Yeah, the driver was the one yelling and jabbing his finger at Kalanick. He obviously did not want to have a constructive dialogue, so Kalanick left. Seems reasonable enough to me.

I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because Kalanick is an asshole.

That being said, Kalanick has acted like an asshole in the past, but this is not one of those times.

Yes, it is. Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not taking responsibility for their own shit".

What the video shows isn't wrong on the level of the Fowler post. It just shows Kalanick as petty and deeply unserious about his role, which is an alarming look for someone whose company is embroiled in scandals about mismanagement.

Kalanick kept arguing that he didn't cut prices on Uber Black. That may be technically true, but overlooks nuance (probably intentionally). This is childish (and unclassy) because Kalanick is prioritizing winning an argument on technical merits over actually understanding the problems of his earliest adopters and closest partners, who have made big investments in his business.

https://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-par...

This. I think it says something about the overall decline in the level of discourse that the acceptability of this kind of behavior by a CEO engaging with an employee, vendor, or otherwise is even arguable.

That's not accurate either. Uber has maintained from the start that their driver's are independent contractors. You can make all sorts of verbal/casual agreements, but if "we will ensure you have X amount of work at Y rate for Z amount of time" is not written into your contract, you have no right to complain.

Uber or any other company are not responsible for any tools a contractor might buy in order to complete their work, unless explicitly stated in a written agreement.

I really hate this notion of "you have no right to complain." The only thing that your contract takes away from you is your right to pursue legal action on things that fall outside of its scope. If you have a contract and the company begins doing things that you believe are outside of the spirit of the agreement, you should absolutely complain. This driver is even maintaining the terms of his contract by continuing to drive.

The idea that you shouldn't be allowed to express your grievances because you work at the pleasure of your employer/company is toxic and regressive.

Again, not an employee; in fact, the standing here is almost the opposite; it's Kalanick who has most of the obligation in this relationship. (I think we agree about the rest of this).

I keep bringing this up because it's crucial to Uber's business model and something that has been repeatedly disputed. Uber badly wants its drivers not to be employees but instead partners. Kalanick can't get huffy when his business partners have grievances for him.

Absolutely. Every time I see it come up it's a knee-jerk defense of the party with most of the power.

> if [X] is not written into your contract, you have no right to complain.

Except that's not the way the law works, and there are cases where things in contracts are not enforced and things outside contracts are, because the law is all about how reasonable something is.

You have no right to sue. You certainly have a right to complain.

I've been in business for a long time. I've run into many vendors who didn't breach a contract or the law, but chose to do business in a way that impacted my business in a negative way. This has ranged from enterprise software vendors to janitorial services.

Ultimately, it hurt then in some way as we priced their bullshit into the next procurement cycle.

When a giant company pretends that some random afghani dude working as a contractor is a peer to any other vendor, that's either delusional thinking or a justification for bullying.

When The US referred to targeted assassination in Vietnam as "termination with prejudice", it didn't fool anyone.

That's not true in any way. Verbal contracts are harder to enforce, but enforceable they are. And if you say something that both parties agree on in good faith, you can't just back out of it!

That's not the ways things work, and it's not even how they are meant to work.

There's no such thing as a 'verbal contract'.

In the sense that all contracts are "verbal", sure. In the sense that oral contracts aren't enforceable, false.

"Verbal" as in the adjective, "expressed in spoken words". In essence a synonym for "oral contract".

I'm rather afraid there is.

Kalanick is telling his customer the driver to suck it up. Drivers will go to a different vendor like lyft who if they want to keep their customers (the drivers) they won't pull shit like this.

This isn't really responsive to my comment.

I think it also has to do with how Uber (and its competitors) changed the Black Car market. From my conversations with Black Car drives back in 2011, they were using Uber to fill in time between there more lucrative contracts. In that way, it was a win/win. As Uber (and its competitors) became more popular, the more valuable contracts have dried up.Uber changed the economics of the Black Car business. I submit that if Uber had not done it, Lyft and others would have. That doesn't make it easier for the drivers, though.

Travis surely realized he should have stopped once driver went ballistic at him with $97k. He should have just uttered: "Have a good day" or something neutral, stand up and leave. There is no win situation for a CEO arguing with angry people the same way as they do, even if he knows he is right. I believe that's what he meant by "fundamentally change and grow up".

I think the problem here is this: "even if he knows he is right." Considering all we've learned recently how the hell could you ever make Travis Kalanick consider that he might be wrong?

>I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because Kalanick is an asshole.

I'm curious how many people here agree with this sentiment, but blame the banks and mortgage brokers for people losing their homes during the last crash.

I think you need to look at the video as the last straw, not the primary cause for this apology. Kalanick has always acted remarkably immaturely for the CEO of a major company [1], and now Uber has dragged themselves into a total shitstorm with the recent sexual discrimination/abuse stories, and the Waymo/Otto IP theft debacle.

He's just trying to save some face for him and the company in the midst of a glut of PR disasters.

[1] https://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-m...

The driver took a risk, and went is possibly going into bankruptcy because of it. He did this based off of the pay structure which Uber offered him.

