Unless the perception of the culture at Uber changes dramatically I strongly suspect Uber managers (and possibly engineers) are going to find having Uber on your resume is a strong negative indicator when they leave to find new roles. It's not fair to suggest everyone there is part of this culture we're reading about but organisations are frequently cautious and hiring someone who is part of it, and believes what goes on at Uber is normal and acceptable, could be quite damaging for any hiring manager. That means they won't even give you an interview. Everyone at Uber really needs to be fighting this reputation hard.
Maybe. Or maybe the culture at Uber is really not that uncommon, and maybe managers at Uber will have plenty of like-minded friends who would be more than willing to give them a referral at other companies.
> I strongly suspect Uber managers (and possibly engineers) are going to find having Uber on your resume is a strong negative indicator when they leave to find new roles.
No one at Uber is in a position where they are unable to leave and find additional work. They may have to give up their lottery ticket, but the handcuffs in question don't exist if employees choose not to exercise their options.
IF the IPO is successful and the stock's 'hand-cuffs' for employees are taken off in a reasonable time frame. Those are some pretty big qualifications to become retirement level wealthy for 'many' of the employees.
While Uber (probably) had it coming, it's still annoying that the Internet as of late has turned into scores of "famous person writes a long virtuous post proclaiming how some other famous person is less virtuous."
I want my Internet back.
(Stopped using Uber after they changed iOS app location tracking choices to only "Always" or "Never," instead of original "While using the app")
I feel the same way - not because either side is necessarily wrong, but because these kind of articles are grossly simplified. Uber is not pure evil, or pure good.
Certainly the article about sexism in the workplace is deeply concerning, but that doesn't suddenly mean Uber is a force for pure evil in the world and has done no good for anyone. It means, like many organizations (especially ones that are growing aggressively), they have serious internal problems. Travis immediately responded to the article, and I have no doubt that he is against rampant sexism occurring in the company. What would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening?
I don't know anything about Travis or Uber directly except what I've read. But I've read enough to know something is really wrong.
>What would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening?
Because the company got where it is with exactly this culture. Look at AIG in the 2000's -- huge portions of the company lying about their finances, leading to the ouster of their CEO. Only to be followed up by a huge bailout in the 2008 financial crisis under the new CEO. The culture was poisoned, it comes from the top down - everyone in management is cutthroat because that's the only way to survive. And it's pretty much impossible to change.
I worked at a company that was purchased by AIG - American General. My executive level boss was dishonest - lied about people working for her, and lied to other executives. She made her way from a low level executive to a Executive VP once the company was bought by AIG. Once you've got a toxic culture, that's how the company works; and I think there are a lot of companies like this.
I believe one of the huge problems about it is that this problem has been running for years, and that the CEO "immediately" responded only now that bad PR is at the gate.
We actually no idea about whether these internal problems are actually perceived as problems ; Susan Fowler's article isn't merely about a sexism problem, several other problems are referenced (like hiding information from an executive in order to help another exec). All of the bad things in that article actually come from the company's culture of pardoning anything from someone who shows good performance.
To characterize #DeleteUber as a misunderstanding is a quasi-straw man argument. The author of that article picked the most vulnerable argument in favor of deleting Uber and focused on that to the exclusion of myriad others.
Personally, I believe that Uber would have loved to get in on the strike. But Uber's premise, which is anti-organized labor, does not allow for this. So they tried glom onto the protest in a ham-fisted way that only highlighted the problem. Uber can't be part of a positive social protest that is driven by workers uniting and standing up because Uber is too invested in dividing them and pushing them down.
As for what would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening... Now that it's been publicized? Nothing. At the time the incidents happened? Read Susan's article again. There were numerous opportunities to address the problem, and leadership instead chose to protect problematic employees that they otherwise considered high performers. The motivation couldn't be more clear.
If you were outraged by Trumps "locker room talk," I don't see how you can stand by an entire company culture dedicated to protecting serial harassers and silencing their victims. Gross, this company is just gross.
