A profound apology
newsroom.uber.com
newsroom.uber.com
Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months.
Fawzi: It’s good.
Travis: You probably saw some email.
Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices.
Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black.
Fawzi: But in general.
Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: Competitors? You had the business model in your hands, you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride.
Travis: No, no no. You misunderstand me. We started high-end. We didn’t go low-end because we wanted to. We went low-end because we had to because we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.
Travis: Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?
Fawzi: You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.
Travis: On Black? Bullshit.
Fawzi: We started with $20.
Travis: You know what, some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!
Fawzi: Good luck to you too, I know that you aren’t going to go far.If someone accused me in such a fashion, and persisted despite me asking for clarification and trying to actually explain my view to them, I'd probably be a lot more vitriolic than Travis was. (It's a character flaw of mine.) And saying that some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit is, well, true?
I don't like that billionaires are held to a different standard. People say, "they don't need protection; they're rich." Ok, but if you discount something a billionaire says for no reason other than that they're rich and have easy lives, you're not a dispassionate truthseeker.
It's hard to believe someone would say this today. It seems you missed the whole point of the "but he's a high performer" excuse that Uber has (allegedly) been making when not addressing harassment and worse.
The least a CEO could have said is to thank the driver for his feedback and promise to look into it.
Just because you're disrespectful doesn't mean the CEO of a consumer facing company can treat its partners like that.
If anything, I find it sort of funny that Travis got mad. He handled it pretty well at first; they were just having an honest disagreement. Then it was like he just decided, "fuck it, I've had a bad day, and I don't need to take this guy's shit." He might meditate on the fact that this guy spends his evenings being the reason that Uber's business model works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ
Travis should have just smiled and eaten this guys shit, because that's just part of being CEO. "Thank you for your feedback, we'll look into it. Keep up the good work and thanks for the ride!"
It's a job skill. The job of CEO requires a lot of skills, almost none of which are the ability to come up with and execute on a great initial idea.
Observational humor has to be #3.
> And saying that some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit is, well, true?
It's true, but also I think it's also a massive amount of impromptu projection on the part of Travis!
saying "thank you, I'll look into it" is politics. I think many appreciate honesty more. In this case that honesty costs.
Uber subsidizes fares ~20% or so currently. Assuming they didn't used to do this, the payout to drivers seems like it would be about the same:
3.75 / 0.8 => 4.6875 (vs $4.90 originally)
The per-minute fees are still quite a bit lower, admittedly:
0.65 / 0.8 => 0.8125 (vs $1.25 originally)
Not taking sides (and I'm more of a Lyft guy than an Uber fanboy), but there's really no way to work out whether this whole argument is valid without more information.
https://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-par...
I think it's a valid complaint. He invested in the car based on a business model that changed underneath him. Uber may not be legally liable for that, and may have had valid reasons, but it still sucks. I would want to vent as well.
If the guy had yelled "You are making me accept Uber X fares which is making me make less money" then it would be easy to see where he's coming from if TK pushed back on that - anyways, it's just a technicality but it seems that TK may have actually been correct if all the guy was upset about was the reduction in Uber Black time/distance fees to drivers.
"Lower fares mean that drivers make less per ride. Uber said lower fares will attract more riders, which should increase the number of trips per hour. 'We care deeply about driver earnings,' Macdonald said. 'We actually find that a lot of drivers understand why we do this. They’ve been through price cuts before.'"[1]
So, they try to explain it away by saying the drivers will get more rides, but pretty clear that Uber concedes it's less money per ride.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-09/uber-drop...
(That said, on the whole, I agree that it's being blown pretty out of proportion.)
Fawzi: We started with $20.
You see these public statements with fake apologies after PR meltdowns all of the time (BP Oil Spill, ENRON, etc.). It's glorified damage control. I doubt the people whose behalf they are for really feel sorry in any of them.
The driver is apparently bankrupt (well done), so I would not be at all surprised if he deliberately tried to bait Travis into this conversation so he'd have a story to sell. At the end of the Bloomberg article where this surfaced, they noted that the driver got 1 Star for that ride - I find it hard to believe that anyone other than Uber and the driver would have been able to know that.
For future reference, that is always a bad idea no matter what the company.
Thank you for your comment.
Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months.
Fawzi: It’s good.
Travis: You probably saw some email.
Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices.
Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black.
Fawzi: But in general.
Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: Competitors? You had the business model in your hands, you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride.
Travis: No, no no. You misunderstand me. We started high-end. We didn’t go low-end because we wanted to. We went low-end because we had to because we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.
Travis: Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?
Fawzi: You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.
Travis: On Black? Bullshit.
Fawzi: We started with $20.
Travis: You know what, some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!
Fawzi: Good luck to you too, I know that you aren’t going to go far.
/r/cars/comments/5wrdk2/comment/decxcxi
Also, if I wanted to read about this on Reddit, I'd be over on Reddit. I'm here because I want to read the comments from HN users.
An HN user is telling you that he read something that was particularly useful to the conversation at hand and wanted to share it, what's wrong with that?
(Which is ironic as I'm a Reddit mod on an active sub with ~4,500 members)
Also HN comments are 95% serious in tone. While joking isn't disallowed, and the occasional high concept satirical comment might get mass upvoted, most jokes are ignored or downvoted. Not the case on Reddit.
Full text of /u/clonetent's comment:
"It's their xchangleasing leasing program. It's basically a sub prime car loan like from the housing bubble days.
You use Uber as your income verification and they'll let anyone lease a car provided they do X amount rides each week regardless of credit. They require a three year lease, you a have month to back out but after that you're on the hook for the car 100%. So if Uber cuts it's rates they still have same payment but less fare money each month. They did this to a lot of people and it's well known within the company that a lot of Uber black drivers were screwed when this happened.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-ub...
<q>He leased a 2016 Toyota Corolla from Xchange in November, paying $155 a week. Two months later, Uber slashed fares nationally. Soon Hofstede had trouble keeping up with his payments. He went from making $200 in a weekend to $140 in a weekend, he said. "It got to the point that I would drive just to meet my payment," he said. "If you were short on your payment for a week it would roll onto the payment for next week. It starts adding up." </q>
In this guys case they did a similar program for uber black years ago. Then they changed which cars were considered black cars. If I remember right a year after they started the program they changed which cars were considered "black" cars and this guys Lexus?? Was no longer a black car. They said it couldn't exclusively be used for black and had to pick up Uber X riders as well. Uber x pays a lot less. The people this happened to were basically bait and switched when Travis changed the terms on them. He can refuse uber x rides and only pick up uber black riders but if he refuses more than 45 rides in a month he's fired and forever banned from Uber but still on the hook for the car lease. The old Uber black leases started around 4k or 5k a month(I forget which cars but this was for a base "black car") but they made 6k to 8k, 10k a month back then depending on market. They cut rates and required you to pick up cheaper fairs and you're underwater. That's the 97k he's talking about. A lot of Uber black leases were repo'd because after this change their leases were more than their entire monthly wage. That's the personal responsibility Travis wants him to have. It's "Sorry the market change, too bad".
Also the market changed or I mean people did. They just stopped using Uber black. I mean if you're taking at 10 or 20 minute ride across town are you really so vain to need a uber black. Turns out actually rich people are cheap and flocked to Uber x. That's why Travis mentioned their reducing the amount of drivers beacuse the number or riders also drop double screwing guys like this.
Now let me say YES Travis is correct the guy is responsible for his desisions and things don't always work out like you'd expect. That said I see the guys side he made a 3 year commitment to Uber he couldn't walk away from and everything he was promised changed."
Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months.
Fawzi: It’s good.
Travis: You probably saw some email.
Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices.
Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black.
Fawzi: But in general.
Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: Competitors? You had the business model in your hands, you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride.
Travis: No, no no. You misunderstand me. We started high-end. We didn’t go low-end because we wanted to. We went low-end because we had to because we’d be out of business.
Fawzi: But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.
Travis: Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?
Fawzi: You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.
Travis: On Black? Bullshit.
Fawzi: We started with $20.
Travis: You know what, some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!
Fawzi: Good luck to you too, I know that you aren’t going to go far.
Does being brusque require a public apology?
>Kamel: What?
>Kalanick: Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else.
I think that is a very insulting and superior thing to say to someone.
In reality it is necessary for growth (and for leadership) to accept responsibility for things. In medicine, every layer up the chain is responsible for the actions of those below; i have encountered many situations where a senior accepts and owns responsibility for a failing or mistake even though that mistake was performed by a junior doctor/nurse. Blame culture is toxic; ownership therapeutic as it leads to growth. In the situation you quote above, it is ironic.
