
An Open Letter to the Uber Board and Investors - sdomino
https://medium.com/@mitch_freada/an-open-letter-to-the-uber-board-and-investors-2dc0c48c3a7#.wk1fnq4ax
======
tyre
This is a great example of why you should make sure that your goals align with
those of your investors.

Kapor Capital has a strong focus on social impact companies that benefit the
disadvantaged.[1]

Travis is a phenomenal salesman and fundraiser. Travis convinced Kapor that,
amongst other things, Uber was a platform for democratizing transportation,
citing things like racism amongst taxi cabs to spin Uber as social good.

So now you have a company that isn't actually what it pitched itself to be.
For many investors, hyper-growth and skyrocketing valuation will wipe out
other concerns around culture, impact, etc.

The Kapors are showing (awesomely, in my personal opinion) that they are
serious about their social mission. They're doing what they can to influence a
portfolio company to live up to their expectations. Travis probably doesn't
like that—it sucks to be called out!—but that's why you take investment based
on aligned interests and not just awesome salesmanship.

[1]: [http://www.kaporcapital.com/who-we-
are/](http://www.kaporcapital.com/who-we-are/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Travis is a phenomenal salesman and fundraiser. Travis convinced Kapor that,
amongst other things, Uber was a platform for democratizing transportation,
citing things like racism amongst taxi cabs to spin Uber as social good. So
now you have a company that isn 't actually what it pitched itself to be._

But that's not true. Uber is still a platform for democratizing
transportation. It has more or less completely fixed the issue of racism in
taxi cabs (or auto rickshaws), which was previously a daily experience for me.
In Maharashtra they've literally made an enemy of Shiv Sena,
racist/nationalist political party, because they are undercutting the Marathi
autowales.

It's also improving women's safety worldwide, which is a major issue outside
the west. Literally days after an Uber driver raped a passenger in Delhi, my
girlfriend at the time still insisted on taking a radio taxi home (wasn't
Uber, which was shut down for a little bit) because she felt safer than in an
auto rickshaw or taxi.

Uber is working - fairly successfully - to partially fix the issue of cronyism
in governments around the world. They've taken private battles public and
shown the world exactly how much people like Bill DeBlasio hurt the public.

This would all be a huge net gain for the world even if every >$150k/year
engineer at Uber was horribly mistreated/marginalized/had their butt patted
before shifting to another $150k/year engineering job.

The Kapors are not calling out Uber based on a utilitarian calculation. Uber
is still exactly the force of good they promised to be, and their goals align
just fine with the _stated_ goals of the Kapors. It's just that their
personality doesn't appeal to the zeitgeist, and it looks like that matters
more to the Kapors than the actual good they do.

~~~
notaboutme
My girlfriend gets harassed by Uber drivers all the time, to the point where
she had to switch to using Lyft or call the regular car services here in NYC
(which used to be amazing pre-Uber, by the way).

The one time I took Uber Pool in Brooklyn the driver refused to let a black
couple into the car, which we all protested and complained about, but nothing
came of it.

In New York Uber isn't necessarily safer or less racist, although I'd concede
it probably is in other countries.

~~~
oh_sigh
Does your girlfriend give those drivers 1 star reviews?

For what it's worth, my girlfriend has taken an uber in NYC 100+ times, and
has _never_ complained about any kind of harassment from an Uber driver. She's
complained to me about sidewalk/subway harassment, and workplace harassment,
so I don't think there is a reason she would hide Uber harassment from me.

Also: Regular car services were horrible pre-Uber...which is why Uber took
over NYC car transit.

It was basically: Call up a number, get answered by a guy with a heavy accent
on a low quality landline, tell him what you want, and hope and pray that he
understood what you said and the car shows up. If it doesn't, call another
company and repeat.

~~~
wiseleo
Can't rate a driver who didn't start a trip. That's how they fly under the
radar. Forcing the driver to be the one who cancels will get them on the radar
and out of the system. Excessive cancel rates get drivers deactivated more
than anything.