Is outrage really a viable option any more for driving policy change? Seems like the last election proved that all you're doing is pissing away organizational energy.
I don't see how you could look at what happened and how it was systematically brushed under the rug, then at what has happened since the article was published, and come to the conclusion that anything BUT outrage would drive a change at this company.
I'm 50/50 on this. I _am_ offended by the shady practises coming out around Uber, and would like to vote with my feet as it were - but in London UK, Uber has no real alternative. Lyft doesn't operate at all outside the US as far as I can tell - and I'm unaware of any other taxi firms which operate the same model here.
So I'm left with using offical "Black Taxis", which don't have one central app to get hold of them (I think there are four different ones last time I checked), and the darlings of silicon roundabout will point out they cost a lot more than an Uber does for the same journey.
Only one of the largest public transport systems, a large and growing cycle infrastructure, other private hire via large and local minicabs, black cabs and even motorbike taxis.
London is one of the easiest places in the world to delete the Uber app, especially given that the average speed of a car frequently doesn't beat cycling or public transport when Central London traversals are involved.
> Only one of the largest public transport systems, a large and growing cycle infrastructure, other private hire via large and local minicabs, black cabs and even motorbike taxis.
- regarding large: yes, but you also have only homeopathic coverage in some places, or wait 20 minutes for a bus (line 274, I look at you).
- The cycle infrastructure only covers certain areas in London central, north of kings cross you're on your own. It's also dangerous as hell since the streets are so narrow, buses stop all the time in front of you.. etc.
- black cabs, minicabs, taxis .. last time I rode with them it was 2x the usual uberX price
I would be happy to turn to an alternative for Saturday night trips but all things above considered - uber has no real competitor in terms of price/value. Or at least non that I know of
You do realize that Uber is heavily subsidized by their massive investments. Notably from the Saudi Arabians princes recently. They are literally burning other people's money in the hope that someday they'll get self driving cars and eat the world for lunch.
Gm/cruise/lyft is well on their way to make this a reality next year. Tesla has their eyes set on their own network. Future doesn't look good for Uber.
Sure you'll get cheap Uber rides now but their entire business model is not sustainable as it is.
Hailo is very similar from a customer point of view in the UK. You can vote with your feet quite easily; sometimes having principles costs a little convenience/money/time. :shrug:
Maybe a better lesson to draw from this sort of story though is to introspect on how men behave around the women we work with, what conduct we put up with which we shouldn't, and strive to make all our workplaces (not just Uber) a better place for people who are not white men.
It's interesting how you talk about Uber as being the one central app, while the "official" taxis have 4 different apps. Uber did marketing really well there, making sure they didn't end up as #5 but as "the one".
I don't know about London, but in Mexico City it's really the only option. It sucks, but it's the reality.
Even if you have your own car, there are now air pollution emergency measures in place which prevent cars (even new ones) to be used all days of the week.
Public transport is crap. There is metro and metrobus, but coverage is really small. There are also small vans moving around the city but those are not safe to use. Also be ready to sweat like a pig in any of those options. Forget about using public transport when going to a business or work meeting.
80% of Taxis are 10+ years old Nissan Tsuru which are uncomfortable and more often than not you are not sure if you can trust the taximeter. Also many of these taxi drivers do not want to use apps like google maps or waze so you end up taking longer. They know better than Google.
With Uber you can ask for a driver wherever you are and you know it will be safe, get a minimum comfort, you won't be overcharged, and you won't even need to exchange money with the driver.
We have some pretty excellent public transport. National Rail isn't great when compared to its equivalent in Europe, but TfL is _excellent_ compared to many European cities, if a little more expensive.
As someone who can afford Uber, I feel no real need to use it on a regular basis at all.
Why exactly do you need Uber in the city with arguably the best bike infrastructure in the world and no hills, whatsoever?
Oh, bad weather?
As far I recall Amsterdam has absolute stellar public transportation and if that doesn't cut it an occasional taxi ride is probably a valid option.
Oh, there's no app (which I doubt)? What about, like in the old times, just give the dispatcher a ring?
To each his own and you're responsible for maintaining your moral compass.
