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

Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

anon-ex-uber.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#41

Post by nostrademons »

kenjackson wrote: post #33
nostrademons wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrasing "HR isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect the company" applies more here. My experience is also that HR is very reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But the thing is that when you have a legit harassment claim, the law is there to protect you . You could make things very expensive for the company in court, and so protecting the company does mean protecting you and treating you r…

> The phrasing "HR isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect the company" applies more here. I agree (although had interpreted the statement originally differently). Unfortunately, the part about "XYZ isn't there to protect you" applies to so much in life. Even police don't have a responsibility to you protect you (but just the public as a whole). The lesson from stuff like this is often to make sure your bes…

Or don't engage with people whose interests are not aligned with yours. You can do an awful lot, and carve out a pretty good life for yourself, if the powerful people whose interests are not aligned with yours don't know that you exist. Considering that everybody else has an incentive to align with the most powerful and active stakeholder in the world, this is the only way to avoid a unipolar dictatorship.

Relating it back to the story at hand, the blogpost's author would've done well to just disengage from the coworker who didn't like him, and also to not report them to HR. What I had to tell my report when HR got involved: "The right thing to do here was nothing."

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#42

Post by cm11 »

soperj wrote: post #11
ryandrake wrote: post #6

It seems like this employee was in a no-win situation. If he engaged in the non-work-related conversation the co-worker was trying to initiate, he would have been fired. If he ignored the co-worker, they would have found a reason to fire him. Instead, he responded saying he was advised to keep communication to just work topics... and he was fired. The company was clearly planning on firing him for any possible reason…

People have this mistaken belief than HR is for them when they are there 100% for the employer. The only people who are there for you in these situations is the union (if you have one).

I also think HR has this same mistaken belief about themselves. There are things they're aware they know that the employee(s) don't so they have some sense in which they're part of a misdirection, but anything that seems "a little unethical, but those are the rules" they kinda attribute to "I'm just doing my job and so it's not unethical". The job can of course be to do unethical things.

Depends on the company, but HR (and some other functions) can be relatively low power and it frequently seems that the low power person is facilitating groups that are above them, which leads to them serving as a pillow for the higher powered person to abuse the medium powered one and let the low powered absorb the blame/blows. It's unfair in a certain way, but realistically I think the low powered one refusing (in spite of them having the most to lose) is kinda the main way to keep things from getting worse and so things get worse. They can refuse or they can not take the job or they can somehow not pass the high powered person's problem on to the medium powered one, but they're disincentivized. I can empathize with the situation and expect them to take the deal that enables the high powered ones to take advantage of others while still assigning blame for not fixing the little part they could fix. Fwiw, it's also true of most middle managers and PMs, though they might not technically be the lowest powered one in the triangle. If they don't stand up for the thing they say is ethical, then I think it's straightforward that they're a/the problem.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#43

Post by wojciii »

polotics wrote: post #24
devsda wrote: post #16

Off topic. Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends. It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.

This isn't off topic in as much as clearly it reveals how disconnected from reality that CEO is: "Khosrowshahi says: Just work hard, and success will follow. " ...is hilarious for a company like Uber, where the whole point of the business model is to optimize away drivers income so much that they will always be on the edge of something very much else than success, no matter how hard they work!

Uber is a failure here in this part of Scandinavia. They were made redundant by our lowmakers and try to run some kind of cab business in accordance with our laws.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#44

Post by _fw »

kleiba wrote: post #35
devsda wrote: post #16

Off topic. Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends. It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.

To be honest, if they paid me a 6 digit salary, I'd be happy to "answer an email" on a Saturday, it isn't exactly doing an 8+ hour shift at the weekend.

It’s not that a single email isn’t worth the bargain (it is). It’s that this is symptomatic of an unhealthy, performative culture.

This kind of behaviour incentivises a kind of pick-me, I’m suffering the most for the shareholders type of behaviour.

How many Saturday emails really make a difference? The whole thing is a ruse.

And the fact this shithead is spouting his nonsense on Steven Bartlett’s asinine podcast surprises me not.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#45

Post by aipatselarom »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #20
Moral_ wrote: post #10

The fact this person could not get an attorney to represent them says a lot.

All the local lawyers have conflicts of interest? I know someone suing their landlord and he had to find a lawyer 3 hours away because all the local lawyers work with this property management company.

Whoa, what an interesting variation of "buying the railroads".

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#46

Post by triceratops »

kleiba wrote: post #35
devsda wrote: post #16

Off topic. Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends. It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.

To be honest, if they paid me a 6 digit salary, I'd be happy to "answer an email" on a Saturday, it isn't exactly doing an 8+ hour shift at the weekend.

You're selling yourself too cheaply. To habitually work on weekends I'd need at least a 7 figure salary. Maybe even 8 figures.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#47

Post by scubbo »

simianwords wrote: post #26
soperj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have this mistaken belief than HR is for them when they are there 100% for the employer. The only people who are there for you in these situations is the union (if you have one).

this cliche is so often repeated that i'm now questioning whether this is even true. unions are counterproductive many times - they serve the interests (only temporarily) for the incumbents while failing to or ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company or industry declining. i wonder if the HR cliche is similar.

> they serve the interests [...of] the incumbents

Yes. The employees. That's the point.

> while [...] ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company

Good. That is, again, the point - to advocate for the employees when their interests are in opposition to those of the company.

You say they're counterproductive - sounds like they're working exactly as intended.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#48

Post by watwut »

nostrademons wrote: post #28
kenjackson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His first mistake was complaining to HR about another employee griefing him. HR is always going to consider the initial complainer as "the problem." I can say this definitely isn't always true. In the companies I've worked at HR has always been extremely reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But corporate culture probably matters here, and I've never worked at a place like Uber. That said, I would be c…

The phrasing "HR isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect the company" applies more here. My experience is also that HR is very reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But the thing is that when you have a legit harassment claim, the law is there to protect you . You could make things very expensive for the company in court, and so protecting the company does mean protecting you and treating you r…

> and that in fact you may have been the instigator, then protecting the company probably means getting rid of you.

That protects other employees. If you are instigator and then go to complain to HR trying to make them punish the victim, firing you protects everyone around you. And it protects the culture from becoming toxic.

HR can play negative role, but this scenario is not one of those.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#49

Post by withinboredom »

aipatselarom wrote: post #45
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the local lawyers have conflicts of interest? I know someone suing their landlord and he had to find a lawyer 3 hours away because all the local lawyers work with this property management company.

Whoa, what an interesting variation of "buying the railroads".

It’s literally a tactic in divorce reddits. Go to all the lawyers in the city and get a meeting. Now they can’t work with your partner because they’ve given you advice.

Re: Uber reported to the state that I was fired for "annoying a coworker."

#50

Post by simianwords »

scubbo wrote: post #47
simianwords wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this cliche is so often repeated that i'm now questioning whether this is even true. unions are counterproductive many times - they serve the interests (only temporarily) for the incumbents while failing to or ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company or industry declining. i wonder if the HR cliche is similar.

> they serve the interests [...of] the incumbents Yes. The employees. That's the point. > while [...] ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company Good. That is, again, the point - to advocate for the employees when their interests are in opposition to those of the company. You say they're counterproductive - sounds like they're working exactly as intended.

>You say they're counterproductive - sounds like they're working exactly as intended.

it can lead to the whole company or industry to be destroyed, so while it may protect the specific incumbents it puts the whole industry/country in jeopardy. in aggregate these things can work against favour.

if everyone ends up doing this the system can't work

Post reply on HN