In reality, it's a dismissal indicating a lack of respect and/or lack of any fucks to give. Yes, I'd say that's about half the country.
The most arrogant programmers I know seem to think the exact opposite: that they are among the elite few graced with the gift of true programming intuition. (Not true.) They don't think the poor are lazy, they think the poor are helpless and un-talented.
It's a difficult thing to push back on, because even those of us most sympathetic a complex-systems based understanding of inequality don't want to completely give up on the value of personal responsibility, as to do so would be to tacitly give up the belief in free will. But if we grant that each individual does have some degree of agency and responsibility, then the libertarian side immediately points to any number of self made/rags to riches individuals and says "So? Stop complaining and do that!". But why can't they admit that it's an issue of degrees?
Sure, you have some agency in improving your situation, but if you're born less advantaged the systemic factors arrayed against you make it significantly harder to leverage your agency to improve your lot. Just because some lucky few do rise from rags to riches doesn't mean that a winner take most, predatory lottery system will create the best outcome for the most.
Is it a failure of human probabilistic intuition? Or is it a more malicious effort to control and frame the debate, pushed by those who benefit from the unequal system? Probably both.
It's like Taleb's stuff about skin in the game--Kalanick pushed the risk of his business model onto drivers like this one while keeping the upside for himself. When the driver got screwed by Kalanick's pricing changes, he comes back with technicalities and finally blames the guy for not taking responsibility. Talk about projection!
That's the reason why this is disrespectful to the driver. Kalanick minimizes his loss and refuses to take any responsibility for it himself, despite the fact that the only real mistake the driver made was trusting Uber.
If Uber drivers are, in fact, independent contractors, then they have some responsibility to determine whether the business they're engaged in is a profitable one, and to judge the risk involved. It seems like it would be very easy to underestimate both the costs and the risk.
Having driven for Uber and Lyft for a year and a half (even during the "good years") - the rate of new hires was most definitely a major concern and there were definitely rocky times. I was lucky to be able to mitigate this by moving to San Francisco from San Diego. While in San Diego I saw my take go down from ~$1200/wk to something like $800/wk, then back up to $1200-1600/wk when I moved to SF, and then back down to about $800 by the time I finished.
Personally I approached it as an exercise in entrepreneurship, a deep study in the dynamics of real-time economics, and an opportunity to vastly improve my "people skills" in addition to making more money than a PhD postdoc in biochemistry... So a success in all fronts, personally, but also I knew when to quit.
My suspicion is that many people who begin driving for Uber overestimate their net earnings and underestimate their deferred expenses e.g. vehicle depreciation and maintenance. If Uber knows this and is taking advantage (with new-driver bonuses, etc...), they're essentially a multi-level marketing company.
Driver buys a $97k car, goes bankrupt because as it turns out buying a super expensive car that you obviously can't afford is a dumb idea, then decides to blame someone else for his poor decision making.
If not for abusing growth, it would have not raised funding and would have likely failed.
Uber is a business, not a charity. They exist to maximize profits. If you understand that point, then you see why your point is irrelevant.
Also, what the heck does it mean to "abuse growth"?
Even if that's true, the CEO is the right person to make a complaint to. Or do you think the cab driver should get an economics degree and acquire a fine understanding of market forces?
It is the business owner's (investor's) responsibility to understand and plan for the long-term. Not planning for the long-term is exactly what happened here. I do not believe this man should have been disrespected, however, his decision to buy a car he could not afford, was his own and was objectively a bad decision.
Do you know the story of the grasshopper and the ants[0]? Regardless of who is controlling the weather (in our case, Uber). Its the grasshopper's fault for not storing food for the winter.
[0] http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtm...
This sounds like an unrealistic expectation. One would argue Uber was either disloyal or disillusioned if they rely on such people to advance their business.
Here Uber changing policy or pricing is a risk! In this case, to make a sound investment, you need to calibrate the rewards against that risk.
Only looking at the potential upside, not realizing that the risk exists, is foolish.
Faulting Uber, for being flexible to market forces, is naive. Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.