I for one never used and never, ever will use Uber. No matter what. This company is morally so reprehensible that I could never justify throwing any money on them.
I live in Amsterdam and mostly bike around, but sometimes you need to get a car for whatever reason.
Uber's much cheaper. I've had a car from the airport into the city go as low as 17 EUR, usually around 25. Hailing a taxi costs at least 40 EUR.
It's also very convenient to know the location of your arriving taxi for knowing when to leave a party and leaving out several minutes of explaining the route to the driver.
It's also not uncommon for taxi drivers here to drive you a much longer route if they think you're not a local and don't know where they're going. It's happened to me, and several of my friends. Never happened with Uber.
I've also found service with Uber to be much better. The first time I tried it here in Amsterdam the driver offered me a bottle of water and asked how I was doing. That had never happened to me once here in Amsterdam. The customer ability to rate drivers does wonders for service over traditional taxi companies.
Well, there's UGo and a bunch of other apps/online services for taxis. The problem with all of them is that they're local and there are less drivers on it.
For example in Montreal I wanted to try Téo (they use electric cars) but after five minutes of waiting for an available rider I gave up and ordered an Uber instead.
Why would I delete Uber? They're using VC money to subside transportation for thousands; money is literally leaving their pocket and going into those of part-time drivers who ferry my and others' butt around the wastelands of America's suburbia. Their managerial track record is well documented, they've ignored laws from the beginning hoping to wait until the tides of regulation shift into their favor, helped by lots of time spent lobbying and intimidating.
They have shown that no holds will be barred to spread the wings of Uber far and wide so they can ruthlessly crush local taxis and any less-funded competition. But at the end of the day, Uber isn't someone you vote for with your wallet, it's someone who gives you more service than the money you put in.
We already knew before the harrassment allegations that the management may be full of skeezy types, but Uber is one of those rare ventures where punishing the company legitimately doesn't punish the company at all, but rather solely its employees, drivers, and riders.
So turn your outrage into something productive, not knee-jerk reactive. For example, donate to some organization that stands up for the rights of harrassed employees. Ponder about whether this is something that could happen to you, or if you'd be capable of this abhorrent behavior. Start a conversation. Think really hard about whether you'll use your influence and social pull to sway people around you or on the internet, and the message you send. Comparing your movement to #DeleteUber perhaps isn't such a good idea, given the whole damn thing was most likely an embarrassing misunderstanding that was vilified by people assuming the worst. Are you sending a reasoned, if impassioned message, or just riling a mob?
> money is literally leaving their pocket and going into those of part-time drivers who ferry my and others' butt around
I think its really just your pocket - the passenger. I think Uber has "democratized" the process of becoming a taxi driver. But I doubt it's made things better for taxi drivers. Maybe one could have argued that it had in the early years of Uber - 2 or 3 years ago. But I think the driver's are feeling the pinch now. There's an oversupply in busy areas. Uber also gets new drivers "hooked" by sending them a lot of fares early on after they signup.
> Uber is one of those rare ventures where punishing the company legitimately doesn't punish the company at all, but rather solely its employees, drivers, and riders
Boycotting companies that employ people directly or indirectly probably does punish these employees... but either way, it does punish the company. What is Uber with 0 users? nothing...
Maybe Uber's goal is to raise prices once they killed all competition.
I know I'm in the minority but I actually never installed Uber because everything I read about the company's tactics and leadership disturbed me, from day one.
Maybe that's "chummy", maybe it's just overly optimistic.
It's obviously not the same world as Thiel, who overtly supported Trump since the primaries, gave the keynote at the RNC, and contributed a bunch of money to the campaign. Lumping the two together is disingenuous and absurd.
It seems worth noting that "Trump surrogate" Peter Thiel (who somehow damns Uber by association) is not only not involved in Uber, but is a major investor in Lyft (as is Carl Icahn).
Uber is the solution to taxi drivers using dirty tricks (i.e taking the long way, turning the meter off), but also comes with it's own dirty tricks (surge pricing).
