Live data from Hacker News

Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

bloomberg.com

271–280 of 282 posts

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#271
post #221
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I don't think a manager should be allowed to proposition reports for sex, you hint at another problem that is almost never discussed (unlike harassment which is very often talked about):

Women (mostly) who have relationships with superiors in order to advance their careers. Or women who have relationships with superiors because they are attracted to them (often because they are attracted to power/authority/resources) and as a side effect advance their careers.

This is unfair and demoralizing to other employees, gets the wrong people promoted and consequently damages the organization. Yet it seems like this is hardly ever mentioned as a problem.

Perhaps this is more of an issue in Europe where I'm based, while the US tends to be more strict even in this regard?

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is beside the point whether it's obvious or not; clearly it is not obvious enough. You treat it as if it's some purely academic pursuit, not of interest to anybody. No, the question should be repeated incessantly until the right people go to jail.

> clearly it is not obvious enough

It is very obvious though, if your basic working principle is that your fellow comments aren't sexist monsters.

It's a good principle to work off.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20 out of only 12,000 is a huge number

12000/20 = 0.001666 .17% is not a huge number.

I suspect that 12k is ubrs world wide FTE these firings are coming from the head office in CA so its actualy a higher %

And in IR 20 serious cases warenting firing Is a lot (I do have hears of dealing with serious cases) I would expect given 20 firings there will be a lot more who are allowed to leave with compromise agreements.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#274
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "inflammation" a function of opinion popularity?

No, rather a function of provocation over substantiveness.

And popular opinions are not provocative, by definition. Why would one pour substance into a comment which will be flag killed anyways, instead of simply saying what one means succinctly in the hopes that approximately four people will be exposed to ideas they've never been exposed to?

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#275

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.

Fish rots from the head.

So, what I'm saying is, why not cut the head off?

Cut the head off of the human race?

It's not a... perfect metaphor.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#276
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is it is difficult to determine if someone has been fired for cause, or because they are a scape goat, or if they just weren't liked by management, or many other reasons

Are you referring to the new company when looking at a potential employee's past experience? Couldn't you just ask them why they were terminated? I don't think Uber is going to fire actual scapegoats that weren't related. That would surely leave them up to even more legal trouble.

Yup - I was generally responding to people in this thread who are arguing that it is appropriate to blacklist anyone with 'Uber' on their resume

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#277

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 like working somewhere where ethics are taken seriously.

Right on. A person's ethics will be impacted by the culture they willingly chose to remain in. If that culture is thoroughly toxic, i.e. not just confined to different spaces, then it's is necessary to probe deeper into the reasons why they remained.

In my experience, the people who object most strongly to the consideration of complicity, are also the same people, who at one point or another, went quietly or happily along with wrongdoing.

Their indignation can be distilled to: "Why should I, or anyone, be shamed for turning a blind eye to the suffering of fellow human beings?"

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#279
post #249

Controversial opinion here... Why are the vocal hacker news commenters against segregated groups? For instance, what would be the issue with places that have selective hiring for individuals that meet their cultural composition and why does that bother you specifically? Isn't that the case in every location? In this case, there was harassment, however generally it is understood that "birds of a feather flock together…

I'm trying to parse out your meaning here. Are you suggesting that companies like Uber should be open and encouraged to hire sexual harassers so that they might all enjoy the company of each other? Or are you suggesting that someone who has been harassed should leave their employer and not complain about it, because the company should be free to sexually harass as much as it wants? Or both?

I will humor this idea that I was specifically talking about "sexual harassers" specifically and all the people in question are indeed "sexual harassers" since that seems to be your moral objection.

Are you morally against sexual harassers going to therapy together, or being in business together due to the nature of the moral composition of what a sexual harasser has done, does the amount of sexual harassing or degree come into factor, and at what point is the sexual harassing dangerous to others. Is it dangerous that these people are grouping together, and why would that be dangerous? Is it dangerous when other groups of people group together? Woodworkers, doctors, nurses, pedophiles, politicians, bsdm workers, prostitutes, pimps, rappers, engineeers... I am uncertain as to what you specifically disagree with people of the same kind grouping together?

Isn't this something that prisons, schools, neighborhoods do? If not enforced or by design, generally it occurs by natural progression regardless.

Onto your second point, I am not sure how you came to this conclusion, everyone is free to complain. I am talking pre-entry, you deduce the nature of the company prior to entry and whether thats an environment you can live within. When you are inside and it changes, you still are a component and can witness the change and deduce whether its something you can live within or find yourself being comfortable with. This is a psychological point and not from a point of morals but a point of behavior.

There are places that I will never apply to or work at because I know that we will not work well together due to the nature of their culture, and I don't complain about them because they have the right to group together in such a way.

We complain once it becomes an issue and harms others, and that is fine. Everyone is okay with this, I find no issue with this.

What I do find issue with, is people going further and applying what works for their specific ideology or culture to others by _force_ through nefarious tactics like you either intentionally or unintentionally have done through position of morals, shaming, bullying, etc..

That is what I have an issue with.

Re: Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe

#280
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN seems to be in favor of segregated groups. A few years ago I would have said that companies should be apolitical and that they should hire the best people available and have everyone act somewhat professionally. But now it seems everyone wants companies to be political, liberals want companies to be pro gay marriage, christians want companies to be against it. When companies didn't have to pick sides a liberal and…

I don't think most liberals want companies to be "pro gay marriage", they want companies to take no stance on gay marriage at all and just treat it as "marriage".

He was more specifically talking about the preaching of a specific type of marriage, and the rules and regulations around them which are quite often you must align with our views and values or not participate at all.

It's a valid point, you also make a valid point but miss the mark on his initial assertion

Post reply on HN