Hacker News Reader

> since 2015 I think it has really grown up

The lie to this statement is that all of Uber's actions to fix their problems (fire people, outside investigation, hire new HR heads) have come in response to bad PR, not an internal recognition that things weren't OK. Travis Kalanick, who was 37 years old when he sanctioned all of this behavior, is still the head of the company. I am sure many of the people who turned a blind eye when star performers were protected, or women were leaving the company in droves, are still there.

This story is a case in point: Alexander wasn't fired, even after half of the executive team knew what he did, and the legal team ordered him to destroy the documents, until Recode started asking about the incident. If the company had really "grown up" as you suggest he would have been gone before the reporters started asking about him. If the company had "grown up" then one of the many people Susan Fowler talked to (in 2016) would have sounded alarms, before she wrote her blog post about it.

> unlike other companies, they have aired their dirty laundry

It's a well known phenomenon that people tend to overestimate the extent to which their habits and behaviors are shared by others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect. A simpler explanation for the series of bad headlines attributable to Uber and not other companies is that Uber was involved in worse behavior than those other companies.

Yes, star performers were protected in the past. Not anymore. Many top performers were fired due to this recent investigation. Hopefully more are fired after the Holder report.

"Women leaving in droves" is a lie. The recent demographics report shows that, although we could do better, the female ratio is about equivalent to other tech companies. And there is a concerted effort to change our processes and training to reduce or remove unconscious bias in our hiring process to make it even better.

And powerful women are joining as well. We just had two major female execs with a huge list of accomplishments join. They know full well the company as it is today and wouldn't join if it was a piece of shit like many of you think it is.

I can't speak of the Alexander case because I know nothing of it. But it's still in that 2014 era that I was talking about. That would not fly now, and I think his firing is in line with how the company is today in 2017.

Since Susan Fowler, I think there has been a major change in company culture. Travis revealed in an allhands that he himself needs to change. He had strong opinions on what he wanted the company culture to be but he finally understood that he was wrong. He wanted a hard-driving, ultra-logical company that squeezed the best out of every single employee but rewarded them well with stock. But after seeing the unintended consequences, that it didn't work. It worked well when you have a handful of employees that love doing this, but it doesn't scale at 10,000+ employees and he finally admitted that. As well, the qualities that made him a great startup CEO do not translate to a 10,000 person company and he finally realized that in March. These are all things he admitted in the all hands, and it seems like The company is rapidly changing to becoming much more empathetic. He is giving full reins to the New SVP HR and she is doing a great job in my opinions. I really do believe that the changes will be transformational.

Uber can claim to have grown up when they fire people for that conduct WITHOUT having to have the press come to them first.

Travis is 40 years old, I'm really not going to believe "he's going to change" when he is still the CEO and all we've seen is that really bad PR can force him into taking small actions to mitigate it. Last week the head of HR was talking about how there's no systemic harassment and how "the biggest problem is morale" and yesterday we read that 215 different people were under investigation for harassment, and it required the involvement of an outside legal firm. Susan Fowler mentioned that Uber had investigators digging into her personal life and her past, after her blog post; it's 2017.

I think it's unethical to continue to work for a person like that, and to help them make more money. I think it's unethical to continue to work with and for people that have turned a blind eye to harassment and blatantly unethical behavior in the past, no matter what tune they are singing now. In particular one way we as employees can signal to management that their actions are unacceptable (and signal to outsiders that we find them unacceptable) is by quitting.

In particular the actions of Uber employees who have continued to stay despite clear and ongoing evidence of unethical behavior (going back to the Beyonce/ex-girlfriend stalking reports, which are several years old), signal that they'd turn a blind eye, or ignore misbehavior, at your company as well.

Thats your prerogative. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. After seeing him speak and seeing the changes that have started to roll out, I believe he is sincere.

215 were investigated and 20 people fired. There are ~15000 employees globally. It's not systemic and most people at Uber would agree. The outside firm was hired specifically to show that they are independent with no bias. If they didn't hire outside firm, you probably would accuse them of bias, so there's no way to win.

They were not digging up her past. They were investigating her claims. She was incorrect in assuming that Uber was "out to get her". But I understand why she is feeling that way, I would probably react the same way. But Uber was in direct communications with her lawyers when they conducted these investigations so it was a miscommunication.

Everything you think you know about Uber is based on headlines, tweets, or biased reporting. If you saw the work that Uber does behind the scenes you would have a completely different opinion. The Harvard professor said the same thing. She said she would probably have been someone who would have supported the #deleteuber campaign based on the media reports, but because she had a view on the inside, she felt completely different about it. The same goes for our new CMO from Apple.

Clearly, Uber did some things in the past that deserve the reputation that it has now. But those are largely in the past. If anyone does something equally wrong these days, they will get fired. The company is expending a lot of energy trying to be more empathic. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but that would be hiding your head in the sand and not wanting to seek the truth.

You're making a great case for the continued non-employability of current Uber employees, though I doubt you are intending to.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

Nah. I'm not too concerned about what close minded people with preconceived notions have about me or my employability. I don't think any Uber employee will have problems finding jobs, regardless of what you think.