~~~
oh_sigh
Drivers harass a woman by _not_ accepting a trip?

------
lightyagamai
I'm a former uber s/w engineer. I've been with uber for nearly 2 yrs and most
of the article content are valid. Employees voicing out genuine concerns will
be met with severe rebuke. This will be swept under the carpet sooner or
latter. For customers, the quality and experience of their ride is the only
thing that will matter. This won't even affect their business.

~~~
shados
while Uber's culture problems are legendary...I've seen this type of complain
at every single company I worked for (which is almost 2 dozens at this point),
including when it was not true at all and people were just whiny that their
idea for office decoration did not get accepted.

So we're starting to suffer from a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome, where when
the complain is real, no one cares.

That's a big problem.

~~~
ryanisnan
> So we're starting to suffer from a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome

It seems like you're somewhat sympathizing with Uber HR's decisions regarding
this individual on account of the "boy cried wolf" syndrome.

This seems like hardly that at all. The events at Uber read like a systemic
failure to deal with problems, and an extreme indifference to sexual
harassment for the benefit of retaining "good" engineers.

Fuck this mentality.

edit: Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comments.

~~~
harlanlewis
Not the poster, but I think he means that Uber is the very wolf we've become
too desensitized to recognize.

But I have not seen the endemic spiteful complaints he has. My impression is
this place is full of wolves that are seldom called out.

~~~
GauntletWizard
To take the middle ground - I think there's been a lot of wolves crying wolf -
Mostly on sheep, because that provides good cover. Sheep are afraid to cry
wolf, even when being attacked, because of fear of ostracization - and
unfortunately, we're very bad at telling wolves from sheep in a fight,
particularly as a herd.

------
rdl
I would be exceedingly reluctant to work with an investor who writes an "open
letter" to a company in a situation like this, and particularly when that
letter calls out the CEO in a pretty gratuitous way ("and we have both been
contacted by senior leaders at Uber (though notably not by Travis, the CEO)").
You're supposed to be able to be open with investors and other advisors, so
this is a deep breech of trust in a non-public company. I can't see taking
advice from and sharing confidential or sensitive information with someone who
has done that to you in the past.

(The sad part is I agree Uber has a problem and needs to change; Susan
Fowler's blog post was remarkable.)

~~~
otheraccount53
You know what? I am disgusted and ashamed that a message board that I read and
participate in daily is reacting this way.

I'm sick of how Silicon Valley always puts money and internal graft ahead of
inconvenient things like morals and acting like decent human beings. Beyond
that, I'm tired of how everyone then tries to pretend that these actions that
are taken out of greed and ambition to "rule the world" are somehow in the
public's best interest.

I see no reason why you are reprimanding a pair of human beings who realized
that the company that they have aided, abetted, and implicitly condoned
through their investment, and then decided to do what little they could to try
to influence that company to fix the situation.

~~~
ethbro
Well said. Either SV is different than business is usual... or it's not.

And if it's not (and not willing to self police to a higher ethical standard),
then we should really start asking whether we're comfortable with these
companies having the amount of access to our lives they do.

Would you trust Walmart with an Echo type device in your house?

~~~
M_Grey
What company _would_ you trust with an Echo type device in your house? I think
the entire proposition is insane given the state of the law.

~~~
rdl
In terms of "business model", clearly Apple is the one I'd trust the most,
Google/FB the least, and Amazon in the middle. But I agree with laws the way
they are, it's very problematic. Either the tech needs to change, or the law
-- I have a lot more confidence we'll finally see a (not really re)-surgence
in privacy protecting consumer tech.

------
smallgovt
I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion since most of us agree with what
Mitch is saying and rightfully want change, but as a founder, this sort of
behavior from an investor seems to be a giant breach of trust.

In early rounds, founders are looking for investors who will trust management
to make decisions in the best interest of the company. EVEN if they don't
agree with those decisions, it's expected that they'll be a team player and
provide support in whatever way possible.

