There were at least two things wrong with the email, from my perspective as a guy who's been around plenty of benign bro culture.
1. Explicitly mentioning "sex" as opposed to "relationship" or "dating", and talking about it so casually, sets a very aggressive tone. 20-something guys with lots of hormones will definitely hear that tone and push hard for sex during the trip (the implication is that there will be lots of it, and nobody wants to be left out). Females reading this surely know that they'll receive lots of attention and advances during the trip, whether they want it or not – even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent, it's still uncomfortable for those who want to be professional and avoid work relationships.
2. "Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML." Implication there is that there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with. If you're a female subordinate of the CEO whom he speaks with somewhat flirtily, you can infer that he's thinking "FML, I wish I could sleep with her".
But the whole email right from the first word to the last was written in a jovial manner with plenty of jokes in it. So I dont feel it was that bad.
I can understand that Travis was trying to create a party atmosphere after all of them worked really hard to get to where they are. Imagine, if you and your colleagues worked day and night for years and then finally you reached a milestone -- you might want to celebrate and have some fun! I think Travis was just trying to setup the jovial atmosphere so that people do not just have a standard corporate event.
("Females" connotes reproductive capacity [1], which is seldom relevant, and is also applied to animals. "Women" are human beings.)
[1] http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/69157?redirectedFrom=female#ei...
FWIW, the main reason I used this phrasing was that I had already used the word "guys", but wanted to steer clear of the analogous word "girls". Using the word "women" seemed like I would be suggesting some sort of age/maturity dichotomy between "guys" and "women", and it seemed to me that "females" didn't have such a connotation.
Almost all bees are females.
Almost all of those lack reproductive capacity.
"Female", either as noun or an adjective, neither denotes nor connotes reproductive capacity, though it may connote reproductive role (though even then, only as an adjective modifying a species or some similar classification, because reproductive roles vary.)
It's use as a noun for a human is seen by some as divisive (compared to an adjective modifying "person") or dehumanizing (compared to "woman or girl"); OTOH, it is seen by others as less awkward than either of those constructions and more accurate when the intebt is not age-specific (thus, making neither "woman" nor "girl" alone appropriate) than any similarly-concise expression.
Sex is a natural human activity. People fuck all the time. People especially fuck at parties where there's alcohol involved.
> ... even if you assume that the guys will be asking for consent ...
Uh, what? The entire point was to ask for consent. I can't speak to your other hypothesizing about tone, or what 20-something guys might or might not do.
> ... there are many people on the team that the Travis wants to sleep with ...
Not sure where you're getting "many." Regardless, Travis probably wants to sleep with some of his employees, but he's leading by example and not pursuing. Again, I can't speak to your mental gymnastics as to what an employee might infer or not.
I can only read what's in the email.
Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
Given the setting (an alcohol-filled after-work work party), I fundamentally disagree.
> Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.
My comment didn't mention women, men, or anything in between, because, hey, men sometimes have sex with men! You'll notice that Travis' email didn't mention women either.
Since I love channeling my inner Scalia, I'm just going to say that, in general, you're doing yourself a disservice by not being a textualist. With that said, I'm not going to be baited into defending a straw man, many years of philosophy trained me well :)
You're being dismissive and aggressive to what purpose?
And your straw man is this: "Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture."
I have worked in tech for 30 years and have never seen anything even approaching the content of that email. It was completely unprofessional in every way.
But yeah, still gross.
No, no it's not.
> This is exactly how FB started out.
People keep comparing Uber to Facebook. "Facebook acted shitty, therefore acting shitty is part of the recipe for a successful startup."
It's not.
In fact, your comment is evidence of how destructive some of this unethical behavior can be: It can directly influence future founders and give them a pass on their own unethical and shitty behavior. "Facebook did it, so it must be okay." "Uber did it -- it's just part of how startups work."
But it's not.
I had been hearing horrible stories in private from former and current Uber engineers for several years before the first big press stories broke and personal blogs about Uber went viral. I wasn't surprised in the slightest that the press starting covering these Uber culture issues in a negative way, I was surprised that it took so long before they picked up the story and did.
