Comment by uber_031917 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by uber_031917 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Uber employee here.

This was a disheartening story to read to say the least. I hope that she sues as her case is abundantly clear and the response by HR and the management chain was absolutely unacceptable. If what happened is true, they should be held accountable.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, Uber has a track record of lack of accountability when it comes to leadership/managers. Pretty much everyone I know at Uber believes that Josh Mohrer [1] and Emil Michael [2] should have been fired. It's probably fair to say both are generally regarded as being high performers, but what they did was extremely damaging to the reputation of the company and the fact they weren't held accountable only worsens that reputation.

I think that generally Uber is a positive influence in the world. It has created work opportunities for millions essentially out of thin air has fundamentally changed how people think about transportation in cities for the better. Uber is certainly disruptive and its methods and behavior have been brash at times which has often resulted in a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, both deserved (comments and actions targeting journalists, sexism) and otherwise ("support" of Trump, #deleteuber, and surge price "gouging"). For me, Uber is still a place filled with many talented people working on interesting, challenging problems. But a story like this is a tough pill to swallow.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/colleague...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-19/uber-said...

I mean this in the nicest way possible, so please don't take this as anything personally directed at you, but: any employee of Uber that feels strongly about this should find another company to work at. If you're working in tech, in the current employment market in the Bay Area, finding another job is not hard. Not easy, both in the sense that leaving a job can be scary, and that interviews can be draining - but doable.

There are other companies out there that solve interesting, challenging problems and don't have this toxic culture. There are other companies with talented people. And if enough of your coworkers disagree with Uber's culture, policies, etc., then the talented, moral people that you work with at Uber may even come with you.

The only way Uber will ever pay attention is if it affects their bottom line. Employees leaving, or people turning down offers is, person-for-person, one of the most impactful ways to do this.

That comes across as a variant of "blaming the victim." Telling an internet stranger to sacrifice himself to some higher cause is not really a noble act. Maybe he can do more good by trying to change the company from the inside. Or maybe he just needs the job and doesn't need to be a hero.

I don't understand this line of thinking. If a company or it's management sucks, then leave. It's not a sacrifice, it's not being a hero. It's in your own best interest. It's also like being a conscious consumer by not buying stuff from shit companies: You can be a conscious employee by not working for shit companies.

I don't see any reason to try to changing a shitty company. It makes more sense to join a great company and help them grow.

Maybe he can do more good by trying to change the company from the inside

What's the success rate of this? Keep in mind that their HR department does not have the capacity to recognize repeated instances of sexual harrassment, so someone on the inside I guess will want to transfer to HR first, in order to help there, then maybe get promoted into upper management? After that they can demote themselves to driver training.

I guess Ruby on Rails really can do anything.

Finding "a job" may not be hard if you're not looking for top companies. Finding a place with comparable pay/equity/benefits to your current gig? Not easy, even in the Bay Area.

So don't swallow it! Spit it back out at them. Uber is entirely dependent on the goodwill of its engineers. They're irreplaceable. Uber's financial situation is such that they're absolutely required to execute. They cannot afford organized employee protests and will cave to them like an overripe grape trying to hold up a cinderblock. People like you could be running the table there. Why not hold them to account?

What's the worst thing that happens? It doesn't work out and you eventually switch jobs. But the best case outcome? You get to work on exciting, important problems for a company that is accountable to its team and their prevailing beliefs and principles. That sounds pretty awesome to me.

Golden handcuffs are called handcuffs for a reason.

They're not handcuffs, involuntary servitude is illegal.

'Golden handcuffs' means you care more about your future payout than whatever missbehavior/illegality/immorality you're overlooking.

Also believing that same missbehavior won't cause the contract to be worthless by the time you get to collect.

Someone will reply with the exact citation, but there's the story of that psychologist or economist or jaded physicist who goes to a fancy bougie party, dressed like a million bucks, and goes up to a pretty lady in a fancy ballgown. "Would you sleep with me for a million bucks?"

Intrigued by his presence and directness, the lady raises her eyebrows and says "go on..."

"Would you sleep with me for a hundred bucks?"

"No! Who do you think I am?!"

"I know who you are, we're just engaged in market price-discovery."

------

I don't know if the person you were responding to was intentionally implying Ms. Fowler probably had a unicorn's worth of money on the table for the typical 1-year cliff or was just making a dark commentary about the reality of the industry we work in (internet postings suck for conveying subtleties of language), but I will say I know people who joined/stayed at a place they weren't really happy with because the offer matched or exceeded their BATNA price.

I think we should have that self-reflective commentary about just how much money actually matters in relation to our ideals of "disruption" and "making the world a better place" (would you realistically take a 40k offer to do something truly altruistic after a few years of a SF salary?). Whether that's on-topic here, that's the are-the-downvotes-warranted question here.

It was meant to be dark commentary. I don't judge people who subjugate themselves to toxic work environments too harshly. I think they are usually behaving optimally given their livelihood/personal wealth is on the line.

FWIW, I think it was brave of Ms. Fowler to write this (most probably stay silent for fear of retribution).

I haven't downvoted a single person in this entire conversation.

I have no idea what her compensation package looks like, it doesn't really matter to the point I'm making.

My point was simply this: if you're waiting for your payout, you're keeping your mouth shut by not walking out. If you have some sort of serious ethical disagreement with your employer, you have to weigh how much you care about that to how much you will benefit from your future stock package.

If you say everything they're doing is incredibly evil and they need to be stopped, but you're waiting around for your $12 million payday, we figured out your price.

You can walk away from things with multiple zeros on the end. I've seen people do it. You might end up happier in the end. All depends on the situation.

The name "golden handcuffs" seems to imply that someone doesn't have a choice in the matter. They do. If you find yourself in one of the situations, don't forget that's an option.

I think we agree on everything except

> The name "golden handcuffs" seems to imply that someone doesn't have a choice in the matter.

"Golden handcuffs" to me is a beautiful phrase. It implies a fragile, beautiful piece of jewelry that is only superficially binding. To me, it's a euphemism for a personality test of do you chose ideals or sufficiently-high-enough material comfort.

Fools gold, pretty soon.

This. I would be ashamed to have Uber on my resume for much longer after this story ran, and will think twice when interviewing a candidate who does.

Come on... "You're super smart, competent at the job, and are a good fit culturally here. BUT, you worked at Company X 5 years ago, and they did something unethical, so we're not going to hire you!" - said no hiring manager ever.

People can have reasons to stay at their current jobs. The author of the article did, even.

So basically, your price for overlooking systemic misogyny is "working with talented people on interesting problems"? Is uber the only place where you can work with talented people on interesting problems? On ride-sharing?

These assholes can't get rich without you. Someone is going to win in this space. Why would you help it be them?

> I think that generally Uber is a positive influence in the world

I'm pretty sure you can replace Uber in that sentence with "ride sharing".

The personal and professional cost of bringing a lawsuit normally means it makes no sense to bring a case even if you would have a good chance of winning. You really need to be prepared to make personal sacrifice in order to try to change things by the lawsuit for it even to be worth considering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com