I'm sure Mitch thinks what he's doing is in the best interest of the company
(and it probabily is!). But, he surely doesn't have perfect information on
what's going on (only management has a full picture).

~~~
powera
As an investor, I'd never give money to a founder who exhibits this sort of
attitude.

Uber is facing a catastrophic crisis. This could kill the company, or at least
cause massive attrition. If Uber isn't willing to take advice on how to get
out of this terrible situation that it has created, it may well die.

And in situations like this, I find it a general rule to _never_ give
management the "benefit of the doubt".

Of course, I'm not trying to give you money, but I'd hope other founders don't
learn from your behavior.

~~~
WalterSear
>...or at least cause massive attrition.

[https://twitter.com/physicsNcoffee/status/834566962998960128](https://twitter.com/physicsNcoffee/status/834566962998960128)

Blind app is anonymous, so obviously this is yet to be substantiated. If this
attrition is actually taking place, we'll know very shortly.

------
throwaway991999
Made a throwaway name because I have an unpopular opinion.

We've likely read Susan Fowler's blog post. If true, it's awful behavior on
the part of HR and management at Uber, and action should be taken.

But that's the thing: a blog post does not establish truth. We've heard from
only one side of the story. No one ever asks about the other side, or about
whether we are being misled. We only talk about the bravery of the author and
condemn the other side.

I think the saddest part of our collective behavior is how quickly we come
with pitchforks to a witch trial. We must remember that justice is not decided
on Twitter, or on blogs. Justice is not decided by the voice of the accuser.

Did you see evidence besides Susan Flower's putting phrases in quotation
marks? She mentions screenshots of improper behavior but provides none. What
if tomorrow new evidence comes out that this whole thing was exaggerated or
flat out wrong. How would it feel, to being so easily manipulated into drawing
a conclusion, into retweeting a fiction, into writing an open letter?

~~~
grzm
_No one ever asks about the other side, or about whether we are being misled._

That's just not true. There are numerous comments on HN that reflect exactly
this sentiment, as well as every other point in your comment.

~~~
throwaway991999
The other side is not Uber, it's the accused.

~~~
grzm
Can you please elaborate? Your initial comment makes the point that no one is
questioning Susan Fowler's allegations, that it's only one side, that her
"blog post does not establish truth." That's the point that many other
comments have made, whether it be about what happened at Uber, or more
generally about whether the allegations are true at all.

At this point, the accused (or Uber, for that matter) is perfectly free to
make some announcement if they so choose. I wouldn't expect them to—nor fault
them—as it wouldn't make any sense, politically or legally, to do so at this
point, at least until the conclusion of any investigation.

------
flyingramen
What would an ideal way forward be for Uber? Recent incidents combined with a
tainted past make public trust in Uber not the best.

Lot of people have suggest these problems stem from the culture. Culture of
companies and people is similar to the culture of, say, bread. The starter
really matters and sets the tone. I'd be interested in hearing from people who
have seen a drastic change in culture at a big place or better yet, have been
behind that change.

The other idea is it could just be a few rotten apples giving everyone a bad
name. I don't know the answer.

~~~
Arizhel
>The other idea is it could just be a few rotten apples giving everyone a bad
name.

There's no such thing as this.

Honestly, is everyone these days completely ignorant of what happens when you
leave a few rotten apples in a big bunch of apples? In case you don't know,
the correct answer is that very soon, ALL the apples become rotten. That's why
we have the old saying about "bad apples": "one bad apple ruins the whole
bunch". Somehow, these days, everyone seems to have forgotten the "ruins the
whole bunch" part of the phrase which is so important to its meaning.