Several engineers that I have talked to over the years had already been turning down Uber recruiters specifically because of Uber's culture problems, and I had already turned down their recruiters a few times as well as recommended to others to do the same. Their culture has been hurting the company for a long time, and its long past time for them to do something about it. If that means Kalanik needs to be ousted then they should just go ahead and do it now.
Is this sort of behavior what we'd like to condone? I mean you even admit that its business practices are sometimes exploitative and that's what? How we're supposed to do things? "Grey-area" is a pretty large understatement as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...
>There was literally nothing wrong with the email
4) Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic "YES! I will have sex with you" AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command. Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML
How do you not see the problem with this? Travis is a full-grown adult, he's not even some kid fresh out of college and this is the culture he's setting? We've already seen the results of this culture through Susan Fowler and others.
>Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
Well first it needs to run a profit...
>I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him
Travis is the worst vision of this sort of techno-utopian capitalism. He's a billionaire running a company which can't make a profit. A business which breaks the laws in almost every country it enters, which doesn't seek to even understand why the regulation it is breaking exists in the first place. He runs the company like a frat house. This company also has two viable paths to profit:
1) Become a monopoly and raise prices.
2) Automate his employees (drivers) away.
In a corporate environment there are no emails telling people not to throw a keg off a roof because it is already expected that you behave with a certain level of decorum. Travis sending an email worded that poorly tells us a lot about his thought processes and because it's directly from him to his workforce it specifically tells us how it is that he perceives the employees of Uber. Mainly that he's a "bro" and his employees are all "bros" too so go have a fun time and do whatever bro, just don't get me in trouble. That's a problem.
The basic problem is that, you go to work to work. If you go to a bar or a club or a party or a bookstore and someone there is coming on too strong, you can leave. It's nicer if the club or host or bar or bookstore makes them leave, but whatever, there are other bars, better bookstores. If you're at your job and a customer or a fellow employee is coming on too strong, and your employer doesn't do anything about it, you have the choice of "dealing with it" or "not having a job".
And people need a job; they're there so they can pay for rent and food and (if they're lucky) change the world for the better. Even if you work at an online matchmaking company, you're going to work to find dates for customers, not for yourself. Any finer discussion of the appropriate way or time or number of times to ask your coworker in accounting out is completely missing the point: your coworker in accounting shouldn't have to put up with any number of advances, no matter how mild, when they only show up at work each day to do accounting.
None of these things are even remotely true. Uber is treated the way it is because the Uber culture and ethos have been uniquely shitty among startup unicorns/tech giants. At this point, I grant you that it's become an overblown witch hunt, but this developed over the course of years. Travis had every opportunity to see the reputation they were building, and he didn't give a shit, so now this is what happens.
Everyone kept complaining that drivers were being paid nuts and what did Uber do? Started arbitraging between riders and drivers to get even more out of every ride.
Also, the parent says "successful startup [...] first decade." What is a valid definition of startup? Is Uber starting-up forever?
You either: Treat your employees well such that they will go to war for you because protecting your interests is as important as protecting themselves and their own interests.
OR
Be the unbendable, spotless and ruthlessly calculating leader raising a horde of mindless robots. You churn them out and turn them over as soon as they're used up, but there's no room for you to be a flawed human being.
Can't have the cake and eat it too. Know thyself, and choose your path.
Remember the the conclusion the Italian came to: Fear is more stable, become feared.
He facilitated a workplace culture that, whether my omission or commission, was toxic for some of the people who worked there. Even if that was 0.001% and he wasn't demonstrably trying to bring that number down, he failed. Being a CEO is not "just" about bringing in profits at any cost, including that of the welfare of the employees.
When something like this happens, it's because the story runs counter to the listener's / reader's deepest assumptions and the foundations of their Weltanschauung.
E.g., you're a deeply religious conservative, and you hear a story about a gay couple who are great parents, you block it out.
You're a Democrat and you hear about Hillary making millions from speeches to Wall Street tycoons, you block it out.
You're a MAGA type of person, and you hear anything negative about Trump, you block it out.