I don't understand how charging market price is a "dirty trick". When the demand curve shifts, the price must also shift to meet the supply curve, otherwise you will create a condition where there is not enough supply.
This concept applies to any perishable good, including seafood, hotel room nights, flights, concert/show prices...otherwise how should the limited resource be distributed? And how can production of the resource be stimulated if the prices don't shift to meet the supply curve?
Sometimes what they charge you is not "market price" though. On my last trip my Uber driver took me via a huge curve and the charge ended up being ~ 40 dollars more than the projected value. I've filled out a form explaining the situation and most of the 40 dollars were immediately deducted from the fare on submission.
I don't know whether the driver made a mistake or took me on a "trip" deliberately, but if I was in a normal taxi, I would either have to pay, or fight with the driver.
Not defending the company culture, but the app does protect the consumer from some level of undesirable taxi driver behaviour.
What's this meant to accomplish? I only noticed this once and the driver apologised when he noticed it after a few minutes and only charged me for the displayed fare. He also indicated he was worried a colleague might have seen it.
As far as I can tell the only way this can be a dirty trick is by transporting passengers "off the records" but there's no way to guarantee a passenger will pay you whatever arbitrary fee you charge for that because it's unenforceable.
I've never used Uber before, but I have taken ECON101 and if I understand it right, it makes sense to me. Keeping the price fixed below the supply/demand equilibrium point (a price ceiling) creates a shortage. By increasing the ride price, they incentivize more Uber drivers to come online (supply ramps up) and encourage riders who have the means to take other modes of travel or those don't urgently need a ride to skip it.
It seems that Silicon Valley loves to hate people who have a different political opinion than theirs - like Peter Thiel and Travis Kalanick.
Regarding the "strange year at Uber" post, it's absolutely shocking for me to see smart people jump at conclusions based on a single point of view - her.
I'm not saying she's lying, but hearing just one side of the story is never enough.
If the same post would've come from an ex employee of Facebook, which didn't supported Trump, I'm sure people would've had second thoughts regarding its true veracity.
But if it's something negatively related to Trump, it must be true.
I'm not a Trump voter, I'm not even American and this witch hunting that takes place against Trump's supporters is quite suspicious, even when looked at from Romania where I'm located.
No, they love to hate powerful assholes, and we need to stop pretending that right wing libertarianism is a harmless 'alternate perspective', when it's the political platform of protofacism - in other words, the political platform of the contemporary asshole.
Because that's what shares represent. I 'give you money' to try to add wealth to the economy. If you do anything illegal, you burn. Not me.
Economics and law 101
Edit - just want to clarify - if the company execs do something ILLEGAL, they should go to jail. Shareholders WILL get punished beause shares will get a hit. But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?
Because as a shareholder you own and share part of the well or ill-being of a company. You can pressure the CEO directly since the shareholders control the company. So shareholders can and should set the ethical framework in which the company acts. If that framework doesn't attract business, then that's their loss.
If shareholders were held accountable in a much more direct way, perhaps they would spend more effort ensuring that the companies they invest in didn't break the law?
It could be. Consumer action affects the company which affects shareholders, so when there's consumer action over what are at the very least unethical practices, shareholders are affected. Both the company and the shareholders get punished - the company for what it's done, and the shareholders for funding the company without a care for its practices.
Point taken. That's why I am here to sort of point out a counter argument to DHH. He seems to be calling for consumer activism without making a serious case (at least for me) so as to WHY.
There have been allegations of misconduct, fine. Latest there is a sexual harassment claim... Those are VERY attractive to certain class of lawyers. Why not let law take its course? Why do WE, who know nothing of what happened, have to PRE-JUDGE and punish the company upfront?
Note that innocent until proven guilty is, largely speaking, something that only applies to Government interactions, like most rights - specifically because the Government can unilaterally do something, but the people need to organise in order to have any significant effect. Or, in other words, judging someone is probably fine since a significant chunk of society would have to come to the same judgement in order to effect any sort of punishment without doing something illegal themselves.
