. Seems risky to hire a recent Uber employee at this point because bringing a toxic sexist into the company can inflict massive damage.

>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…

It doesn't help your case to misrepresent what happened here. Nobody got fired for asking out a coworker.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#216

Post by tankenmate »

rdxm wrote: post #214
TokenDiversity wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring an important point which raises another point- who enabled/let HR do this? And what happened to them? HR doesn't exist in isolation and I've known big firms' HRs to be trigger happy as long as they can justify it.

>> who enabled HR please tell me this is a joke right? you can't possibly be asking that question seriously..

HR is a business function, and the business is run by executives, so unless the HR function is run day to day by the CEO then HR needs to be enabled by someone. The HR function in a company the size of Uber is a deliberate structure that is guided by business goals set by the executive team, the executive team gives the HR function the authority within the framework (policy, implicit and explicit direction) provided.

If the story is true that HR dissembled and protected staff who were blatantly breaking the law then it is very reasonable to ask "who enabled HR?"

[EDIT] minor grammar fix

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#217

Post by epistasis »

rdxm wrote: post #214
TokenDiversity wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring an important point which raises another point- who enabled/let HR do this? And what happened to them? HR doesn't exist in isolation and I've known big firms' HRs to be trigger happy as long as they can justify it.

>> who enabled HR please tell me this is a joke right? you can't possibly be asking that question seriously..

I wasn't the one asked, but I seriously want to know.

Not sure what you mean with your question. Do you think it's obvious what the answer is, or do you mean it's not a question that should be asked?

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#218

Post by J5892 »

samstave wrote: post #93
zorpner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on where you are, it already has been. I recruited a friend recently who worked for Uber two jobs ago , and got objections at multiple levels (pulled them through because I knew they left Uber originally due to ethical objections and could speak to that directly). At this point having it in your job history needs to be addressed in your e-mail/cover letter.

What about a zenifits job? They had to BAN sex in the stairwells and drinking on the job

Or UploadVR!

I read several reports of their "kink room", but I never did read any reports that they actually got rid of the "kink room".

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#219

Post by lightedman »

TokenDiversity wrote: post #182
moomin wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You bring an important point which raises another point- who enabled/let HR do this? And what happened to them? HR doesn't exist in isolation and I've known big firms' HRs to be trigger happy as long as they can justify it.

"who enabled/let HR do this?"

Typically, CEO or COO.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#220

Post by ryandrake »

zorpner wrote: post #197
mlindner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What company is that so I know to avoid it? Sounds like you should get out of there.

Nah. I like working somewhere where ethics are taken seriously. If you've been working for Uber for the last couple years (in an engineering role, and not visa-restricted), you need to have an answer for why you've remained someplace with so many serious ethical issues. And to be clear, "I needed to pay bills" is a real answer. But you need to have it and be willing to say it and defend it.

I don't see how it's productive to put a scarlet letter on someone simply based on where he or she used to work as "third engineer from the left." Maybe one day the place where you currently happen to work will earn some kind of tarnished reputation--should your career suffer because of it? Should you have to quit out of fear of being put on a blacklist, putting your livelihood at risk?
Post reply on HN