Seems risky to hire a recent Uber employee at this point because bringing a toxic sexist into the company can inflict massive damage.
Jesus. They are still people. You want to ostracize them from all society and prevent them from earning a living in their chosen career?
'Sexual harassment' is also a catch-all term that can encompass all kinds of actions. It could involve a clueless, inexperienced 20-something asking out his co-worker and misreading her signals - fuck that guy right? Throw him out of society and forget him forever, right?
And I have yet to see any evidence for this "toxic sexist" atmosphere that apparently is part of the Uber culture. This isn't it. 20 people were fired out of 12,000.
If an entire chain of management and HR don't treat a claim like that seriously (no one has disputed the claim), there is absolutely a cultural problem.
Just to verify: are you an Uber employee, then?
You can't publicly claim that you independently verified something and provide absolutely no information on that verification. You are not a Pope.
You started the conversation and chose to share that piece information.
I never doubted her account. But it is anecdotal, and you can't extrapolate her singular experience to the entire company.
How many have to before it isn't a "singular experience"?
Harassment happens in every single company.
The difference between companies is whether or not management takes the problem seriously.
I assure you, batch-firing 20 people for sexual harassment out of 6,700 is not normal. It means that there has been a consistent pattern of management not dealing with harassment - which was exposed upon review.
Sure. I don't disagree with that, even the termination. But I hate the idea of now treating these individuals as modern equivalent of 'untouchables'. OP used incredibly ugly words to describe people he has no clue about, and implicitly advocated for not hiring them.
>I assure you, batch-firing 20 people for sexual harassment out of 6,700 is not normal.
12,000. It's a big company.
>t means that there has been a consistent pattern of management not dealing with harassment
Except we don't know what it means, do we. It could be that they fired a bunch of people to make a PR statement. Or not.
This is the hypothetical example people often give; but that is probably the easiest imaginable case. Fowler's report is regarding a manager who'd been with the company for several years -- not twenty years old unless they started in their teens -- who was a hardened and repeat offender. That seems to be more inline with what actually happens.
Clueless people can be corrected. What we're talking about here is very different.
Not one of which should ever be tolerated in the work environment.
There should not be 2, much less 20, simultaneously being fired for this.
A person who has been cut from a grad school program for rampant academic honor code violations can be a perfectly-functional member of society, and if no school wants to trust them as a teacher, that's not the fault of the schools.
Personally, I don't have a high opinion of the tech culture though, and I suspect even the people fired for sexual harassment will be employed in another tech company within six months. The money flows too fast and too loose to expect otherwise, and the overall engineer-owner-capitalist-America ecosystem doesn't act as a sufficient deterrent to toxic sexual harassment culture to expect these employees will actually be cut out of the loop. It's a Hollywood environment.
Well, if he learns and grows from the experience, maybe he'll end up better than the ones that didn't fuck up.
--Former stupid as fucking fuck 20 year old
If you would be right, then radical feminists are right in that college students need special classes to tell them what is rape, what is harassment and what is proposal. Majority of non radical people opposed that on the grounds that it is insulting and dudes know.
If at the age of 20 you are so confused, then you are add toxic as dude who does not know difference between boxing match and pub fight. And as rare.
Social interactions and social boundaries are largely a learned behaviour - it is not something that is innate in us. Because there is a huge emotional component when dealing with things like attraction, love, infatuation, jealously, rejection - you really just learn through experience. And by the way, no where am I advocating that companies shouldn't set clear boundaries on conduct in the workplace. Shit happens, and people will fuck up purposely or accidentally and should be held accountable (which may involve termination or even involvement of the justice system - depending on severity). I'm disgusted by OP's characterization of individuals that were fired in this probe, the ugly words she/he uses to describe them and for implicitly advocating to ostracize them from society - people he knows nothing about.
Seriously, if your emotions are that out of control, you are not suitable to live independently. I might be fine to use taxes to pay you counselling through.
I think you and I are too far apart on this. I disagree with your thought process and your conclusions.
I would not ever hire anyone from Uber. The tech people I've met from there are technologically toxic and disgustingly gross as human beings.
Sorry kids. Is it anecdotal evidence? Yes. Is it based on going to hang with their hangouts? Yes. It is.
Soooooo messed up in every way.
20 is a good start.
No one has an absolute right to work in the industry of their choice. If you join a company that makes your future career more difficult then that's bad luck, but maybe it's also a lesson for us all: speak up for your coworkers when you see bad behaviour, and don't let things escalate to the point where other companies might see you as a bad hire for something you didn't do.
Otherwise their "funemployment" would be plagued with job interviews and prep.
You don't want your future company to call your current company to give them a heads up that you are leaving.
For this very same reason, companies never ask for reference from your current job.
The UK has a custom to perform an employment and criminal check by a 3rd party company when you join a new company (after you signed a contract and already gave your notice). That's unrelated.
Sure they do. They just give you an offer first and make it conditional on a reference check.