You bite hook, line and sinker into the whole free market thing, Ayn Rand for the win, and you hear anything bad about some entrepreneur who made a fortune, you block it out - you ain't got no time for that, cause you've got empires to build.
---
What we do not perceive says more about us than what we do perceive.
The e-mail by itself isn't the only problem. It's that it's just one line in a list of unethical, illegal or abusive behaviour that's as long as his arm.
Keep in mind - this is also the guy that stole money from the IRS (By funding his previous company with money he was supposed to withhold for employee income taxes... And by not charging taxi/sales taxes on Uber rides in many, many jurisdcitions), from drivers (By dramatically cutting their share of fares - after many of them were locked into long-term leases for their vehicles - leases sold to them by Uber), and who has blatantly lied to the public. (About Uber's background check policies, or the lack thereof. While having the audacity to charge riders a 'background check fee'.)
If running a successful startup requires being a completely terrible corporate citizen, then the valley needs to be burnt to the ground, before it drags the rest of us down with it.
I mean, I have the unreasonable expectation that my taxi drivers aren't rapists, or haven't had recent DUIs, that their insurance will cover them while they are on the job, and that the ADA will come down like a metric tonne of bricks on them if they refuse to pick up disabled passengers... But perhaps that's too much to ask from a radical world-changing inspired baller.
(As with the rest of the transportation industry, the regulations require all those things have been written in blood.)
Never mind that circumventing their background checks is also trivial - many drivers have gotten friends and relatives to create their accounts. This flies under the radar, because Uber doesn't care - they need more drivers.
They could, of course, calm these concerns by being transparent about their process (Or just doing the same that taxi companies do.) They don't, and they aren't, though.
[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
It's not like Uber is a rape fest touring the world in beat up lemons. In fact, I never even had an impolite conversation with the driver. It's just enforced with a different mechanism than background checks and inspections.
Frankly, I find the American paranoia behind running background checks on everyone much more bizarre than taking a ride in a stranger's car. And I highly doubt their effectiveness in a world where Reality Winner holds a (much harder to come by) security clearance.
Do we need to run a background check on the guy who may be driving around an intoxicated woman at 3 am in the morning? Yes, yes, and a million times, yes.
Maybe also check to make sure that he doesn't have a few DUIs to his name. Or, you know, a pattern of riders complaining about their driver being buzzed. They aren't even sticking to their own policy, there.
https://www.thefix.com/uber-faces-11-million-fine-over-drunk...
Why? Can you not think of any massively successful startups that didn't rely on exploitative grey-area business practices?
Microsoft Antitrust nightmare that probably set them back 5 years. Google for invading our privacy, they are still fighting big important battles in Europe. Facebook for similar privacy invasion, the whole beacon debacle.
There are a lot of things that they probably did wrong, but not to the extend that the press is picturing it.
Agreed 100% w/ dvt.
Edit: Dropbox, Craigslist, GitHub, PayPal, Instagram, Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter
Anyone feel free to jump in if I'm ignoring any exploitation or shadiness.
Bad examples: Spotify and Snapchat.
Github: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Departure_of_Tom_Presto...
Paypal: https://www.google.com/search?q=paypal+scandal&rlz=1C5CHFA_e...
Twitter: https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+harassment+problem&r...
Square: http://www.businessinsider.com/wsj-square-coo-resigned-after...
So your list has dwindled to just Dropbox and Instagram.
Github: The point I'm arguing against is the idea that startups have to use exploitative and legally questionably business practices to succeed. This Github thing sucks, but it doesn't really have anything to do with business practices, and obviously nobody is arguing that startup leaders have to to be sexist to succeed.
PayPal: That scandal looks like it's related to PayPal Credit, which they acquired a decade after PayPal was founded. Not an example of something startups have to do to succeed.
Twitter: This is somewhat debatable, but it's a reasonable point. Maybe Twitter wouldn't have succeeded if it tried to stamp out harassment early on.
Square: Similar to Github. This sucks, but it's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. It is possible and relatively common for a startup to find massive success without relying on exploitation and potentially illegal business practices.
So why is it that other businesses doing exactly the same thing Uber is doing are able to do it successfully without the legal and cultural issues?
