Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#992I work at Lyft, and although I'm in different shoes (SW male), I really can't see this happening and HR/management stonewalling the complaints. We don't tolerate harassment, and we stand up for each other. I know I try to. [1] I honestly don't understand how Uber attracts talent. Lyft and Uber both work on really interesting problems. [2] The difference is that Uber are, well, the sort of people Travis Kalanick would…
A thread about workplace sexual harassment is hardly an appropriate place to plug your company.
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#993I work at Lyft, and although I'm in different shoes (SW male), I really can't see this happening and HR/management stonewalling the complaints. We don't tolerate harassment, and we stand up for each other. I know I try to. [1] I honestly don't understand how Uber attracts talent. Lyft and Uber both work on really interesting problems. [2] The difference is that Uber are, well, the sort of people Travis Kalanick would…
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#994While I agree with the statements that HR works for the company, when things are working the interests of the company and employees should align. I appreciate that too often this isn't how HR operates, but I don’t think anyone wants to be misconstrued as implying that Ms. Fowler didn't understand how HR works or that she didn't take all appropriate actions. > I wanted to stay on the team ... > it was genuinely in the…
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#995This is the third most popular story in Hacker News of all time [1], and I couldn't be happier. This can't have been easy to write but the more posts like this, the more likely people who suffer the same issues at their workplace will share their experiences. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...
Yet in under a day it's off the front page despite >900 comments and >3700 points. The post was interesting and shocking ... and I have (anecdotal) memories of less-popular stories sticking around far longer. Weird
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't explain the bizarre jacket drama, or reports from other female coworkers.
The jacket drama had nothing to do with gender really and she was making a big deal out of something trivial. I can imagine the scenario is like "ok we're too cheap to create custom jackets for everyone so we will order the jacket size that fits the majority and the minority can try to fit in it". If the gender ratio was the other way around, there would be a similar situation. The response to other reports are stand…
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#997Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would she expose herself to libel laws? Why would she risk her career? Is she not capable of describing her experience and be seen as a witness to her own treatment?
I have no problem with describing one's alleged experience. I take issue with treating it as the truth, despite providing no evidence. This is all unsubstantiated hearsay.
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no problem with describing one's alleged experience. I take issue with treating it as the truth, despite providing no evidence. This is all unsubstantiated hearsay.
It's not hearsay, it's testimony. Hearsay would be Susan telling us what she heard from someone else.
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not hearsay, it's testimony. Hearsay would be Susan telling us what she heard from someone else.
I guess some of it would be hearsay, as some of her story involves what other engineers were telling her, but yeah, this is firsthand testimony, no doubt with plenty of screenshots/emails/etc to document.
Re: Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber
#1000That manager should have been fired on the very first offense Susan reported. "Don't proposition your colleagues for sex, especially on company comms, ESPECIALLY on the day she starts her job" is an implicit rule that doesn't need explaining. How isn't this lawsuit material? Are the employment contracts really that binding?