What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? How can people still work for this evil company?
What semi-decent human being inside Uber came up with this? How can people still work for this evil company?
Uber has been doing a lot recently (i.e. as of about mid last year) to fix itself - things like better misconduct-handling process for employees, more frequent background checks for drivers, the implementation of tips, a top-down directive to permanently halt spying-related work in intelligence gathering, cooperating with authorities on the Tempe incident, etc.
Generally speaking, people aren't inherently evil and want to do the right thing. Uber's new leadership now does too. Uber moves fast and I think it's time to re-evaluate whether the data points backing your opinion are outdated.
Still not paying their taxes tho’. There’s a shedload Of Employer’s NI they owe us.
Sorry, not familiar with this and googling isn't turning up anything. Is this the IRS's opinion or just your own?
Here's one article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-t...
There are many more.
Self-employed people in the UK pay class 2 and class 4 NIC. Those that are class 2 pay £2.95/wk on earnings of £6,205+ per year. Those that are class 4 pay 9% on annual profits of from £8,424 to £46,350 per year. They pay 2% on profits over £46,350.
Susan Fowler advocated for ending forced arbitration as the "the single most important thing a company can do to prove to its employees that it is dedicated to acting ethically, legally, responsibly, and transparently":
https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech...
No-forced-arbitration should be the norm.
What other companies have the worst forced arbitration clauses?
I'd go further to say that forced arbitration should be illegal/unenforceable without clear evidence informed affirmative consent, and that the offering of services cannot be made conditional on accepting it.
I think a lot of the consent concepts pioneered in the GDPR could be reasonably applied to many consumer-unfriendly practices.
There has been legit bad news about Uber, especially the stuff Susan Fowler talked about. But you know what? We all give money to equally, or often times far more sinister organizations on a daily basis without batting an eye-lash. Why hold Uber more accountable than everyone else?
It basically took them coming in and ignoring the taxi laws to put the lie to the entrenched interests and say "See? The world didn't end after all."
You see constant praise of Lyft, but constant demonization of Uber. Lyft has quite literally done all of the "dirty" business tactics that Uber has. In fact, most of the reason Uber started operating UberX in cities without express permission is because Lyft was already doing so, and Uber noticed that there was no backlash against them for it.
Unfortunately for the tech world, sexual harassment and misogyny is all too common. There are numerous reports about women in tech, and how hard it is and why many of them ultimately leave their careers. This is not something that has only occurred at Uber, and yet, all of the news about it is about Uber. All of the outrage about it is directed at Uber. For some reason, it's fun to hate on Uber, and it always has been.
Let's hold Uber accountable, but let's also hold every other company accountable too. Let's have equal outrage for google, facebook, snapchat, and every other tech company that has done the same stuff. Let's have outrage for Blackwater(or whatever they changed their name to now): a company who literally profits off murder and the destabilization of world order.
I say all of this as someone who experienced a lot of negativity while working for Uber, and I would never work there again. I don't think it is an "evil company" I just think they have chewed up and spit out a lot of folks on the way to the top.
If we really want to improve on these problems we can't be so self-righteous.
The world is not black and white, but that doesn't mean we can't consider that certain groups have crossed a threshold (or ten) to one side of the spectrum.