>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.

Thanks for taking time to lay that out. I've felt like I was living in some alternate reality the last few years every time someone trots out that saying as an excuse to duck responsibility.

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.

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.

Allow employees to sue as a class for cases of sexual harassment. Currently, Uber's employees are bound to confidential, bilateral and binding arbitration.

Next, deputise an ombudsman to whom every employee has a confidential and direct line. This ombudsman reports directly to the CEO and the Board. They should have a large amount of authority surrounding recommending dismissal of any employee to the CEO; whenever a recommendation is made, it should be copied to the Board. In return, the ombudsman should carry a significant amount of personal liability in connection with sexual harassment at the company.

This is how compliance works at many financial firms, and it's very effective. Compliance officers are deputized by the U.S. Treasury for anti-money laundering purposes. This makes them personally responsible if something goes wrong. It shows.

> What would an ideal way forward be for Uber?

How about firing sexual harassers? And any HR staff that systematically lied to cover it up. And the people who gave them those orders. And not taking forever to do it.

Simply firing people that have committed a certain offense may not fix the underlying problem—only treat the symptom. But I agree that sexual harassers should be separated from the company.

I'm not saying that's all they should do but, fundamentally, all the policies, training, press releases, investigations, CEO statements, etc. are secondary to the core test of whether bad behavior is encouraged, ignored, tolerated, slapped on the wrist or punished severely.

Not just that: cancel any stock options or other perks they have too.

New leadership is one option. Depends if investors feel a change would improve things or not

I think this open letter gives a very clear recommendation; have a truly independent investigation that leads to recommendations for change.

There's a grand tradition of founders being fired/resigning once their companies grew up, in order for the companies to grow up more. Kalanick's resignation is likely the ideal way forward for Uber as a company; it will be very difficult for him to solve this problem as it's tainted his reputation.

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

Usually these are handled with a shake-up at the top, and other involved people being let go.