I get some newsworthy things have happened there - but you'd expect that with such explosive/disruptive growth story
I know a lot of people who use Uber - they love the service - and it's become a verb - the online/media profile I see of the company has no resemblance to how everyone I interact with see it irl
That's what people don't like. The people who are most vocal don't like the "do anything it takes" approach.
Being ruthless doesn't mean sending an executive to another country to get medical records on someone who is filing a lawsuit.
It doesn't mean having an HR department that ignores sexual harassment
If you cannot separate the two then that's a very big problem
There are good examples here and bad ones. We've seen a few bad ones where startup founders do crazy stuff and end up in prison (and a few I suspect will be headed that way.) Whatever Uber did right and wrong, make sure you learn the correct lessons and not the wrong ones.
Cool story, bro.
Well those are the ones that were actually fired.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/uber-h...
Seemingly:
215 issues investigated
100 dismissed
57 still under investigation
31 in counseling or training
7 reprimanded in writing
more than 20 fired
215/12000 is near to 2%, such a number of "cases", even if half of them are dismissed should trigger each and every possible alarm.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for Uber or sexual harassment or any nonsense like that.
I (seriously) just want to know if you're advocating for giving every company with a > 0.0% harassment rate the Uber treatment.
A lot of the hate towards Uber in these threads seems to be about the number of allegations, not that they were swept under the rug (in my opinion at least–I don't read HN religiously).
That, I think, leads us to where we are right now: a comment thread that's basically about "what's the minimum number of sexual harassments can occur before a company has a 'problem'?"
I'm not trying to pick on you, so I apologize if I come across that way.
If you have a large number of harassment incidents, it's completely relevant to question if there is a culture problem in the company (a problem which was denied outright by the parent commenter), and IMO this is what HN seems to be doing. Especially when you have accounts of Uber having a "frat" culture trickling down from the CEO and some senior executives condoning (this is probably too strong a word) such behavior.
My point is Uber isn't being treated unfairly by any means.
Imagine if your local PD reported that they only ignored .01% of 911 calls. Would you find that acceptable?
Maybe if it went all the way to the top, and Travis Kalanick himself stood down for a while, maybe then you'd ease off?
Twenty were _fired_ for sexual harassment issues.
Given what we know of Uber's internal culture, my money says that many, many more were counseled, reprimanded or whatever than just those twenty.
There's now a new anonymous hotline where employees can report harassment, so presumably any new reported cases will be investigated by the law firm that was hired for this.
20/12000 = 0.001666...
20/12000 ≠ "0.001%"
So far.
It's not the count of disciplinary actions of any sort, not even the count of cases that were investigated, and certainly not the count of incidents, full stop.
[1] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
"A famous man once paraphrased, 'We create our own role models.'" -- Tony Stank
Looks like it offended a bunch of regressive men and women.
There mere fact that you compare him to Hitler, even as a joke, makes his point about how ridiculous your views are.
If anything, compare him to Gates.
So many powerful people in past have had it easy for their less than perfect behavior.
But this is exactly how you're supposed to run a massively successful startup in its first decade. This is exactly how FB started out. And this follows every rule in the startup book to a tee. Look, we can't have it both ways, guys. The recent stuff about Travis has been downright witch-hunty. I mean, every single article about the "leaked" memo was headlined as "You can have sex with your coworkers -- if..." I mean, come on.
There was literally nothing wrong with the email, but every single paper covered it in some weird passive-aggressive way. Same with the previous story where TK gets in the altercation with the Uber driver on video. Travis was (yet again) 100% in the right there, but everyone spun it like he was being some kind of asshole, when the driver blindsided him.
To be honest, I'm no Travis Kalanik fanboy (in spite of sharing the same alma mater), but the guy obviously knows what he's doing. He found, by accident or not, a market desperately in need of disruption and absolutely nailed it. Uber is a cultural phenomenon that arguably has more longevity than something like Facebook.
I just think he's been treated unfairly because of his playboy flair, but he's actually a pretty smart, ruthless business leader. Even this story tries hard to dehumanize him (cut him some slack; his mom just passed away). I don't really understand why.