They changed that pay structure, and he got screwed, with little recourse. He had an opportunity to complain to the head of the organization which made that change and took it.

The CEO in this situation could have been more supportive, understanding and offered some recourse... even if it was just to email some HR or driver support person at Uber, that would have been a better response.

Instead the CEO felt attacked, kicked in his defensive mode, was flippant and dismissive of this persons struggles. Zero compassion or empathy, that's the problem here.

But what if for example, someone put all their money on Twitter stocks and then go bankrupt because of it? Is that Twitter's fault?

The driver took a big risk and expected a big reward, but that didn't work out, but it was his own decision. Personally I wouldn't buy a luxury car based on the promise of a startup, certainly not if I wasn't able to afford it to begin with.

That's why companies like Uber don't try to recruit people like you.

Most people have a very poor ability to assess and measure risk. These drivers see an opportunity to make money, and use that to get a loan to buy the car.

Everyone is losing here. The driver goes bankrupt, the metro area loses as Uber puts cabs and black cars out of business and takes business from public transit, and ultimately the investors since Uber tapes $10 bills to each ride.

Your example is not analogous to this situation. The driver is not an investor, he is a contractor/employee of the company.

As an employee at an At-Will business; I'm always potentially subject to being asked to take a lower salary, get fewer benefits.

Will I blame my employer for limited notice? Sure.

Does my employer have legal liability? Not in my state. Maybe for 2 weeks. If I hire the right lawyer, maybe until a "reasonable time to find a new job"

Ethical? Maybe, some.

Was Kalanick under the influence of something at the time?

If he was really a good professional CEO and leader, he would have asked for the guys number or given his, and had his EA follow up the next day to chat in the office. This just shows how lacking in experience and measure he is, you just shouldn't act like this, especially if you're the CEO of a company that employees many people who rely on you to make sure they can put their kids through school/food on table. Arguing your supply chain costs with a component of your supply chain in the back of a car isn't constructive.

Agree

I also don't get it. It can happen to anyone to lose their cool and it's not like he's insulted the driver or anything (in fact the driver is more aggressive). Also I'm not sure the driver should be video tapping his customers without their authorisation.

Maybe it's a way for Uber to divert attention from the recent scandals and allow the CEO to apologise for something that's actually quite minor compared to the rest.

It's not how you talk to people and, as the CEO, you have to take the high road.

He's at the helm of a mulit-billion dollar company. He should be expected to deal with partners with more respect and deftness. Not only is it a decency thing, but losing his cool so easily doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to manage real crises.

It's like he said himself, time to grow up.

I think your perspective is valid/reasonable for most of us. ...but as a CEO of any company I believe that it's necessary you to hold yourself to a MUCH higher standard. In that role you represent the interests of a lot of other people, you're entrusted with investor's money, your employee's livelihood and the welfare of their families/kids and in this situation your drivers/contractors and their livelihood and families. With so much at stake I think part of what you give up as CEO is the right to just speak your mind and have an argument like a normal person might. Right or wrong I think he needs to make sure if there is news about him or Uber that it's good news... that's a big part of the job of CEO and it's 24/7/365.

I don't want to 'stick up' for the CEO, as there's lot about uber I fundamentally dislike - especially the way they typify this 'race to the bottom' business model which seems to be becoming prevalent.

However, I really think for this incident he has nothing to apologise for.

As much issues I may have with actions of Uber as a company, and to an extent actions of Travis as its CEO, this video isn't really saying anything bad about him. He is running a business and doing what he thinks is right for it. He was trying to engage in a reasonable conversation. When the conversation became more emotional and blind blaming, he walked out in anger. Aren't people allowed be angered by what they believe are unreasonable accusations?

Poor guy, just added this to the list of negative things Uber is being called out on, and apologized.

Same. The conspiracy side of me wants to think that it was staged so he can apologize without having to touch the deeper issues surrounding uber now and thereby improving his image

The Uber driver(s) are all self-employed businessmen, with Uber and Lyft being apps that help them get business, taking care of things like payments etc. As a businessman, you take a risk, especially if making big investments like a $100K car. The 3rd party, in this case Uber, has no obligations to the businessman; if the driver wants more money, then stop relying on Uber or go to a better-paying competitor.

That's business. That's the American dream. That's the risk you take when starting your own business. Uber couldn't exist if it hired their drivers, so for Uber too it's a conscious decision.

He made a PR mistake. You don't drink and have fun like that in a crisis (or at least don't get caught doing it.)

Note: I'm not saying Uber's only mistake is PR. But it's a large part of what precipitates the unique reaction against them versus, say, Lyft. #DeleteUber? Came up because Uber cancelled surge at 7:36PM around a protest at JFK that was scheduled at 4:55 to last from 6 to 7PM. Lyft, meanwhile, earned more money and got a better reaction.

Similarly, in reaction to Fowler's account, instead of doing something substantive they hired an Uber Director, the head of the department implicated and an Uber lobbyist to conduct an "independent" investigation.

I'm sorry; this is not about PR, and not about getting caught. This is about the leaders of our most admired and successful companies being assholes who couldn't care less about anything but power and profit. And it's changing, right now; because we're reaching the point where people had enough of the bullshit.