[0] Either to facilitate driving for Uber, or something else
The interesting part happens when you understand that it is impossible to make an educated decision to become a Uber driver without having a relation of trust between Uber and drivers (because otherwise you would need insider information about Uber's business innovations, to get fixed pricing agreement for a given duration, which Uber will never do, etc).
Then, you don't fault Uber for being "flexible to market forces", you may fault them for engaging in deceptive business, just like you would blame a multi level marketing scheme. And when you specifically look at Uber's strategy to mislead potential drivers, there's tons of telling stuff.
In that light, you can still blame the drivers for making bad decisions (discussing the reality of Homo œconomicus would drive us out of scope). But you must also fault Uber for maliciously luring their drivers in a scheme that is not sustainable for them.
I'm glad they lost this case: http://www.moneylife.in/article/uber-to-pay-20-million-for-a...
I watched the video 3 times, and did not find anything wrong with the CEO's behavior. And don't understand why the CEO should be issuing any apology at all for this video.
He was explaining the situation politely. Its when the driver started placing his $97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool.
If the CEO is contemplating changing this polite no-nonsense behavior -investors should be very concerned
EDIT: I came across this interesting comment from gpawl, somewhere down this thread
>>> It's a good tactic -- blow off all the worse things you do, then apologize for the one time you weren't at fault, people notice and give you sympathy, and start to forget those worse things.
Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not taking responsibility for their own shit".
What the video shows isn't wrong on the level of the Fowler post. It just shows Kalanick as petty and deeply unserious about his role, which is an alarming look for someone whose company is embroiled in scandals about mismanagement.
At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why.
I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver".
This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.
Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.
Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago.
It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal.
Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage.
Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole.
In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit.
Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.
This is gross. I'm glad to have deleted my account and go full Lyft.
Lyft cars are wholly owned by their drivers
The reason being to make a statement about the sexual harassment issue, without actually talking about the sexual harassment issue.
This is the big deal. It's solidifying the picture that's been built of him over the last few weeks.
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14766964/video-uber-travis-k...
>Kamel: “But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.”
>Kalanick: “Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?”
>Kamel: “You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.”
>Kalanick: “On Black? Bullshit.”
>Kamel: “We started with $20.”
> In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute.
I've seen both Uber and Lyft advertise that if you become a driver and do X rides in Y time you'll get Z credits to use as a rider.
When I drove a few years ago, easily half of my income came from subsidies and guarantees.
https://www.quora.com/Are-Uber-drivers-allowed-to-have-a-cam...
> A California appellate court has ruled that the Penal Code statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations.
You think Uber would still be in business if drivers made a habit of publicly posting videos of passengers?
The driver or cab company owns the car, and they have the same right to film the customers for the safety of the driver as a convenience store does to promote the safety of its clerks and cashiers.
You are correct that it is unethical to release that footage in most circumstances, without it being evidence of a crime, but the CEO of a company like Uber might be considered a public figure, and if you want other people to be ethical in their dealings with you, you must also be ethical in your dealings with them. I think we never would have seen this video if the driver didn't think that Uber's top-level management pulled a bait-and-switch on him with respect to the recruiting promises versus the actual income. If you act like an ass, you shouldn't expect discretion from anyone.
Were this an ordinary passenger that engaged in a mildly argumentative conversation with the driver, yes, that would be very unethical to post the video without explicit two-party consent. But for the guy that technically signs your paychecks and controls whether you get fares or not and how much you get for them, having a conversation about the business? I'd say that's fair game.
There was a #DeleteUber campaign going on well before this became public, and the reasons for that come from the company's management culture. If he's going to apologize for anything, he still has a lot more to answer for.
That's bold. I can't remember hearing any recent CEO saying this.
Best of luck to Uber and their CEO.
It sounds more like the kind of apology one would make after getting caught diddling children and blaming it on an addiction to snorting horse tranquilizer.
The gullible public will be all over this one by next month.
Even then, I wouldn't be the first rich person to have the masses standing outside my estate carrying pitchforks, it's a real first world (0.001%) problem.
It's very bold to sit here and armchair commentate things. But I watched the actual video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
If anything, I'm impressed he handled it that well - I for one probably wouldn't have, and I suspect a lot of the angry mob wouldn't either. He's a billionaire, for what it's worth, and he actually sat down to try to explain things to a Uber drive, on his night out.
