Uber Engineer Quits over Pressure to Support Proposition 22 | Hacker News Reader

Uber Engineer Quits over Pressure to Support Proposition 22

kqed.org

21 pointsdonsupreme16 comments

“I felt like I was stripped of my voice because if I said anything there would be a conflict of interest or it would affect the financials of the company. That’s a weird place to be in. It’s something I didn’t want to normalize,” he said.

Uber's exerting of pressure is a rare example in California of a company exerting pressure that is "conservative" -- though "self-serving" better describes it.

This perhaps gives you a small taste of what it is like to be a conservative in California.

Why does conservative always equate to 'for business interests, over people interests'? I mean, many republicans have benefited from union laws. I get the 2a/abortion issues, but seriously -- unions and labor laws help people, and corporations aren't and never were citizens and shouldn't be treated as if they are.

My point has more to do with freedom of expression, which the left is in the process of destroying in this country. When I complain that freedom of speech is being destroyed, the usual rejoinder from the left is: "The Constitution only prevents the Government from retaliating against what it deems to be offensive speech -- companies and individuals are permitted to retaliate." Which is true, I suppose. But until fairly recent times, no one ever expected there to be a threat to free speech except from the Government! That certainly seemed to be the threat the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

I understand your frustration with conservatism on fiscal issues -- the middle class is reeling. This is mostly due to globalization and the race to the bottom. I am opposed to heavy taxation and/or increased redistribution of wealth, but I can't say I know how to fix the situation. I recently listened to an interview on the Quillette podcast with Jeff Rubin, author of the recently published The Expendables: How the Middle Class Got Screwed by Globalization. Very interesting. In the interview he didn't propose any fixes, though perhaps in the book he does.

When I worked for an oil and gas company many years ago, every break room played Fox News. People in leadership positions could be overheard speaking about how Sharia law was this huge threat to the country, and that Obama was a secret Muslim. I’m not a religious person but my husband comes from a practicing Muslim family.

I left the company because I didn’t agree with the opinions beings encouraged by leadership.

What’s happening at Uber reminds me of my experience. In my opinion, companies shouldn’t be a place to discuss political matters. No matter what side you’re on, someone will feel uncomfortable — it’s just a distraction from the job you actually hired these people to perform.

What about when companies themselves get explicitly political, such as Uber & Lyft with respect to prop 22? Is it not fair to discuss literal company policy?

I suppose it is, but is it possible to do so in a way where you share objective facts and let individuals reach their own conclusion without creating an environment where your workers feel they have to parrot leadership?

I’m not sure exactly how to do this. Open to your thoughts.

When the problem is a power imbalance between employees and employers, the solution is generally unions. But, the tech industry is generally resistant, if not openly hostile to unions.

It’s funny because growing up in the West we used to be given examples of the fall of the Soviet Union as examples of why communism sucks contrasted against the wonderful benefits of capitalism.

I really have to be honest I see unregulated capitalism moving into its own failure modes now.

Maybe both systems suck and fail when they become too successful / dominating?

I see this proposition 22 thing as an example of this, it’s not cool and it’s sad people are being forced to support it while trying to earn a living.

> Maybe both systems suck and fail when they become too successful / dominating?

They do, however this behavior has gone underchecked for so long; what we see today is often companies violating the spirit, but not the letter of the laws that stopped or were a result of practices of companies like Pullman, USS, etc

You might enjoy reading Baudrillard on the Cold War, who long maintained that both Communism and Capitalism are effectively just two sides of the same power structure, what he called a 'system of deterrence', that seeks to absorb more and more entities into a system of 'rational modernity'.

"For Baudrillard, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York also symbolized the frozen history and stasis between the two systems of capitalism and communism. On the whole, he sees history as the unfolding of expanding technological rationality turning into its opposite, as the system incorporates ever more elements, producing an improved technological order, which then becomes irrational through its excesses,[...]"

"For Baudrillard by the end of the 1990s with the collapse of communism, the era of the strong ideas, of a conflicted world of revolution and universal emancipation, is over. Communism, on his reading, collapsed of its own inertia, it self-destructed from within, it imploded, rather than perishing in ideological battle or military warfare. With the absorption of its dissidents into power, there is no longer a clash of strong ideas, of opposition and resistance, of critical transcendence. With the embedding of the former communist regimes into the system of the capitalist world market and liberal democracy, the West no longer has an Other to battle against, there is no longer any creative or ideological tension, no longer any global alternative to the Western world."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/#TheoFictBaud...

Why is this downvoted? Just seems like a different point of view and burning overly controversial ?

This is constantly my question. I have NEVER seen an instance of flagging or downvoting on HN that didn't reflect someone's snitty preference. HN should abolish them both and allow user's to notify HN moderators if there is a post that is truly offensive or scandalous.

unregulated capitalism

What makes you think we live in unregulated capitalism? Just look at the tax code for a tiny fraction, but huge on its own, piece of regulation.

The lack of a kind of regulation in a very specific niche of the whole economy doesn't mean there's no regulation.

We overall need far less regulation (e.g. prop 13) in all areas, and better regulation in specific ones.

Maybe unregulated is the wrong word, but there’s a lot of holes.

Such as, Big tech seems able to do whatever it likes, facilitate foreign interference in democracies, anti-competitive behaviour is unmitigated. Then there’s the lack of pricing in carbon emissions for anything and the constant quest for endless growth on a planet with finite resources ?

Corporate welfare / socialism to keep things afloat.

So many problems and contradictions right now, is “mess” a better word?

You mean corporations are powerful enough to capture the government. Effectively creating shaping economical agenda.

And before I get downvoted by 'freemarket' people.

Most Blatant example must be the 2007 global crashed caused by american megabanks. How can we prevent this from happeneing? Why, we elect bank official as regulatory body to oversee banks.

Yeah, there will be people arguing here, how there are elections democracy etc. Anyone with half a braincell can see how really the system works. There is a reason why average person would rather entrust their baby to a racoon than a politician. And politicians that try to cut out influence of big business are sidelined. Like Sanders who run only on donation from people and twice 'lost'.

I could go on, but there is some work to do...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com