It applies outside of apples too: it applies to police, corporations, any
human organization really. There's no such thing as "only a few bad apples".
An organization that tolerates rotten people very quickly becomes thoroughly
rotten.

~~~
flyingramen
That may be a good analogy to make but it is not that simple. I am going to
try find it, but there was at least one paper showing how it really depends on
the placement of the kind of actors in a system. Enough (but an easy minority)
of good actors in a system could "clean up" the system by ensuring everyone
acts well. If you want a more relatable simple analogy is a benevolent
dictator cleaning up the mess.

~~~
mintplant
You've flipped the situation. Arizhel isn't making an analogy, they're
correcting your misuse of one ("a few rotten apples") to defend a conclusion
that is the exact opposite of the one it implies.

------
finkin1
Maybe the claims made by Susan Fowler are accurate and honest, maybe they
aren't. This is why there are investigations. We want the truth, not a bunch
of opinions which may or may not be credible.

The author seems to be claiming that Eric Holder is not suited to run such an
investigation. Seems reasonable to me. Uber should find someone else.

My problem with the author is that it's pretty apparent conclusions are being
drawn without actual evidence.

~~~
finkin1
Anyone care to comment on why they downvoted? I'm genuinely open to the fact
that I could be missing information here...

~~~
danpalmer
Is the blog post by Susan not evidence? It certainly seems reasonable enough
evidence to suggest what the investor is suggesting, which is that a more
thorough and unbiased investigation should be carried out.

~~~
finkin1
I would consider Susan's blog post a form of evidence, but just about the
lowest form there is. I don't know Susan personally, so I can't speak to her
character. Maybe she's a pathological liar or maybe she's the most honest and
genuine person I'll ever meet. The point is that I don't know, and unless you
know her personally neither do you. This is not a controversial fact I hope we
all agree.

Forms of evidence I'd be interested in seeing: slack chats, emails, internal
HR files, etc. that should all in theory come to light if there was an
independent investigation. If there is a systematic covering up of sexual
harassment at Uber there will be hard evidence to support it, right?

What actual evidence (other than Susan's blog post) do we have that leads to a
rational and unbiased conclusion that Uber is intentionally covering up sexual
harassment?

~~~
danielweber
She made accusations that specific incidents happened.

In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if
not true probably isn't making it up.

I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a
general rule it works, as long as we remember we are still in the "judgment"
phase and not the "punishment" phase.

~~~
DannyBee
"In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if
not true probably isn't making it up. "

On what do you base this?

Honestly, i'd say that in court, the percent time people (be they cops,
witnesses, you name it) make specific accusations that can be disproven, and
_are making it up_ , is in the 20-30% range, at least. These are _on a witness
stand, too_. I'm just going by those things objectively disproven later (IE
literally could not have occurred as the person says. Not "can't tell what
really happened, video too fuzzy"). Outside of court situations with
repercussions, i'd expect the number to be _much higher_ not _much lower_.

"I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a
general rule it works, "

This is handwaving. Really. This is "well, you might think it's wrong, but i'm
telling you it's not with no data to back me up".

There's a reason "eyewitness testimony" has it's credibility judged by a jury,
is not taken as fact, and is pretty much the lowest form of evidence there is:
it's because it's the most often wrong.

------
powera
This is a corporate crisis for Uber.

Right now, Uber is very clearly following the playbook that historically leads
to dead companies.

It needs a truly credible response, not one that happens to use some
celebrities they have on hand.

~~~
542458
> following the playbook that historically leads to dead companies

I agree that Uber is handling this poorly, but can you elaborate?

~~~
Arizhel
Yeah, I agree. Examples! If this is true, there's got to be some really
interesting stories here.

~~~
artursapek
Nest comes to mind. I remember hearing horror stories about management there
treating employees like total crap.

~~~
macspoofing
Nest had a nice exit.

~~~
artursapek
The abuse continued after the exit.

------
jonthepirate
As an investor in Lyft, I'm sorry to say that I hope Uber doesn't change
anything they're doing. The Uber management is the best thing that's happened
to my personal finances in a while.

~~~
hyperbovine
You hope they continue to sexually harass their female employees?

