
Uber Fires More Than 20 Employees in Harassment Probe - umeshunni
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/uber-said-to-fire-more-than-20-employees-in-harassment-probe
======
ThrustVectoring
The article doesn't discuss the seniority of the fired employees. It's very
hard to distinguish between scapegoating and actually working to fix the
problem without that information.

The problem with Uber isn't that some employees engage in sexual harassment.
The problem is that there's a culture where sexual harassment isn't taken
seriously, is tolerated if the perpetrators are "high performing" in other
respects, and there's common knowledge that being "high performing" covers all
sorts of other ills. No amount of firing of the low-level scum that grows in
this environment will fix this issue.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Um, it's not scapegoating if these people are harassing other employees.
Scapegoating is when you hire underlings for projects that senior management
was driving. No one forces you to harass another employee.

~~~
x0x0
Scapegoating isn't the right word, but ThrustVectoring is right. In 12k
employees there will be some dicks who sexually harass. You fire them.

The problem at Uber isn't some line level eng or line level management
sexually harassed someone; it's that HR and the VP Eng and the CEO all
tolerated it. So unless someone whose name goes in SEC filings gets fired,
they aren't taking this seriously.

~~~
ghostly_s
To be perfectly clear, _both of those things are problems._ But one is a much
bigger problem than he other.

------
djsumdog
Feels somewhat symbolic at this point. The massively corrupt shop decides to
fire a bunch of people who max out the acceptable level of corruption.

Even how they hired Holder feels like a PR tactic; a man who was against all
the US torture techniques ([http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-rescue-of-
eric-holder...](http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-rescue-of-eric-
holder/)) and yet prosecuted no one. He is the image of a career, PR frontman.

I'm still going to take Lyft over Uber in cities that have it, and that's only
if I simply can't wait for the bus.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I disagree. This is the proper course of action when you have a harassment
problem. Fire people.

It's fine if you want to take Lyft... I have been choosing Lyft from the
beginning. But I applaud Uber for doing this investigation. I'm honestly
baffled that people are criticizing them for it.

If there are people the investigation missed, that's a problem, but it's a
separate issue and we have no evidence of it at this point, do we?

~~~
opportune
The problem is that the firing should have been done as the issues were
discovered / brought to light. Waiting to fire perpetrators until after a
critical mass of media scrutiny forces you to do so only reveals uber's true
motives. Clearly they don't give a shit about actual sexual harrassment, they
just want to preserve whatever perceived image they have to the rest of the
world (not that an anti-competitive contract-slave-labor company ever had a
great image to begin with).

~~~
erikpukinskis
> Clearly they don't give a shit about actual sexual harrassment, they just
> want to preserve whatever perceived image they have to the rest of the world

You may be right.

But I don't think policing peoples intentions is a good plan for us. It has
all kinds of problems, the main one being intentions are generally pretty
unknowable. The other one being intentions don't actually cause any harm, so
by policing intentions you take away resources from policing harm.

I think a much better plan is to be very serious about what constitutes right
action and wrong action for you, to reward right action and to punish wrong
action.

Here's what I suspect the problem is for you: I'm going to guess (and this is
just a guess, feel free to correct me) that you do a lot of harmful things, by
virtue of your position in society, ecology, and the global economy, but that
you've forgiven yourself for these things because you believe your intentions
are good, and you're doing the best you can.

This is the dominant moral framework today, so I'm not judging you for it. But
I have a different moral framework: I think you are responsible primarily for
the harm you case, _not_ your intentions. I would rather you be a harmless
person with horrible intentions than a harmful person with good intentions.

But I think for you to transition to that worldview, you'd have to face up to
your own ongoing unintentioned harm, which would be extremely painful. So
there's a lot of pressure on you not to do that.

Apologies for all of the projection/presumption. I don't actually presume to
know any of these things about you, I'm really talking about two versions of
myself and just casually speculating about where you might fit into that
dichotomy. Again, feel free to say "that ain't me".

~~~
solidsnack9000
There is no "policing" of intentions here -- just considering them. We should
be careful of those who behave well, merely in response to punishment or in
avoidance of it.

The relationship between intentions and actions is rarely so distant as in the
example you give -- "I would rather you be a harmless person with horrible
intentions than a harmful person with good intentions.". Indeed, I don't know
how we would recognize the notion of intention -- thought preceding action --
if they had so little relationship to action.

The importance of intention is nowhere clearer than in the law, where to
"knowingly and wittingly" body slam another person is handled quite
differently from tripping and falling into them, or slamming into them to push
them out of the way of a car and yet inadvertently pushing them into a wall.

------
hueving
I wonder if events like this turn Uber employees who leave around this time
into a market of lemons. Obviously nobody will put on their resume that they
were fired for sexual harassment so hiring managers will have to wonder if a
person who left Uber recently was fed up or fired.

Seems risky to hire a recent Uber employee at this point because bringing a
toxic sexist into the company can inflict massive damage.

