Uber cuts 3000 more jobs, closes 45 offices

Post by r3nruturnEr » Mon, May 18, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

Post by libria » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

kylec wrote: post #124

libria wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is shorter or zero severance unethical? We all enter into this employment contract knowing it could end abruptly from either party. If money is tight, they could afford longer severances for all if they cut 4000 instead. Does that not seem unethical toward the extra 1000 cut?

Regardless of legality and what the parties agreed to contractually, the fact remains that abrupt termination with zero severance is harmful for the former employee, especially in this economic climate. If the corporation pays a generous severance, the harm is reduced or eliminated. On a scale of ethicality, the more harmful an action is, the less ethical it is, so yes, paying severance is more ethical than not payin…

Post by thoraway1010 » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #138

jonluca wrote: post #9

Dara's email was really well written, and felt as compassionate as one can for a letter from a CEO announcing job cuts. The full email: Team Uber: These have been unprecedented and challenging times for everyone—our societies, our governments, our families, our economies, all around the world. They’ve also been challenging for Uber, and many of you, as you’ve waited for us to define the road ahead. I’ve said clearly…

"I had to make this decision because our very future as an essential service for the cities of the world — our being there for millions of people and businesses who rely on us — demands it." This is only one sentence in an otherwise fairly measured email, but it nevertheless annoyed me given the context. Uber is not an "essential service". They made this decision so that they can stay in business to make money for th…

Post by economicslol » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

giglamesh wrote: post #143

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I had to make this decision because our very future as an essential service for the cities of the world — our being there for millions of people and businesses who rely on us — demands it." This is only one sentence in an otherwise fairly measured email, but it nevertheless annoyed me given the context. Uber is not an "essential service". They made this decision so that they can stay in business to make money for th…

There is a very simple way to determine if a service is essential or not. If it existed 15 years ago it might be essential, but if it did not, then it is definitely not essential. Human civilization arose and thrived for thousands of years without ride-share. We'll be fine (better off actually) without it.