~~~
cal5k
I don't think he meant that literally, he meant that he hopes they continue to
exhibit gross managerial incompetence.

~~~
bogomipz
But that very gross managerial incompetence might also be doing harm to
people.

------
rdiddly
Great sentiment, but I don't suppose anyone had the brilliant idea of actually
divesting their holdings in Uber, rather than just talk-talk-talking? Wanting
them to change, and being in a positon to profit from the status quo, are kind
of mutually-contradicting are they not?

Looking for any investor with enough integrity and conviction to send a
stronger message... I know, dream on, plus who would buy anyone out at this
ridiculous level of overvaluation?

~~~
swyman
Divesting would actually be the more direct form of profiting from the status
quo. Lock in the gains that the status quo created for you before the culture
becomes so toxic the company folds. Keeping your holdings and releasing this
letter is actually the bravest thing you could do as an investor.

------
webXL
While those actions (and inaction) at Uber are despicable, part of me thinks
that this was inevitable. In order to break up an entrenched, crony industry
like ride hailing, you end up taking on some of their characteristics. Getting
a female cabbie is incredibly rare in big cities[1], and associating with male
drivers all the time is bound to produce some chauvinistic behaviors.

I'm not excusing the behavior, but I think this definitely rubbed off on them.
It's an ends justify the means mentality, and it might not have been necessary
under a different power structure. I suppose there's a chance that Lyft could
have done it right, but who knows how they would have handled the other PR
battles. Hopefully a new crop of managers at Uber, eventually dealing with a
much more diverse group of drivers, one that includes machines, will be much
less chauvinistic.

[1]: [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/how-
ube...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/how-uber-helps-
women-break-into-the-taxi-industry/376127/)

------
the_common_man
Does anyone know why Susan chose to "blog" instead of filing a law suit?

~~~
macspoofing
Maybe she's pissed but doesn't want to sue? Lawsuits are mentally and
emotionally (and financially) draining.

------
matz1
In reality how much people really care about the sexual harassment care?

~~~
erikb
Yeah, it may be more of a society problem than a corp problem.

------
socrates1998
It's going to be interesting to me to see how this all affects Uber's bottom
line.

If they keep scaring away engineers and getting bad publicity, will be scare
away customers too?

Or will the trail of engineers eventually catch up with the quality of the
experience?

~~~
slfnflctd
I'm quite sure it's already scared away customers. I'm one of them.

I have 'missed' a number of opportunities over the years because I was
unwilling to implicitly endorse unethical behavior (instead of quietly
continuing to do business with entities I believe to be bad actors, I cut them
out, because there are more important things than convenience and money). I
don't plan to change this pattern, and I know I'm not the only one.

The real question is what percentage of potential future customers Uber is
losing. If people like me are a tiny minority, this may not affect their
bottom line at all... which I would find very sad.

------
happy-go-lucky
> success must be measured in more than just returns.

------
nurettin
IF lyft is behind all this, I'm impressed.

------
mfringel
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Uber has started a revolution. I do not require them to survive it.

------
mrgriscom
Wow, lotta founders showing their true colors in this thread re: contempt for
their investors.

~~~
unethical_ban
True colors like wanting investors, people with skin in the game and the ear
of the company, to voice concerns through standard channels?

Could you provide some more detail to your condescension?

~~~
mejari
Why are you stating that they didn't follow the "standard channels" when the
linked letter explicitly states that they had been doing exactly that for a
long period of time? Are you calling them liars?

------
ebbv
Bravo to Mitch and Freada Kapor for going out on a limb like this. Uber has
been toxic for years and everyone has remained silent. Every PR crisis has
been swept under the rug and nothing has apparently changed. Hopefully an
investor speaking up in this way will finally prompt the board to treat the
problems in Uber seriously and have a truly independent investigation done.

------
princetontiger
Silicon Valley for the past five years has been afflicted by Wall Street
ethics. I've seen this first hand at a few SV companies. As a male, I've
actually faced reverse harassment. Never worked at Uber, but I'm speaking of
much larger SV companies. HR is useless.

Silicon Valley is no different than any other place in the World. Just because
people think they are "changing" the world doesn't mean ethics need to be on
the line.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11765609/Start-up-
cult...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11765609/Start-up-culture-is-
corrupting-our-youth-and-killing-real-entrepreneurship.html)

~~~
mst
> reverse harassment

I am genuinely confused as to what you're trying to refer to with this term.