So what, he yells "b*llshit at the end? Or tells the guy to take responsibility? The driver obviously had a bone to pick, and he's ranting.
I think it's bad for tech and the country when we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help. If you do that, you only end up with really good liars in charge.
Allow someone, somewhere, to admit a mistake and correct it in a leadership position.
> you only end up with really good liars in charge.
There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.
In this case, at a cursory glance, it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven. If that's what's happened in this case, then I'm not sure that forgiving them / supporting their subsequent activities is safe since it would be more like enablement, ie: just enabling the person to continue.
If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
I agree there's a difference, I just don't see the value in calling for his head. There's nothing else to expect of him. He clearly wants to stay and keep trying. It's the board's job to decide if he's fit to remain as CEO.
> it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven
I don't see him expecting anything more from anyone but himself. You may infer that, but it's not written there.
I think his message is simple. He wants to remain as CEO and is willing to take steps to improve his leadership style to do so. You may feel those are empty words. To me, they're meaningful because I've read stories of companies that have been transformed by CEOs who become aware how their faults effect the company. It's possible he is not being sincere, but, I don't see much value in wishing for his demise. An in-company replacement would likely keep the same culture going, and an outside replacement isn't reliable in the tech world. As John Sculley showed, that's risky.
> If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
Given the shortness of this apology, I'd guess he isn't quite sure what his other faults are, and is seeking help to identify them.
We need clear and concrete proof that the myriad issues at Uber will be addressed, and a vague, handwavey "I'll do better" is not that.
He could have announced an advisory team being brought on board to help steer the company back on track, or a cleaning house of managers with abusive track records, or drastic new internal guidelines with harsh penalties for bullshit sexist/racist/intolerant behaviour.
Uber has just such an awful track record and is just so untrustworthy, why should we start trusting them when they've given us no actual reason to?
It's been like 12 hours since the video came out, and only a couple since the CEO publicly admitted he needs leadership help... I'm not sure he's had time to seek an advisory team
I'd give them a week. I bet there will be more news from Uber.
We're saying this because of the hearsay but increasingly well-documented track record since the beginning of the company of a racist and sexist work environment, directly attributable to and encouraged by Travis Kalanick.
I'm not one to hop on the politically correct train at the first opportunity, but there's "Coworkers making borderline comments to each other" and then there's "My manager propositions me for sex, and HR lies to me, threatens my reviews, and encourages me to be silent about it because they've been told to do so by management."
So yes, he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the video.
But no, he in-no-fucking-way deserves leniency for fucking up people's lives by abrogating his responsibilities as CEO previous to that. And then the video.
On the flip-side, it could simply mean that he's been told to get leadership help or he may be replaced. (Uber's board can do that, I assume?)
In that scenario, he could still deflect. He could have refused, denying to himself and others that he ever made any mistake. He could've retired rich.
I think it's likely someone recommended he get help, either today or sometime earlier. That he agrees to do so now is notable.
"He has profound insights on the topic of healthcare" vs. "Please accept my profound sorrow for your loss".
Come on. I get all the backlash against Uber — the outrage they're experiencing is rightly deserved — but this is truly asinine.
Of course, we elected a narcissistic and grandiose president, so there's nothing new here.
To his credit he did actually try to engage with the upset driver - most other executives would just dodge the conversation to avoid looking bad.
Give me the genuine emotional reply any day, that's where you find truth, strengths, weaknesses out in the open.
Whether the business model is unfair on drivers is a separate issue to the conduct of this encounter. At the end of the day, the driver went too far saying "I'm bankrupt because of you", I have no sympathy for people who exaggerate to score points.
I thought the video was humanising, and if anything, he remained cool in the face of threatening behaviour. Apologising just legitimses the critics, who'll remain critical regardless.
They're all screwed in the end anyway.
In my mind there's simply been too many colossal failures as a leader, and while I don't consider this video in particular to be resignation worthy, I feel like it's just another datapoint in a growing dataset showing that he's not mature enough (at 40 no less) to handle his role. A straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. This letter seems sincere, but I was fairly disappointed that there have been no high-level firings or resignations (that I'm aware of) since the Fowler story broke. There's a deep credibility issue here, and the only way I can think of to fix it is if he leaves.
So why should he stay?
