He was explaining the situation very politely. As a CEO, making business decisions amidst uncertainty is hard. Its when the driver started placing his $97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool, asked him to take responsibility for his actions and walked out.
I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because Kalanick is an asshole.
That being said, Kalanick has acted like an asshole in the past, but this is not one of those times.
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.
https://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-par...
Uber or any other company are not responsible for any tools a contractor might buy in order to complete their work, unless explicitly stated in a written agreement.
The idea that you shouldn't be allowed to express your grievances because you work at the pleasure of your employer/company is toxic and regressive.
I keep bringing this up because it's crucial to Uber's business model and something that has been repeatedly disputed. Uber badly wants its drivers not to be employees but instead partners. Kalanick can't get huffy when his business partners have grievances for him.
Except that's not the way the law works, and there are cases where things in contracts are not enforced and things outside contracts are, because the law is all about how reasonable something is.
I've been in business for a long time. I've run into many vendors who didn't breach a contract or the law, but chose to do business in a way that impacted my business in a negative way. This has ranged from enterprise software vendors to janitorial services.
Ultimately, it hurt then in some way as we priced their bullshit into the next procurement cycle.
When a giant company pretends that some random afghani dude working as a contractor is a peer to any other vendor, that's either delusional thinking or a justification for bullying.
When The US referred to targeted assassination in Vietnam as "termination with prejudice", it didn't fool anyone.
That's not the ways things work, and it's not even how they are meant to work.
I'm curious how many people here agree with this sentiment, but blame the banks and mortgage brokers for people losing their homes during the last crash.
He's just trying to save some face for him and the company in the midst of a glut of PR disasters.
[1] https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m...
They changed that pay structure, and he got screwed, with little recourse. He had an opportunity to complain to the head of the organization which made that change and took it.
The CEO in this situation could have been more supportive, understanding and offered some recourse... even if it was just to email some HR or driver support person at Uber, that would have been a better response.
Instead the CEO felt attacked, kicked in his defensive mode, was flippant and dismissive of this persons struggles. Zero compassion or empathy, that's the problem here.
The driver took a big risk and expected a big reward, but that didn't work out, but it was his own decision. Personally I wouldn't buy a luxury car based on the promise of a startup, certainly not if I wasn't able to afford it to begin with.
Most people have a very poor ability to assess and measure risk. These drivers see an opportunity to make money, and use that to get a loan to buy the car.
Everyone is losing here. The driver goes bankrupt, the metro area loses as Uber puts cabs and black cars out of business and takes business from public transit, and ultimately the investors since Uber tapes $10 bills to each ride.
Will I blame my employer for limited notice? Sure.
Does my employer have legal liability? Not in my state. Maybe for 2 weeks. If I hire the right lawyer, maybe until a "reasonable time to find a new job"
Ethical? Maybe, some.
Maybe it's a way for Uber to divert attention from the recent scandals and allow the CEO to apologise for something that's actually quite minor compared to the rest.
He's at the helm of a mulit-billion dollar company. He should be expected to deal with partners with more respect and deftness. Not only is it a decency thing, but losing his cool so easily doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to manage real crises.
It's like he said himself, time to grow up.
However, I really think for this incident he has nothing to apologise for.
Poor guy, just added this to the list of negative things Uber is being called out on, and apologized.
That's business. That's the American dream. That's the risk you take when starting your own business. Uber couldn't exist if it hired their drivers, so for Uber too it's a conscious decision.
Note: I'm not saying Uber's only mistake is PR. But it's a large part of what precipitates the unique reaction against them versus, say, Lyft. #DeleteUber? Came up because Uber cancelled surge at 7:36PM around a protest at JFK that was scheduled at 4:55 to last from 6 to 7PM. Lyft, meanwhile, earned more money and got a better reaction.
Similarly, in reaction to Fowler's account, instead of doing something substantive they hired an Uber Director, the head of the department implicated and an Uber lobbyist to conduct an "independent" investigation.