Additionally, innocent until proven guilty isn't even a thing in civil court - all outcomes are on the balance of probabilities. So we still wouldn't know what our Government has to say as to whether it happened or not, just that it more likely happened than not. Even if you have complete trust in the court system to make the right choices, you still have to make your own judgement as to whether or not you think it actually happened (since the court hasn't actually decided that), and then as to whether additional consumer action is necessary.
And this is making the assumption that Susan wants to take it to court, and go through that whole rather horrible process, and have all her dirty laundry dragged out in public for people to spend the next couple of years harassing her over. Uber, of course, being an amoral company with plenty of cash, will be fine whatever the result.
There's ample evidence of what kind of company Uber is and consumers are under no obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt yet again, even if it does negatively affect selfless attempts to "add wealth to the economy".
I think the point of the article is to ask yourself: Are you really 'paying more' for not using Uber, or are the rising moral/ethical questions of their operations a greater cost to humanity as a whole (which includes you)?
Careful there. If you start really thinking about long-term tradeoffs and the real costs of externalities you might fall into a bottomless pit of despair and rage. (And not just at Uber.)
But this is exactly why I do use it (or did, until this latest stuff came out) -- if some clueless VC wants to burn their unicorn giving me subsidized rides, I'm more than happy to supply the fuel. And let's be honest: the taxi industry is/was just terrible.
No, not all taxi industry is/was just terrible worldwide. That might be the case for some regions or even large countries, but you're oversimplificating things.
So isn't the right move then to keep using Uber, forcing them to absorb a loss with every trip you take, bringing their day of apocalypse nearer with every ride you take? Investor money is not infinite.
sure, that is a valid choice. I personally think deleting the app etc is an overreaction, and I intend to continue using Uber till there are comparable alternatives. (I'm not in the USA). If doing so helps deplete their funds, I can live with that.
Your argument has no core. It's a bunch of dots. If you want to participate in the discussion, take five minutes of your ultra-important time and RTFA.
They have allegedly repeatedly discriminated on the basis of sex, and caused a hostile work environment. Both are civil complaints, not criminal - this means that in order to pursue it, Susan J. Fowler would have to find a lawyer willing to take it, and likely pay that lawyer. And all she could get out of it would be money.
If she took it to court, here's what would happen: the company's lawyers would go through all her online communications, track down all her exes, and find anything at all to do with sex or relationships, with the intention of finding something to paint her as an untrustworthy slut. Court cases are public, and a court case against Uber would have significant media interest, so some significant amount of people would hear about this and believe them - to the point of harassing her online. Once the court case is over, she'd have significant trouble finding work, since she's proven herself willing to stand up against her employer.
Alternatively, she could move on with her life and write a blog post about it which'll be forgotten in a few months. Companies are willing to give a little more leeway when all that falls out of it is needing to write up some PR, and you don't get your irrelevant dirty laundry dragged up in public. I know which one I'd do.
A couple of thoughts come to mind when I read this paragraph:
1. If there is meat in her story, I am sure there are multiple lawyers who will be willing to work for a share of the settlement - i.e. she never pays out of pocket.
2. It seems we have a society where the "plaintiff" is wronged bad enough to go to court, but is wronged enough to complain about it and have society decide and punish on her behalf! Even when society doesn't know enough about the case.
This reminds me of the doctor who shot that lion in africa... society punished him really really bad - he lost patients, lost ability to work, and what not. Later, it turned out he had done everything by the book, and is not slated to be punished/held accountable either in US or zimbabwe. Same thing here... idiots on the internet feel they KNOW uber is wrong, and they are willing to punish the company by #deleteuber, and willing to go on a downvote spree towards people like me on online forums.
What happens if 6 months later it turns out Susan was lying? Will all of you come back to upvote me?
That would open them up to discovery, which all companies -- and Uber in particular, if half of what she says is true -- go to great lengths to avoid. No, Uber's lawyers would dig up whatever dirt they could find, present it to her legal team, a pre-trial settlement would be reached, and none of this would ever see the light of day. I actually find it quite noble what she's done here; she passed up an easy five- or six-figure payday for the opportunity to tell her story.
