This is one the few times I've felt actually disappointed in Thompson. He is exactly right that Google (and basically every other company in SV) is totally implicated with the same problem. But saying that Kalanick should get another chance to turn around the company? Look back to 2014: Kalanick tweeted out an apology for one of his execs threatening a (female, natch) journalist, but decided not to fire the exec in question, because "I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them- myself included." 2014 was his opportunity to turn around the culture. He failed, utterly and massively- and Fowler (who didn't join the company until almost a year after that tweet storm) and plenty of other women paid the price for his failure. We're now three years later and clearly the culture is even worse, and there is no evidence of improvement. Again, she didn't join the company until a year after he promised to work to show "that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community. And furthermore, I will do everything in my power towards the goal of earning that trust." Where is the evidence that he should get another chance? Ultimately, it's that Kalanick is a high performer, the same excuse Uber gave Fowler.
The Uber Conflation
21–30 of 143 posts
Re: The Uber Conflation
#22A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…
In Philly, Uber asked for a license, was denied, then told its drivers they would cover the costs of any fines and they should drive anyway. Offering upfront to pay fines doesn't sound like they thought they found a loophole.
UPS and Fedex pay New York millions in parking fines as a cost of doing business[1]. How come we don't really think of them as scofflaws, but we do with Uber? (I include myself when asking this question)
[1] - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130526/ECONOMY/305269...
Re: The Uber Conflation
#23> Note the easy conflation: avoiding regulators, allegedly tolerating sexual harassments, it’s all the same thing. Well, I disagree.
I would say there's an equal danger of conflating their disrupting regulations with innovation or progress. There's some relation, but it's not equivalent. Treating them the same is only good for Uber.
Or maybe it's that "innovation" and "progress" are mistaken to be only good things.
Re: The Uber Conflation
#24A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law. I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able…
I think you misinterpreted this article, the author claims that Uber is not violating the spirit of the law, since the spirit of the law is to promote safety, not a government run monopoly. Given how popular Uber is, and how much people dislike the Taxi industry, it is enlightening to think about why taxi reform was never on anyone's agenda.
Then Uber disregarded the California Public Utilities Commission law designed purely for safety that does not promote the Taxi industry. It was actually made for the likes of Uber and Lyft to allow them to operate while providing the public with trust that the vehicles are safe, passengers with accessibility needs had access and to thwart racial discrimination.
Lyft had no issues with complying, but Uber did.
http://www.recode.net/2015/7/15/11614750/uber-fined-7-3-mill...
Re: The Uber Conflation
#25If Uber was trading on wall street it would be shorted to oblivion. When this unicorn implodes, it's going to change the valuation dynamics.
Downvotes not going to fix Uber.
Re: The Uber Conflation
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I don't think that's too bad. If you know you're breaking the law and accept the fines and pay them willingly because it's worth the cost, I don't see a big problem with that. Where I start having trouble is when they try to hide their lawbreaking, or fight against enforcement. For a similar example, UPS and FedEx both rack up an unbelievable amount of parking tickets in major cities for stopping their delivery…
You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.
Let's say you're in a really big hurry for something, and you park illegally knowing that it's illegal and accepting the chance that you'll get a ticket. When you do in fact get a ticket, you pay it willingly.
Is that morally wrong, in your eyes?
Re: The Uber Conflation
#27The most critical quote from the article: "Kalanick’s mistake was in not clearly defining, communicating, and enforcing accountability on actions that pushed the line but had nothing to do with the company’s regulatory fight. In fact, it was even more critical for Uber than for just about any other company to have its own house in order; the very nature of the company’s business created the conditions for living above the law to become culturally acceptable — praised even."
This seems like an excellent description of the problem: if you're going to run a company that intentionally pushes the boundaries of specific regulatory restrictions (in order to demonstrate a better result that can only happen without them, to get popular backing for removing them), then you need to draw a clear internal dividing line between the risky actions taken in support of that goal and all the other areas in which the company should act as a model for upstanding behavior.
Re: The Uber Conflation
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're advocating for wealth being over the law. I don't see how you can feel that this is not a big problem.
Some laws are dumb. There's a distressing trend on HN recently of people citing "the law" as if it were the end of any kind of practical or moral discussion.
So those with the money to do so should be free to break them, while those who can't need to obey, and that's just right and proper?
Re: The Uber Conflation
#29Travis fits the mold of a ruthless kind of CEO, always pushing the ethical line as far as he can get away with. Bill Gates in his first incarnation as ruthless CEO has engaged in all sorts of questionable behavior. For example, interview a bunch of people from a rival, figure out who's key, and hire them all away at once. Or structure the agreement with IBM to eventually own the rights to Windows, then screw IBM over by slow-pedalling and malingering on OS/2, and then release Windows in co-ordination with the newly created clone PC market, which he relentlessly encouraged behind IBM's back.
Note that I'm not judging - I have come to realize (sadly) that a certain ruthlessness may be necessary for large-scale success in business, especially in the tech industry.
Re: The Uber Conflation
#30Who cares if Uber is a tad dirty in breaking down down the status quo. The public didn't cared previously about this until they realized that Uber treats everyone(their employees, contracted drivers, customers, stealing from their competitor, the common man driving to work who could get killed by an unproven Uber robot car and more) like trash and steamrolls over all who is not a KalaDick bro!