Edit: I'm wrong, Amit Singhal was asked to resign due to not disclosing an alleged sexual harassment offense at Google.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/technology/uber-sexual-ha...
FTA: A little more than a week after Uber faced stinging accusations that it had ignored female employees’ complaints of sexual harassment, the company dismissed the head of its engineering efforts for failing to disclose a sexual harassment claim from his previous job.
Steve Jobs was an ass hole.
The closest I ever came was Dwight from my first job, but he was not directly in my chain of command, and Pat, who was above him, was a really cool guy, except for that one time when he completely ignored me in the elevator on the way up to me finding out that a bunch of people were getting laid off that day. I figured it out after I heard about the first one, and started packing.
Don't confuse Steve Jobs being successful because he's an asshole with Steve Jobs being successful despite being an asshole.
"Being an asshole doesn't make you Steve Jobs." - Steve Jobs
Anyway, I'd suggest you consider what kind of leader you'd be willing to follow and then work backwards to define your concept of what good leadership may or may not be.
Steve Jobs may have existed in a very special circumstance that allowed him certain, um, behavioral privileges. That does not necessarily make every aspect of his character worth modeling.
An effective leader knows when to sacrifice pawns.
> It’s clear this video is a reflection of me—and
> the criticism we’ve received is a stark reminder that
> I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.
> This is the first time I’ve been willing to admit that
> I need leadership help and I intend to get it.
And, for what it's worth, the video conversation doesn't seem to bad. I think Travis has more on his mind than just the recent video, but it's safer to pin it on that one thing.
Showing up to excel at a job where you have to navigate a minefield of sexual misconduct, hostile management and complicit HR is difficult.
For Travis, stepping aside to let a new leader build the culture of respect and accountability that he has abysmally failed to foster would actually be difficult.
Many respond to such issues with more bluster, with defensiveness, with pressure on the weaker party (who then retracts their claims, blames themselves, forgives the powerful person, etc.), with claims that such behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately this behavior is now seen in world leaders.
I think his note is responsible and appropriate. It's good to see.
(I'm no Uber fan; I don't use them due to their treatment of their drivers, and their disrespect for and undermining of local legal authority.)
With this video, he got triggered and left. I'm sure he's sorry but I don't see this as anywhere remotely close to the experiences several female engineers have shared. Hopefully his response to them is magnitudes more heartfelt, apologetic and transformative.
If anything, this whole thing makes me respect Kalanick and Uber more.
I watched the video of the driver ambushing Kalanick - and yes, it was clearly an ambush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
If anything, he handled himself quite well - especially considering he probably just wanted to go home.
Can any of you say you would have handled a tense situation, with somebody abusing you any better?
It's all well and good to sit in your chair at home, comfortable - but how many of you had to deal with
The fact that he took the time to actually talk with the driver says something. At worst, he said b*llshit at the end, when he's clearly frustrated at what's becoming a rant. The driver obviously just needed to vent.
I wish Lyft would expand out of the US. If they did, they'd have my business immediately. As for Uber, with everything over the last few weeks they've lost it.
Direct link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-...
(Actually a lot of stuff seems to do that lately - I find myself doing a daily check of the second page, just to see which big stories got flagged down before I saw them.)
If you're reading this, Travis, here are some ideas:
- Overhaul transparency at Uber because you don't know how to monitor your culture & doing so takes longer to learn than letting in some light
- Mindfulness meditation (lots of it)
- Become an Uber driver for a month and only live off what you make driving. Do the Undercover Boss thing.
- Brain programming (shameless plug: I invented methods for doing this & they double as mindfulness practices)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-executive-reportedly-ad...
> A senior executive at U.S. ride-sharing company Uber suggested that the company should spend a million dollars to hire a team of opposition researchers to "dig up dirt" on its critics in the media, BuzzFeed reported.
Seriously.
Right?
He hasn't passed the buck and is taking responsibility for his actions, for once.
Taking responsibility is simple. You just say you did something wrong and intend to seek help. Yet, so few people do this, because it is so hard to get those words out. That's exactly what this CEO did.
If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, I'd argue you will only end up surrounding yourself with liars. Everyone makes mistakes.
Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that you're trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where there's any meaningful doubt left. Either he knows what's been happening on his watch, and he's so negligent in the discharge of his responsibilities that he's failed to avert a catastrophe - or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later. You seem to see some kind of tertium quid here, and I'd be delighted to hear you expand on that.
