
Ex-Uber employee claims he wasn't allowed to take bathroom breaks - aceperry
https://www.businessinsider.com/former-uber-safety-driver-not-allowed-to-take-bathroom-breaks-2018-12
======
soared
> he felt as if he wasn't allowed to take bathroom breaks the month before he
> was fired

Clickbait headline from business insider. And people wonder why pubs are
dying.

~~~
romwell
Clickbait?

Let's quote a bit more:

>Stopping a test vehicle for a bathroom break could disturb it and ultimately
require up to an hour of rebooting or troubleshooting, Kelley said, which
would decrease the number of miles it would drive.

>"They made it clear you probably should hold it," he said.

What more would you expect to justify the headline?

"Uber asked its employees to avoid taking restroom breaks" would be a better
headline, but, let's be honest, it really does mean the same thing.

Also, whoever built a system so shoddy it would be disturbed by a restroom
break should really reconsider whatever they are doing right now.

~~~
geezerjay
> What more would you expect to justify the headline?

For starters, that the allegation had any merit.

If you read the article you'll find out that the objective statement made by
the accuser regarding unscheduled stops was that the car required "rebooting
or troubleshooting" that could take an hour, which had an inpact on how may
hours the car would be driving.

That's the full extent of the claims.

From that point onward, everything is a string of unbelievable hyperboles,
such as spinning the need to troubleshoot a reboot as prohibiting a driver
from taking a break.

In fact, the article quite clearly depicts the ex-employee as someone with an
axe to grind, and is trying to hurt the company where it is more vulnerable
even if he is grasping at straws.

