[0] Travis calls Uber "Boob-er" because it helps him (and other execs) pick up women
[1] Sexual Harassment + Heavy drug use at the global all-hands
[2] Company group, including CEO, visits escort bar in Seoul
[3] More "survivor" stories
-------------------------------------------------
[0] http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...
[2] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/uber-employees-visit-karaoke-...
[3] https://medium.com/@amyvertino/my-name-is-not-amy-i-am-an-ub...
As another point of evidence, they just fired 20 people for sexual harassment to address 215 separate claims before the separate outside report into the amount of sexual harassment in their company. Maybe they don't deserve your skepticism.
In the very next sentence you offer one such evidence, and then go on to discredit it with you can't just extrapolate.
Right. Because in the first case we're talking about a systemic problem applying to a global company of 12,000 possibly spanning all levels of management as well as its polices and mandates. In the second case we're talking about a person's singular experience - which I've never disputed. The former is a much stronger statement than the latter so you cannot use the latter to prove the former.
Uber's problems with work culture and hostility to women has been an open secret for years. I remember hearing rumors about it since 2014 at least.
None of the recent allegations are surprising to anybody at all who has been aware of what it is like to work there.
Can you explain why you feel that 20 people being fired as a result of a company-wide investigation into to sexual harassment doesn't constitute evidence of a problem?
What are you suggesting by this, that there is an acceptable margin for unacceptable behavior?
>We don't know the context, the exact infraction, and how it was dealt with initially."
We do know the context, the context was an investigation into sexual harassment conducted by an outside law firm.
We know that 31 people are in counseling/training and another 7 were given warning as a result of the investigation. So by comparison the incidents with these 20 were determined to be serious enough that they warranted termination instead of counseling or a warning.
>I can't even tell if that rate is high, average or low when compared with any other company of similar size who would create a special sexual-harassment probe to investigate itself."
I think the fact that 58 people (20 + 31 + 7) needing to be addressed retroactively instead of proactively at the time of the complaint is a pretty good indication there might be a large problem.
.17% is not a huge number.
And in IR 20 serious cases warenting firing Is a lot (I do have hears of dealing with serious cases) I would expect given 20 firings there will be a lot more who are allowed to leave with compromise agreements.
Is there? I've seen people claim this but I haven't seen any evidence for it. I know Susan Fowler's account is used frequently as basis for that statement and though I don't doubt her sincerity and truthfulness, you can't just extrapolate her experience to the entire (global) company.