~~~
macspoofing
>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.

~~~
sulam
I have independently verified Susan Fowler's claim that her management chain
didn't treat her case seriously. And by that I mean with a member of her
management chain.

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.

~~~
macspoofing
>I have independently verified Susan Fowler's claim that her management chain
didn't treat her case seriously. And by that I mean with a member of her
management chain.

I never doubted her account. But it is anecdotal, and you can't extrapolate
her singular experience to the entire company.

~~~
CodeWriter23
It is categorically NOT anecdotal. The proper word is "testimonial". You
cannot simultaneously "never doubt her account" and label it "anecdotal", look
it up in the dictionary.

~~~
macspoofing
Ok. Maybe I used the wrong word.

------
ramshanker
Does it make having "Uber" in your Career Profile look bad now?

Even if someone wants to genuinely switch job within next few month out of
Uber, It would raise eyebrows at next interview table. So Uber gonna have very
mall attrition rate now. Every action has both side of coin. :)

~~~
zorpner
Depending on where you are, it already has been. I recruited a friend recently
who worked for Uber _two jobs ago_ , and got objections at multiple levels
(pulled them through because I knew they left Uber originally due to ethical
objections and could speak to that directly). At this point having it in your
job history needs to be addressed in your e-mail/cover letter.

~~~
samstave
What about a zenifits job?

They had to BAN sex in the stairwells and drinking on the job

~~~
zorpner
Having a problem and addressing it is different than having a problem and not
addressing it for years (and yeah, I might ask an ex-Zenefits prospect how
they felt about that). Is that unclear or difficult to understand?

~~~
samstave
I think you read tone into my comment where there was none. Mine was a valid
question; "in your opinion, iss Zenifits also seen poorly on a resume, given
the fact that it is known that the CEO had to step down and they had to take
measures to ban sex and drinking in the office, and this is amplified by the
fact that they are a freaking HR company" -

\- I would think that if anyone is familiar with the Valley, that they would
certainly know the Zenifits story and should rightfully-aise eyebrows if they
see the positions on a resume...

I wasnt challenging your comment, I wa agreeing with it and adding zenefits to
the naughty list.

~~~
zorpner
Ah, gotcha. My apologies, not always easy to gauge intent!

------
ProfessorLayton
Interesting how this contrasts with what Uber's new HR head said 2.5 weeks
ago:

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/05/25/ubers-
bi...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/05/25/ubers-biggest-
employee-problems-pay-and-pride-not-sexism-says-hr-boss/102075284/)

Its also great to see that no company is too big to be raked over the coals
over workplace sexual harassment.

------
timbuckley
I guess other companies should be wary of persons who leave Uber in the past
few weeks or so.

~~~
5ilv3r
Nah, profiling is no good. Probably a better idea to work on a solid
recruiting process that can shake out practitioners of bad behavior from the
candidate pool. Then you can handle it and more.

~~~
potatolicious
> _" Probably a better idea to work on a solid recruiting process that can
> shake out practitioners of bad behavior from the candidate pool."_

I agree in principle - but how do you suggest this be done?

It's not as if harassers are going to cop to it in an interview.

I: "Have you sexually harassed your colleagues at previous jobs?"

C: "Oh yeah, sure, yep, I'll show myself out now."

Nor are companies permitted to answer whether or not someone was terminated
for cause, or whether they received harassment-related reprimands.

I think everyone agrees that detecting and filtering out bad actors from your
candidate pool is great - but is there actually a practical way to do so?

The "state of the art" around this is back-channeling - calling around to see
if you can locate people who have worked with the candidate, and getting the
unofficial word on whether or not they're bad actors. This has pretty glaring
and obvious issues, and isn't always possible, but we don't really have a
better way.

I think profiling people for leaving Uber is highly problematic - but what's
the alternative? Ask them if they got canned for harassment, and when they
inevitably deny it, just take them at their word?

