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

Uber CEO to take leave

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#171

Post by lancewiggs »

pavlov wrote: post #79
PatrickAuld wrote: post #20

Culture comes from the top and Uber's is pretty rotten. I did an interview there this year and it was the most aggressive questioning I've ever had. Two of 5 interviewers were really in my face while architecting systems; it was bizarre and I almost walked out. Nothing compared to the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then as…

"... the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience" Incredible. Isn't this how mafia organizations hire? I don't know if this interview method would expose Uber to liability under organized crime laws, but maybe it should.

Breaking the law in front of your peers is seen, apparently, as a good way to build trust in criminal organisations.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#172

Post by jordigh »

kingnothing wrote: post #153
PatrickAuld wrote: post #20

Culture comes from the top and Uber's is pretty rotten. I did an interview there this year and it was the most aggressive questioning I've ever had. Two of 5 interviewers were really in my face while architecting systems; it was bizarre and I almost walked out. Nothing compared to the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then as…

This is so vague it almost sounds like trolling. What did they specifically ask in regards to breaking the law?

Run a cab company without a cab license, but pretending it's not a cab company by not paying your employees a fixed salary nor giving your employees benefits. That's generally breaking the law in many parts around the world.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#173

Post by zhengyi13 »

kolbe wrote: post #140

Law obviously isn't the same thing as morality. SS soldiers also didn't break any laws, while Oskar Schindler was a criminal by legal definition. You may see an attitude that doesn't bend over to all decrees from the government as "rotten," but the most interesting and intelligent people I've ever met wouldn't agree.

Clearly.

And yet, speaking strictly for myself, thinking of the people who depend on me for support, I'd be very concerned about the stability and future reliability of a company that seems to explicitly endorse or incorporate breaking the law into its culture and practices - I have to assume that that will lead eventually to getting caught, and getting punished. When that happens, my dependents' financial stability is threatened, and it's a poor (indefensible?) choice for me to join such a company.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#174

Post by rajathagasthya »

barsonme wrote: post #170
rajathagasthya wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the one dismissing a blatant problem based on a tiny percentage value. We've seen in various accounts that many incidents were swept under the rug because the person was a supposed "high performer". Then there is the recent email issue. This suggests that the problem is top-down in the company. When the problem is top-down, surely you deserve such treatment?

Right! The issue is management sweeping the allegations under the rug. A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug (in my opinion at least–I don't read HN religiously). That, I think, leads us to where we are right now: a comment thread that's basically about "what's the minimum number of sexual harassments can occur before a comp…

> A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug

If you have a large number of harassment incidents, it's completely relevant to question if there is a culture problem in the company (a problem which was denied outright by the parent commenter), and IMO this is what HN seems to be doing. Especially when you have accounts of Uber having a "frat" culture trickling down from the CEO and some senior executives condoning (this is probably too strong a word) such behavior.

My point is Uber isn't being treated unfairly by any means.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#175

Post by GauntletWizard »

sushid wrote: post #165
bjl wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously comparing the murder of millions of Jews to a multinational corporation ignoring taxi regulations? Uber fanboys have lost their minds.

His analogy was definitely bad, but he's right. Legality does not equate morality. However, I do find it weird that they would ask you to describe an instance where you broke the law during a job interview.

Did they ask "the law" or just "the rules"? I did end up accepting an offer at Uber, and yes, I was asked if I'd ever broken "the rules".

Uber's culture is pretty toxic, and honestly, I'd say that either form of the question is probably a bad sign, but there's a clear difference between them.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#176

Post by tzs »

bjl wrote: post #159
kolbe wrote: post #140

Law obviously isn't the same thing as morality. SS soldiers also didn't break any laws, while Oskar Schindler was a criminal by legal definition. You may see an attitude that doesn't bend over to all decrees from the government as "rotten," but the most interesting and intelligent people I've ever met wouldn't agree.

Are you seriously comparing the murder of millions of Jews to a multinational corporation ignoring taxi regulations? Uber fanboys have lost their minds.

No, he is not comparing them. He's using the Nazi and Schindler case to argue for a general proposition (law can be at odds with morality), and then trying to apply that proposition to Uber.

Suppose you are arguing for that proposition with a much milder illustration, such as someone breaking a law requiring obtaining a permit before giving food to homeless people.

It's easy for people to try to pick holes in that example. They might argue that feeding the homeless without a permit reduces pressure on the homeless to seek aid at shelters, which in turn increases the likelihood that they won't get help to get out of being homeless, and conclude that your example fails because your behavior was not moral, and so is not an example of morality being orthogonal to law.

If you want to try to save the argument, you then end up in a debate about the merits of various approaches to helping homeless people, and cannot get back to the original point until that is resolved.

That is much less likely to happen if you use Nazis.

Almost everyone is going to agree that the SS behavior was immoral, and the Schindler behavior was moral, and since the former was legal under German laws at the time and the latter was not, there really is no way to dispute that this is an example where morality and legality are opposite.

It's basically a slam dunk. They have to concede that the general proposition is true. That lets the subsequence argument focus instead on under what circumstances morality overrides law.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#177

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

golbez wrote: post #32
booleanbetrayal wrote: post #13

Travis Kalanick is not being stripped of several of his responsibilities because his mother died.

yep. this is the end of the convo. people trying to say "his mom died" is the reason he's built a toxic culture probably have no real attachment to how leaders respond to difficult situaitons.

So, its not really related.

Travis could be (insert inappropriate Godwin's law reference here), but his mom just died. We should cut him some slack for that, at least (do unto others etc).

That's doesn't excuse Uber, but it also doesn't excuse Bloomberg burying the lede like that.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#178

Post by sctb »

acchow wrote: post #101
barleyworth wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was literally nothing wrong with the email There were at least two things wrong with the email, from my perspective as a guy who's been around plenty of benign bro culture. 1. Explicitly mentioning "sex" as opposed to "relationship" or "dating", and talking about it so casually, sets a very aggressive tone. 20-something guys with lots of hormones will definitely hear that tone and push hard for sex during the…

Why do you talk about females like they are precious snowflakes?

Could you please post civilly and substantively or not at all? We don't need drive-by flamewar incitement like this on Hacker News.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#179

Post by sctb »

kolbe wrote: post #140

Law obviously isn't the same thing as morality. SS soldiers also didn't break any laws, while Oskar Schindler was a criminal by legal definition. You may see an attitude that doesn't bend over to all decrees from the government as "rotten," but the most interesting and intelligent people I've ever met wouldn't agree.

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14546612.

Re: Uber CEO to take leave

#180

Post by Diggie1225 »

dvt wrote: post #160
sidlls wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting. Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.

> That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting. Given the setting (an alcohol-filled after-work work party), I fundamentally disagree. > Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture. My comment didn't mention women, men, or anything in between, because, hey, men sometimes have sex with men! You'll…

The way women are treated is not a straw man here, it is directly related to why Uber and Kalanick in particular have been under as much scrutiny as they have. I believe what is trying to be explained is that unless you know what it is like for your job to hinge on your decisions regarding sex, and anything sex adjacent (ie. what you wear to work, whether you are flirtatious or not, whether you keep up with 'the boys' after work etc) it would be hard to understand why it is very important that sex and work be kept separate, and why professionalism is important. Many women are threatened by men in the workplace in various way, not the least of which using sex as a hiring/firing decision. When that is the general culture for women in the workplace, this email really reads more as 'if you aren't interested in sex (or being asked for sex by your colleagues), this probably isn't the party for you'. Except missing parties can also mean missing key networking opportunities and thus losing traction in the corporate world.
Post reply on HN