------
zizzles
> _So apparently the problem is not fully solved._

You are _completely_ right.

The problem of poor, dirty, violent, urban-youth infested communities is not
fully solved.

~~~
dang
We've banned this account. It's not ok to use HN primarily for political and
ideological battle.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13720963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13720963)
and marked it off-topic.

------
erikb
What do people here think about Susan's way of doing things? While I think
most of her behaviour is valid and I'm impressed by her professionalism, I
think she starts too fast to report people, which costs her political power to
achieve her goals and makes people in HR more pissed off than necessary. E.g.,
being hit on by colleagues is a common thing that happens to women. But some
can deescalate it without much problems. She didn't even try to deescalate it,
just report it and be done with it.

It's a minor thing compared to all that which happened to her and I'm mostly
thinking about it in terms of own career strategy.

~~~
dejawu
No, because being propositioned for sex with a manager is absolutely out of
line no matter when it happened. If anything, I think she was _too_ patient
with management and gave them way too many chances to get it remotely right
because she seemed to really like the work she was doing.

~~~
erikb
You're lucky if you live a life where you can always enforce your rights. But
at least her blog post shows that is not always the case. Maybe you've also
heard other stories. For instance, I remember a story where a western female
tourist got raped, went to the police and immediately was sent to jail,
because her "crime" of having extramarital affairs was way worse to the
autorities than raping a woman.

A simpler example that much more people experience at least once in their
life: A customer comes to you and treats you like sh*t. You can go to your
boss and complain about the customer, but for the boss the money the customer
brings is more important than your well being. So you get an angry boss
instead of getting rid of the customer. The moral situation is indisputable,
but enforcing your rights is a luxury you don't always have.

Therefore low power tactics is an important survival skill: Avoiding conflict
without the necessity to give them what they want.

------
petergatsby
"As investors, we certainly want to see Uber succeed, but success must be
measured in more than just returns."

\-- Sure, but Uber is already a mission-driven company whose success is
inversely proportional to horrible things like DUI deaths -- statements like
these impede their progress

~~~
jkaptur
Sure, but it's hard to think of much that would hurt "the mission" more than
the harassment that's been alleged (and corroborated). Properly investigating
that, removing those involved at any level, and ensuring a culture where it
never happens again are a critical part of "the mission", kind of like putting
out a fire in the office.

------
ffef
As a male in my early twenties, working as a developer I've come to realize
that it's just better to not even try to engage in small talk and/or non-work
related conversations with female co-workers. I keep it dry and basic. Just
last week I had a buddy who was on the phone with his brother and blurted
"Bro, she was amazing, then I left her house haha" he was fired the next day
because a co-worker overheard his conversation and felt uncomfortable.

~~~
aerovistae
I don't even know what to say to this. If your interactions with females are
so problematic that you're now afraid to talk to them for fear of
repercussions, I seriously doubt "women" are the problem here, which is what
you seem to be implying.

~~~
unethical_ban
It's off topic. It is also concerning that (without more detail) a singular
remark about a social event off-hours would get someone fired.

~~~
danpalmer
I suspect that, for someone who uses that sort of language to talk about women
even in private, it likely wasn't a first or only offence.

~~~
unethical_ban
Using 'bro' non ironically might be more of a key off than describing an
experience with a woman as 'amazing'.

