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

221–230 of 282 posts

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#221

Post by matz1 »

cr0sh wrote: post #196
randyrand wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great question! I can't speak for everyone, but personally I don't think asking another adult if they want to have sex with you is morally wrong, even in the workplace. I think Americans are way too sensitive when it comes to sexuality. They repress it way too much. For reference, here is the accusation from the blog post: On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of mess…

So you don't believe a superior (her manager) was wrong to insinuate a question of whether she would participate in his sexual life? What if she didn't complain to HR, rebuffed his advances, and he subsequently decided to demote her position, or cut her pay, or even just move her desk out of an office and into a cubicle? Would it be alright then? Bringing sexual advances of any kind within a situation where there is…

Alright or not is relative and always depends on the context.

If I'm the manager and by doing that there is possibility that I could get sex with minimal downside then its alright.

If I'm the woman and him doing that make me uncomfortable then its not alright but if I do like the guy or maybe I can use it to advance my position in the company then its alright.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#222

Post by sebastos »

randyrand wrote: post #142
wakkaflokka wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The natural follow-up question I have, is why don't you care?

That's a great question! I can't speak for everyone, but personally I don't think asking another adult if they want to have sex with you is morally wrong, even in the workplace. I think Americans are way too sensitive when it comes to sexuality. They repress it way too much. For reference, here is the accusation from the blog post: On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of mess…

I have at least some sympathy with the point you're trying to make here. I think you are essentially saying that we've all gone a bit soft, and that the modern workplace is full of a bunch of crybabies that can't solve any problem on their own without escalating it to HR. And this problem becomes particularly egregious when that escalation turns into a dark mark on that person's "permanent record", as it tends to do in modern society when we're talking about allegations of sexual harassment. Can't we all just be grown-ups and deal with our problems with ease and panache, rather than being sanctimonious little tattletales?

I get this argument, but I would posit to you that perhaps the modern take on sexual harassment IS society growing up. Consider changing your mindset - imagine that a new hire is just bad at working with people. They don't consider other people's ideas, or they're just generally rude - whatever it is. Just generally hard to work with. Now try to think about somebody who makes inappropriate propositions to women in the workplace: this is just another brand of the same problem. If you can't get along with some of your fellow female coworkers because they don't feel comfortable with you, then you're not a good team player.

In other words, instead of thinking about society as having gone soft, think about it like we go hard. We demand excellent people-skills in the workplace. If you can't take the heat, and other people feel annoyed, offended, and yes harassed working with you, then you're going to have trouble keeping work. Tough titties. Working at Uber requires excellent technical skills - why not social skills too?

Anyway, I would put it to you that if you don't find this compelling, you might be giving too much primacy to the sensibilities of poorly socialized men. If you find yourself asking "why should these poor saps have to suffer just because they can't talk to girls?" then that's a sign you have a blindspot. Food for thought.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#223

Post by linkregister »

theptip wrote: post #203
linkregister wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't scapegoats file wrongful termination suits? Seems like a hell of a risk for illegitimate firings.

The suggestion is not that those who were fired did nothing wrong. It's that they are being made to take the fall to shield higher-ups who also have done things wrong.

The suggestion is actually, just that. That is the literal meaning of "scapegoat" in English: one who is wrongfully taking the blame for another.

The other responder, dopamean, answered the question considering that context.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#224

Post by nolepointer »

s73ver wrote: post #210
randyrand wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I did go back and clarify my comment a bit already Sexually harassment can definitely be morally wrong. But I'm not particularly outraged, mad, or upset by the sexual harassment scenario that happened at Uber, specifically. I don't think all sexual harassment should be lumped together, and doing so can lead to witch hunts.

There's no can about it. It always is wrong.

So you probably think that air conditioning constitutes sexual harassment.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#226

Post by bigiain »

epistasis wrote: post #217
rdxm wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

I read it (correctly or not) as saying: "Travis started and runs the company, and his respect for women is well known and public. Of _course_ the people working in HR know this, and were quite likely selected/employed by him or one of his trusted douche-bros..."

Is it _not_ as obvious to everyone else as it seems to be to me?

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#227

Post by int_19h »

ryandrake wrote: post #220
zorpner wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The crucial part here is the nature of the reputation. We're not talking about some shady dealings of the upper management, that individual employees may or may not have been aware of. We're talking about employee culture inside the company - something that is, by definition, exposed to and shaped by employees. Given the magnitude of the problem in Uber, on the basis of reports we've seen so far, on the balance of probabilities, it would be more surprising than not for an engineer who works there to be unaware that such things are going on around them.

And if they were aware, but didn't blow the whistle (after going through the usual HR complaint process and running into blocks there, as others have reported), that is definitely a very questionable ethical choice that deserves future scrutiny, including for anyone hiring that person.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#228

Post by mmirate »

epistasis wrote: post #217
rdxm wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

I read that question as implying: "it is HR's job to ensure the company does not get successfully sued over personnel-related matters; since company metrics apparently indicated the harassers were businesswise quite valuable, why did you expect HR to accomplish their objective by ousting the (valuable) harassers instead of running interference for the harassers?"

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#229

Post by draw_down »

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.

Fish rots from the head.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#230

Post by noway421 »

vkou wrote: post #59
mikeyouse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're on a run rate of ~$14 billion in 2017 revenue based on their Q1 numbers, so call it $1.2 million per employee in revenue.

I can have a run rate of infinity dollars, if my business model consists of selling $20 bills for $19. What's their revenue minus costs of revenue?

is that any different from profit?
Post reply on HN