I'll believe that when you attach your real name to your comments.

Why do you think so? He is making sound, well-reasoned statements IMHO.

Hey, on behalf of people everywhere. Go fuck yourself, repeatedly.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do this with.

"I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt."

After all that he and his company have done? He has long since lost the benefit of the doubt.

employee8000 well spoken!

Why am I seeing all of the comments employee8000 made down-voted? Again, this is what the world does to Uber -- try to suppress all true and positive facts, and only let media's negative opinions based on 0.001% know-how of the company prevail!

I'm a reporter for the New York Times. You are dead wrong. This account is accurate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/world/asia/uber-driver-in...

I imagine you're a lower-to-mid-level employee and don't have knowledge of this incident firsthand.

When did I say that the account was wrong?

I think he read "This is bullshit" and assumed you were referring to the report in the article, not the comment you actually replied to.

Personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Oh, nice cowardly ninja-edit.

In case anyone missed it, employee8000 said something like "on the behalf of Uber employees, I take great pleasure in telling Mike Isaac to fuck himself"

Mike please stay on Hacker News! You're a great journalist!

Are these not since 2015? http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-scandal-recap-2017-3/#fr...

You often post here as if your position inside Uber gives you enough insight to exonerate the soul of that company. But how much do you really see? How high on the totem poll are you? How many small "well, that [system/data/etc] could be abused, but I trust us"-es do you live with every day?

Edit: Just realized you're the same guy that said there were scary warnings in the UI when you touched production data, but didn't have a clue if there were actually logs, if those logs got audited, and if those audits could get the C-level fired. But you were still confident enough to assess Uber as taking security seriously.

You can choose to believe the anecdotes of an Uber employee who presumably is drinking from the Kool Aid, or media reports that demonize Uber and don't report on any of the good things that have been going on.

It's easy to understand why you'd want to defend your employer and coworkers, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.

Unfortunately, you've broken the HN guidelines repeatedly while doing it. You've also used this account almost exclusively to get involved in flamewars. For those reasons I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe you'll follow the site rules in the future.

From a moderation point of view this has nothing to do with who you happen to work for. It hurts your employer to have you defending it in such uncivil ways in public, though, so they're probably better off with this account banned, too.

Right. So I civilly answer allegations that uber employees are somehow unethical or complicit in harassment or unethical behavior, and the perpetrators of this libel are safe, and I'm the one that's banned. Got it.

You may not agree with what I wrote but I stand by everything I wrote as being respectful. Except to Mike Isaac who has an agenda against Uber with his reporting. Besides that, can you point to a single comment that was "uncivil"?

Yes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355444 was uncivil and we warned you about it. In my experience, users that continue to make personal attacks after we ask them not to don't have much desire to use HN as intended (which involves, among other things, being respectful to others). If we've misassessed that in your case, it should be easy enough to clear up. I explained how upthread.

Everything I wrote was civil, even the one about the slave. I didn't accuse them of anything it's just your narrowmindedness. I even had defenders on that thread. Time for a reality check, Dan.

To call my responses to Uber threads as "flame wars" is a joke. I was giving my insider view on things every single time, in the face of wildly ridiculous statements. If those constitute "flame wars" then your "power" has gone to your head.

And, uh, no, I won't be begging for an unban, that is preposterous. I was the only one giving civil and informative posts about inside Uber but I guess since anyone defending Uber is "flaming", then enjoy your echo chamber of Uber hate and misinformation.

Reposting the deleted comment for people who don't have showdead on:

> Right. So I civilly answer allegations that uber employees are somehow unethical or complicit in harassment or unethical behavior, and the perpetrators of this libel are safe, and I'm the one that's banned. Got it.

> You may not agree with what I wrote but I stand by everything I wrote as being respectful. Except to Mike Isaac who has an agenda against Uber with his reporting. Besides that, can you point to a single comment that was "uncivil"?

Reposting because frankly, there hasn't been anything uncivil. Just dang's agenda, as usual.

The account posted Also, it's my pleasure to say "fuck you, Mike Isaac" before editing that out when another user objected. That's obviously uncivil. But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used.

Edit: We'd be happy to unban you as well if you'd simply promise to be civil in the future. One of the tentacles of my "agenda" is personally unkilling your high-quality technical comments so HN readers can enjoy them. It would be nice if we could just publish them in the first place.

"But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used."

So a person cannot give opinion in a civil way, and highlight information which was not known to others? It is "mandatory" to talk about multiple topics at HN?

How do you define "flamewars"? Just giving your opinion about a topic, discussing, debating is flamewars? Then one could say the entire world of comments on HN is flamewars, since most comments discuss and debate topics.

I believe arguing your opinion civilly, giving reasons etc, should be okay, regardless of whether you talk of only one topic -- or have a particular opinion on one side of the debate. Most users of the site typically have some view which falls on one side on any debate. But they defend it and give their reasons civilly. Thats the whole point, isnt it?

I have read employee8000's posts and they all seem civil. Except for the one which was changed. But that particular comment was wrong, his other comments on this thread are very civil IMHO.