------
anjc
An investor issues veiled threats while acting as if they're owners or
management. Who cares if you're "available to make suggestions", and what
makes you think you're entitled to work behind the scenes to change company
culture?

~~~
jeffjose
Investors, by very definition, are (part) owners. And management is put in
place by the board, that owners/investors control

~~~
anjc
Yeah I understand, but having a stake in a company doesn't give you the right
to act as an advisor to the board or management. You're aren't a worker or a
consultant and you're not on the board. If they have an issue with the board
then then there are manoeuvres that they can take.

~~~
stale2002
Yes you do have that right. Investors literally own the company.

People who literally own the company are of course expected to give their
opinion on matters concerning the company that they own.

~~~
anjc
You can give your opinion, you can't install yourself as a worker with your
own personal goals of changing a company's culture. Again, if you have a
problem with how the company is being run then you can take action.

~~~
kelnos
No one is arguing that. Please don't move the goalposts and/or set up straw
men.

~~~
anjc
What I said:

> you can't install yourself as a worker with your own personal goals of
> changing a company's culture

From their letter:

> As early investors in Uber, starting in 2010, we have tried for years to
> work behind the scenes to exert a constructive influence on company culture.

What strawman?

~~~
lkbm
It's not a strawman if you grant that only people installed as workers get to
have influence. As the rest of the people in this thread have pointed out,
that premise is false.

~~~
anjc
They verbatim say they want to work behind the scenes in the company to change
the culture. That's not advising or just "having influence". It's
simple...they do not have a right to do this as investors unless it was part
of their terms.

~~~
kelnos
That's ridiculously. They certainly have a right to do that. Sure, it depends
on management etc.'s willingness to listen and take the advice, but they
absolutely have the right.

~~~
anjc
No they do not have that right. They have the right to _if management is
willing_ as you say, which they aren't, in this case. They do also have the
right to play their part in replacing the board, and they do have the right to
try and pursue board membership. But they aren't entitled to work within the
company to change its culture simply because they're an investor. Companies
could not accept investment if this was a right extended to investors.

~~~
stale2002
I am sorry, so do you not believe in the First Amendment?

Nothing that they did was illegal.

------
mevile
I may be in the minority on this point of view, but maybe it's in the interest
of the board and investors to wait on the results of the independent
investigation before commenting on the contents of the accusation. They could
though make a statement in support of the investigation and employees however.

~~~
mi100hael
The top highlight from the article...

 _> We are disappointed to see that Uber has selected a team of insiders to
investigate its destructive culture and make recommendations for change. To
us, this decision is yet another example of Uber’s continued unwillingness to
be open, transparent, and direct._

------
petergatsby
Fowler's post shed light on Uber's serious internal problems -- no doubt. But
going public with a post like this erodes founder-investor trust. It's across
the line.

Publicly condemning the internal culture the post depicted would be
reasonable, even helpful, but trying to "expose" Uber's leadership for
showmanship and posturing ('hiring' Holder who was ostensibly involved long-
before the Fowler post) to mitigate the pr fallout is counterproductive. Don't
kick your founder when he's down.

~~~
haydenlee
> Don't kick your founder when he's down.

There should also be a counter rule:

> Don't stick by your founders if they are creating horrible environments,
> such as Uber's, and are unwilling to make up for their mistakes.

If more investors had this sort of backbone founders might feel more
accountability and not let these situations happen in the first place.

This would be at the expense of bad founders losing trust with their
investors? Great. The good founders will be glad that the Kapor's stood up for
what is right, and know that they will never be placed in the same situation
themselves because they trust their own moral compasses.

~~~
petergatsby
In theory perhaps.

But anyone who's been paying attention knows, depressingly, that the stories
coming out of Uber aren't new or unique.

The gross culture depicted in these kinds of posts maps pretty-much 1:1 with
the wider culture of the Valley.

~~~
oxryly1
Maybe I'm not parsing your comments correctly, but it _seems_ like you're
claiming that Uber has a real cultural problem and that problem is endemic to
tech in the Valley (if not in general) -- but you're arguing that confronting
those in positions of power or leadership is unfair to _them_?

