I think this is a morally bankrupt and deeply prejudicial way to evaluate potential hires.

It's prejudicial and morally bankrupt to avoid people who are happy to work for a company which breaks the law in prejudicial ways?

That's not how basic logic and common sense work.

You're assuming a freedom of movement between employers that I think is a little bold, and you're coming across as a little flippant of someone's personal situation. I think that's odd and a little demeaning. Plenty of other companies have been sanctioned in the past for wrong-doing, and I think it's somewhat silly to write-off anyone who worked there after the sanctions. "Basic logic and common sense" would lead one to evaluate a candidate based on their individual skills, experiences, and situations - not on an assumption about their character based on where they worked in the past.

I'm being flippant regarding people's flippant dismissal of the pervasive culture of discrimination in their own company? No. No I am not. This is a serious matter. The only thing unserious is the insistence of some that being asked to leave an immoral job is demeaning.

Do you actually think that, just by nature of working there, everyone condones sexual harassment? That's a pretty far-reaching assumption about individual agency. The reality is that it's unserious, and frankly immature, to declare that all those who work at Uber after some arbitrary date are undesirables lacking in basic morality. I won't do that, but you're free to engage in those kinds of preconceptions.

Cheers.

Surely you'd also agree that it's better not to quit if quitting means losing your house?

I'd like to see you explain your 'No Interview for Uber Alumni' policy to your boss when you pass over a perfectly qualified candidate purely because you hold a grudge against their ex-employer.

Quitting doesn't mean losing your house. You are being silly.

If it gets to the point where I blacklist Uber employees, not only will my boss know it, but I'll probably show him the resume so we can have a laugh. We have company policies about discrimination and would never take a risk on someone who was okay with working at a company that clearly does discriminate.

> Quitting doesn't mean losing your house. You are being silly.

Excuse me? I spent the first 4 years of my working life doing debt negotiation with banks and other creditors on behalf of people on the verge of bankruptcy. It was my responsibility to negotiated and broker payment arrangements, debt consolidation, and financial plans for probably thousands of people over those years so I've got a pretty bloody good idea of what I'm talking about here.

Suddenly losing all of your income can 100% result in losing your house. To assume otherwise just shows how little you know outside of your own little white collar bubble.

If you work for Uber and can't find a new job in this market, you either aren't trying or aren't qualified.

We aren't talking about hypothetical people on the verge of bankruptcy here who we have constructed from first principles. We're talking about people who have somehow managed to buy a house within commute range of Uber SF. If quitting means losing the house, they've done something very very wrong.

So you think;

1. Everyone at Uber is amazingly qualified and sought after (but you won't hire them of course) 2. Everyone at Uber works in San Fran (my local Uber office must be a scam then!) 3. No one at Uber has any financial issues (company sponsored financial advice maybe?)

Tell me, if an Uber driver spends $97k on a car, and then goes bankrupt, is that his fault or Uber's?

Well, Uber has been encouraging drivers to take out essentially subprime leases on cars through Uber, systematically misleading them about their earning potential (for which they settled with the FTC), and repeatedly changing the payment and incentive structure for drivers. Uber could offer a clear, consistent value proposition and advise drivers on how to make good financial decisions, such as taking the depreciation of their vehicles into account. As far as I'm aware they are taking no steps to look out for the best interests of their drivers. I see comparatively little public benefit in putting a random driver's poor economic decision under the microscope, as opposed to tackling the systemic exploitative behavior of a company that seeks to be the logistics and transportation backbone of the entire world.

There's a lot of shitty jobs available and a few good ones. People don't work for companies they work for managers.

If the employer says "Irish Need Not Apply"[1] and you take a job there because you are hungry, then you are desperate. If you take a job there because you have a nicer manager than you might have elsewhere, you have no morals.

Sometimes in life you are handed an actual moral decision. Choose wisely.

Like I said, if you are employed there and want to see if management will turn it around, that's fine. But eventually if the policy remains "Women Need Not Apply," you either leave or risk never being hired by a grown up again.

[1] Or in this case, Women

You're missing the irony here.