~~~
s73ver
Not being someone who harasses others at work, I don't know if this would
work. But if your company had a reputation of taking that kind of thing
seriously, wouldn't it mean that those bad actors would be less likely to
apply at your company?

~~~
potatolicious
Yes, I think it would - but most companies are small and do not have known
cultural reputations, so this kind of strategy likely will only be useful to
larger/name-brand companies.

IMO the lack of this reputation harms startups - some larger companies have
been known to take harassment and abuse more seriously than others, and
they've attracted a greater share of marginalized demographics. This is great
for employees - they have greater safety at work - but bad for the ecosystem,
as this is an entire talent pool that startups - who comparatively have little
reputation - are missing out on.

The other poster also brings up a good point: not all bad actors know they are
bad. Generally speaking everyone is the Good Guy in their own head. That said,
there are certainly many bad actors who are aware of how their actions are
received and will seek easier environs.

------
bgun
The article contains so little information (that isn't already revealed in the
nicely succinct headline) that clicking through is almost certainly not worth
your time.

~~~
danso
Here's Recode's version, which is just as slim as Bloomberg's:
[https://www.recode.net/2017/6/6/15747446/uber-
fires-20-emplo...](https://www.recode.net/2017/6/6/15747446/uber-
fires-20-employees-sexual-harassment-investigation)

However, Recode notes that Bloomberg was the first to report this info. So,
the OP is the best that we have so far until the Holder report is released.

~~~
mikeyouse
Mike Isaac (who's broken a number of Uber stories lately) was tweeting about
it -- apparently they're announcing the firings at an all-hands meeting right
now. I expect we'll know more in an hour or two.

[https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/872147778461421568](https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/872147778461421568)

------
graphememes
Controversial opinion here...

Why are the vocal hacker news commenters against segregated groups? For
instance, what would be the issue with places that have selective hiring for
individuals that meet their cultural composition and why does that bother you
specifically?

Isn't that the case in every location?

In this case, there was harassment, however generally it is understood that
"birds of a feather flock together" so wouldn't it make sense to simply find
your flock rather than trying to force yourself to mold to someone else's?

I am genuinely curious about this as it seems to be a rising trend where the
vocal minority want to enforce their idea of culture and beliefs onto others
as if it were a religious or cult like movement that I have seen before in
Christian groups.

~~~
untog
I'm trying to parse out your meaning here. Are you suggesting that companies
like Uber should be open and encouraged to hire sexual harassers so that they
might all enjoy the company of each other?

Or are you suggesting that someone who has been harassed should leave their
employer and not complain about it, because the company should be free to
sexually harass as much as it wants? Or both?

~~~
graphememes
I will humor this idea that I was specifically talking about "sexual
harassers" specifically and all the people in question are indeed "sexual
harassers" since that seems to be your moral objection.

Are you morally against sexual harassers going to therapy together, or being
in business together due to the nature of the moral composition of what a
sexual harasser has done, does the amount of sexual harassing or degree come
into factor, and at what point is the sexual harassing dangerous to others. Is
it dangerous that these people are grouping together, and why would that be
dangerous? Is it dangerous when other groups of people group together?
Woodworkers, doctors, nurses, pedophiles, politicians, bsdm workers,
prostitutes, pimps, rappers, engineeers... I am uncertain as to what you
specifically disagree with people of the same kind grouping together?

Isn't this something that prisons, schools, neighborhoods do? If not enforced
or by design, generally it occurs by natural progression regardless.

Onto your second point, I am not sure how you came to this conclusion,
everyone is free to complain. I am talking pre-entry, you deduce the nature of
the company prior to entry and whether thats an environment you can live
within. When you are inside and it changes, you still are a component and can
witness the change and deduce whether its something you can live within or
find yourself being comfortable with. This is a psychological point and not
from a point of morals but a point of behavior.

There are places that I will never apply to or work at because I know that we
will not work well together due to the nature of their culture, and I don't
complain about them because they have the right to group together in such a
way.

We complain once it becomes an issue and harms others, and that is fine.
Everyone is okay with this, I find no issue with this.

What I do find issue with, is people going further and applying what works for
their specific ideology or culture to others by _force_ through nefarious
tactics like you either intentionally or unintentionally have done through
position of morals, shaming, bullying, etc..

That is what I have an issue with.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
To turn the pre-entry screening argument around: Sexual harassment is illegal
is this country. If you want to allow sexual harassment at your company, you
should have done a better job of choosing countries to start your business in.

------
ChuckMcM
I wonder if this helps encourage the senior leadership of other companies that
have issues with harrasment not being punished to step up and discipline the
harrassers.

------
jlebrech
I'm not detracting from the real sexual harassment that occurred but looking
for naughty people to fire is one of the first steps before redundancies. All
it takes is for the IT department to scour the exchange server for ignored or
rejected emails asking a female colleague if she wants a coffee, and making
them the cost free fires.

------
jlg23
Can we please live in a time where this is not news but common sense?

------
pyronik
Are we really at the point in society if someone asks a coworker out on a date
its sexual harassment? I imagine the answer to that is whether she said yes or
not. Rule #1 ... be attractive.