I didn't mean to imply that the company did something illegal. Supporting Trumps of this world isn't, and the CEO's response to harassment allegations was positive.
On the other hand, the legislative system is slow, and the application of law can be subjective. That's why we have civil disobedience and protests.
I did it this morning. A service rep sent me an email later to confirm I was marked for deletion. I wonder if they have a human read through all of them.
I'm glad someone realizes what unbounded capitalism looks like. Whether we must somehow punish Uber for doing exactly what their investors and shareholders want, but yet neglect those exact companies that uber competes against, is a rabbit hole stance to take
I can only assume that the creation and sharing of this article is meant as a political act, since there is no way that this will move the growth needle.
If you want to change Uber's culture for the better, you need to persuade those that work within it and have klout to use it. In order to do this, first you'll need to believe that there are good, kind-hearted people that work there and that aren't happy with what happened.
Telling a small number of people to 'delete the app' or pointing the finger at everybody that works there isn't going to do any good.
What are the alternatives to Uber in Canada? Even a basic feature set (request a taxi with calling a number/hailing on the street) would be worth considering in these circumstances
Seems to be people are finally realizing Uber isn't much different from some of America's other large businesses that seem to have little regard for ethics.
You shouldn't delete Uber because DHH tells you so. You should delete Uber because you find their practices immoral.
Over the years there have been enough articles about Uber that could justify calling them immoral and deciding to boycott their service. You don't have to wait for a "celebrity" to tell you what to do.
On the other hand, if you are only convinced because DHH says it, you might not actually believe that they're bad and just join the protest to feel morally justified outrage and show off your virtuousness -- in which case it is probably dishonest to do so.
In other words you shouldn't join a protest because someone people talk about using their initials does it, or because your peers think everyone should do it. You should protest because you think something is worth protesting.
Personally I totally agree with DHH that Uber is worth protesting, but I agree because I've observed Uber's behaviour over the past years and come to that conclusion myself. If you haven't you should read into it and determine whether you agree or not.
And if you disagree, you should think about why that is, too. If you want to be think of person that agrees with these things but don't, that should be a cause for personal reflection. Simply joining the bandwagon doesn't help with that, even if it helps the protest.
DHH couldn't help himself and had to virtue signal; there is not enough information out yet, and everyone is calling for Uber's figurative head to roll.
I feel like there is a "sacrifice for the greater good" mentality growing. Think about how many civilians the US govt killed in the middle east just so we could have decently priced oil. I think that mentality is bleeding into other areas, like Uber. The thinking goes: "We are the only ones working to solve transportation in ten years, so its okay if we are sexist today."
Surprise, surprise. Most of the big companies are evil.
You can either go full stallman style or be very reasonable about buying/using services from these companies.
I really dislike posts like these. The truth is that Uber makes the lives of millions of people better and that's why it's valued at $66B. There are far worse companies doing far worse things helping fewer people.
I mean, what is the end cause? shutting down uber? teaching it a lesson? will it really help reduce sexual harassment in the workplace? or are you treating the symptom instead of the disease?
This is just a rant against the so-called "Silicon Valley culture".
Uber is kind of like Windows: they are #1 in their markets, so they are many people's #1 target.
It bothers me more that we haven't heard more about the goings-on at Lyft. Compared to all of the attraction that Uber's gotten, Lyft is squeaky clean. That can't be right.
From a practicality standpoint, there's no way I can delete Uber. I travel every week and use ridesharing services often. There are several times in which Uber is the only service that has cars on the road or the difference in wait time is pretty stark. When it's 12AM and you need to be up at 7AM that morning, every minute counts.
Lyft has the same legal and regulatory issues as Uber, they just don't seem to have as many sleazy people. Most companies are not ever in the news for employing terrible people, so I don't think it's that hard to believe.
Honestly the worst thing I've seen from Lyft is this blog post[0], in which they celebrate someone, driving at 9 months pregnant, who decided to pick up another passenger when she went into labor instead of going straight to the hospital.