I think that's impossible for anyone to judge but himself.
He said he's going to seek help. That's (a) admission he did something wrong and (b) a proactive attempt to do something about it. That is precisely the style of leader who has been missing in the tech world, and politics, in my opinion.
If you don't see that then I can't change your mind. I just wonder what kind of perfect person you're dreaming of. Nobody is perfect. CEOs and politicians make mistakes. If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, you'll only end up surrounding yourself with liars.
At this point, I can only support his statement, because there's no better reaction I could imagine than the one he decided.
BTW in case anybody thinks I'm some kind of shill, I've been pretty critical of Uber in the past. I think what they did in Austin and in the airport taxi strikes were awful. This statement is different and an action I support.
> Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
He could have deflected. We've seen plenty of people deflect worse. "locker room talk", etc. He could've said this was a private conversation, feels his privacy was invaded, etc. He didn't deflect. He accepted responsibility. I don't know what to say if you can't see that he had that option.
> or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later
His statement is an admission of incompetence. I don't see how you read it any other way unless you intend to just believe he lies about everything. If you insist on calling him a liar then he may just fall back on that. I don't think that would be good for Uber or the health of tech.
Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
...would you feel the same way?
Support them getting help, respect that we're all human and frail and subject to fall, but don't let them keep their fucking job.
Yup I agree. It'd be up to the board whether he remains as CEO or not.
I find his statement interesting and worthy of support because I've never had a boss who would admit when he made a major mistake, much less say he's seeking help for it.
I think the chances of Uber improving with a new CEO are small. It'll just be someone from the same culture. If Travis really intends to seek outside help then that may do something to change the culture there. I don't see any benefit from calling for Travis' head. It's not something you or I have much influence over.
Jim Collins' Good to Great convinced me that leadership consultants actually work.
Instead, by tossing off a couple short paragraphs of apparent and frankly rather self-congratulatory contrition, Kalanick's PR staff has managed to actually pick up a little credibility with, among others, you. That's an impressive accomplishment on their part, and it says a lot about your own lack of cynicism. I hope that doesn't end up screwing you over, because Silicon Valley, as anywhere else in the US that's rife with any kind of politics, can be cruel as hell to people who believe a lot of what they read.
> Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
You seem to have it all figured out, including how Uber has brainwashed me and how the only imaginable scenarios are the ones you've written.
> Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
Would I stay if I were the guy? Probably not. As a 3rd party, I'd certainly support the woman's admission of guilt and her effort to get help.
What kind of society would we be if we did not have services to support people who sought help?
Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs, you're going to end up with better liars.
You're doing the same thing, too, but on the sly. Don't think I didn't see you palm the card:
> Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize Kalanick as merely less than perfect? Not that you're wrong in so doing, exactly, but it does seem to take the principle of charity to a pathological extreme. You might have a point here, if we weren't discussing someone who has such a long record, both personally and on the collective part of the company for which he is ultimately responsible, of bad behavior. But we are.
Not really, no. I doubt he is the worst CEO. The scandals you're referring to are all one-sided and haven't yet come before an arbiter. I think Uber is unpopular among their drivers and customers, and that's a pretty big problem, but, the CEO hasn't been convicted of anything.
In 2005, a video of this nature would have had to show a CEO striking the driver in order to get a public outcry. In 2017, one says "bullshit" to an employee and everyone freaks out. The pitchfork party is a bit over the top, in my opinion, and not productive.
You know, a year ago I would have nodded along to your reply. But after seeing Trump choose B every time and repeatedly get away with it, I have to give Travis at least a modicum of credit for not going full Trump on this one. Not a lot of credit, but the decision was his.
"I didn't take the last cookie... believe me"
Is that an general thing in English-speaking countries or just American?
Where I grew up I think it would be perfectly fine to say this even when I have been speaking the truth all the way.
(Don't want to defend Trump. I don't like him. Just curious about the idiom or whatever this is.)
I mean seriously, if you throw out the question "Okay, who dropped the production database?" and one of the staff said "It wasn't me. Believe me!", that's kind of instant suspicion right there. It's a really weird thing to say in the contexts that Trump says it in.
"Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."