~~~
vkou
I'm surprised that we are still at a point in society where people
legitimately don't understand the difference between workplace-appropriate
behaviour, and harassment.

But, to spell the difference out:

Once is asking. Twice is harassment. Propositioning a report is a fireable
offense.

There's more to it, but those are the basics.

~~~
macspoofing
>I'm surprised that we are still at a point in society where people
legitimately don't understand the difference between workplace-appropriate
behaviour, and harassment.

I'm not, especially when it comes to tech which is full of young
20-somethings, some of whom may be brilliant when it comes to programming and
mathematics, but dumb when it comes to social cues and social interactions. A
lot of this stuff gets figured out with experience.

>Once is asking. Twice is harassment. Propositioning a report is a fireable
offense.

Sure. Sounds like a good general rule that may be too permissive in some
cases, and too punishing in other.

~~~
watwut
I work in tech. While there are problems, dudes are way better at social
skills then you imply. Thay includes dudes with asperger.

~~~
macspoofing
Yes. Of course. Generally people are good and decent. And this case doesn't
contradict this since we're talking about 20 fired employees out of 12,000.

And I didn't only refer to 'dudes'. I referred to 20-somethings. Women can be
dumbasses too.

~~~
watwut
I don't think it is correct to use words dumbass and unethical as synonyms.
They are not.

I defended dudes here, because they were treated as normally unethical or
normally dumbass. Since women were not implied to be less capable, there was
no need to defend then.

------
rwmj
12,000 employees in Uber? (I'm assuming that doesn't include the drivers).
What do they do all day?

~~~
oculusthrift
are you the type to ask that question about google and facebook too? uber is
facebook minus a few years and has similiar numbers

~~~
komali2
I ask that about Twitter - these companies always seem to have more than I
would expect necessary.

~~~
mattzito
i think you underestimate the massive amount of backend and internal
optimization that's required. Sure, the MVP of Twitter is a few thousand lines
of code, but think about ad buying, ad display, abuse detection, customer
service, content management, APIs, mobile, mobile web, etc., and that's just
on the engineering side of things. For every engineer you'll need business
folks, PMs, designers, operations, etc.

~~~
fixermark
Hell, Twitter is a great example. We know what Twitter looks like without
enough staff: an unreliable MVP that fail-whales all the time. Twitter
acquired the staff and capital to scale up and they became far more stable.

The economies of scale large computer systems offer are counter-weighted by
the n-squared complexity of larger systems.

------
randyrand
I just want to say, for every person in disgust of Uber and their sexual
harassment scenario, there are many more of us that just don't care.

Of course, most that don't care don't comment. So the comment section is not a
good view of public opinion. Just the vocal minority.

~~~
ebcode
Yours is an interesting comment because of its paradoxical nature. You seem to
be implying that you yourself "don't care", but then say that those that don't
care don't comment, and yet here you are commenting, which would imply that
you do indeed care. But then, you only care enough to say you don't care, and
that there are "many more" people like you. But I don't see anyone else saying
"hey, we don't care" on this thread, which leads me to believe that there
actually aren't more people like you. My brain is caught in a loop!

~~~
randyrand
I'll help solve the paradox. "Don't care" can refer to at least 3 things:

1\. don't care that there is sexual harassment at Uber 2\. don't care about
sexual harassment like that occurred at Uber 3\. don't care that _other
people_ think most people care

My comment is about those that check off all 3. They are the majority, and
they don't comment. For me, I only check off #1 and #2, hence the comment.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
I think part of the response you're getting is that "I don't care" is still
vague.

It could mean you don't find it interesting or relevant to your life. Or it
could mean you don't think sexual harassment is morally wrong. Or something
else.

For example, I could say that I "don't care" about cholera deaths in Africa. I
think it's a tragedy and hope the situation improves, but I'm not seeking out
news about it or basing life-decisions around it. I "care" but I don't really
care... at least not to the point that it changes my behavior.

Then again, I'm not jumping into discussions on cholera stories to tell people
how much I don't care about cholera deaths. So, it feels like you're trying to
make some big statement, e.g. taking a stand against "political correctness"
or claiming sexual harassment isn't morally wrong.

~~~
randyrand
Yes, I did go back and clarify my comment a bit already

Sexually harassment _can definitely_ be morally wrong. But I'm not
particularly outraged, mad, or upset by the sexual harassment scenario that
happened at Uber, specifically. I don't think all sexual harassment should be
lumped together, and doing so can lead to witch hunts.

~~~
s73ver
There's no can about it. It always is wrong.

~~~
nolepointer
So you probably think that air conditioning constitutes sexual harassment.

~~~
s73ver
That doesn't make a lick of sense.