Travis removed himself from Trump's team and admitted his faults here. These are two signs he seeks internal change, in my opinion.
Not impossible at all. You do it by observing behavior before and after the supposed epiphany; time will reveal whether this particular leopard has truly managed to change his shorts.
It'll be interesting, in particular, to observe how he reacts when people directly challenge his fitness to discharge his role in ways he can't or won't ignore. I gather that in the past he's tended to react to such challenges precipitously and, where possible, punitively. If he's genuinely gained a new perspective on his behavior and its consequences, I would not expect that to continue.
On that account, Uber and Kalanick's track record is quite clear. We've gone through this apology ruse any number of times, and yet here we are again.
Not to this degree. He said he intends to get help. Companies don't change their culture without the CEO being involved in the process. A CEO saying this is a big deal.
This is up against the wall PR BS. But the fact that people believe it explains a lot about how we got where we are with Uber.
Interesting. I'd say your unwillingness to accept someone who says they want help is what led us to having liars as CEOs. You want someone perfect, but, nobody is perfect.
When you're willing to send thugs to intimidate women who leak details about the prevalence of sexual assault at your company, it takes more than a blog post to climb back to credibility.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...
The idea that he has just now realized what was going on at "Boober" and is shocked, shocked! to learn about it and that it was bad, strains credulity well past the point of breaking.
This is him trying to say whatever he thinks will take the heat off for a while. Prediction: a year from now no substantive change whatsoever within Uber.
You can't write much about that beyond what he did.
I'll make a counter prediction, that something does change. Nothing good comes from wishing for their failure.
Looking beyond the employees at Uber who have had to suffer through a toxic culture, I am troubled by the fact that the largest private company in the world has done some shady shit[1], and has largely been allowed to get away with it. I shudder to think of the founders out there who are thinking "Maybe it isn't so bad to be a dick. It seems to be a key component of Travis' success!".
[1] exercise for the reader
Please don't take that as a defeatist statement, though. Present day asshole leaders shouldn't get away with it.
Riiiight.
Stay away from this company.
Someone is giving them bad PR advice.
The apology doesn't mean much.
He is giving an impression of accountability when in reality that driver does not need an apology, he needs a viable business model that allows him to make a decent living.
You don't get to call something you said "profound." Others can find it profound, but you can't. It's like a comedian finding themselves funny. It's normally the audience that finds the comedian funny.
If the two ladies are upset, they should address the issue with Travis the next time they hang out.
We've seen Uber discussed here and not just in context of this incident, but much worse stuff. It would be interesting to see what comes of that...
But taken it on its own, this is what apologies should be like and not the "I am so very sorry you all feel this way" type apologies which then usually also proceed to shift blame (circumstances, others, acts of God, bad mood, etc).
Now whether he actually feels this way or not or this is just good PR I am not sure. It remains to be seen.
These Uber drivers disrupted the regular cab/taxi business by driving their wages low, and now their complain is their wages are going low?
Sorry but that is how capitalism/free market economy in general works.
You won't always be on the positive side of the profit.
This macho crap pervades the actions, language and demeanour of modern business and notably technology.
Time to grow up and take responsibility.
That guy is full of drugs. No judgement. Just recognizing what drugs looks like.
Also: "I want to apologise" and "I apologise" are subtly but distinctly different.
Oh wait, sorry, that would imply some acceptance of responsibility.
If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully. If you don't, please don't post at all.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13761339 and marked it off-topic.
I actually do hope he's sincere - I hope he's really going to get help - and I specifically hope that counseling leads him to eliminate the misogyny that we've all read about the last couple days. I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen. After all, how would it move the valuation forward? Unfortunately I think that the most likely scenario is that he'll become more of a detriment to the company and the investors will "ease him out".
Perhaps the experience of having one of his contractor-chumps call him out on his worker-hostile corporate policy changes while working will mature him a bit more.
The rest of us have to make do with mundane stuff like the births of our children, not making rent/mortgage on the first of the month, having our water/power/gas shut off, getting laid off, drinking too much tequila, catching a flat tire at 1 AM during a downpour, losing the championship match, putting our favorite dog or cat down, burying our parents, getting married, experiencing a perfect day miles from any stranger out in the wilderness, finishing the marathon run, getting stopped by the cops for a BS pretext reason, or writing a horrendously long run-on sentence.