Seems to have gotten flagged off the front page fairly quickly.
(Actually a lot of stuff seems to do that lately - I find myself doing a daily check of the second page, just to see which big stories got flagged down before I saw them.)
It's almost as if many of Uber's problems stem from mistreatment of lower-level employees.. not only on the corporate side, but also by customers against drivers.
The problem for Travis is now everyone will still believe this is just a reaction to getting bad press, because historically, they have just done that :)
Nothing like a mea culpa dragged from you by the threat of impending lawsuits and a truly vicious turn of public opinion. I'm sure that he's utterly sincere, and this is in no way just an empty reaction to external and internal pressures.
It's not really "taking responsibility" when it's virtually at gunpoint. Getting caught and subsequent flailing is not the same as "taking responsibility".
Even if there's a gun to your head you can still deny guilt.
Taking responsibility is simple. You just say you did something wrong and intend to seek help. Yet, so few people do this, because it is so hard to get those words out. That's exactly what this CEO did.
If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, I'd argue you will only end up surrounding yourself with liars. Everyone makes mistakes.
Do you think that's because he has experienced a genuine change of heart and intends on doing all in his power to repair at least some of his myriad grievous failures in the exercise of his responsibilities?
Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that you're trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where there's any meaningful doubt left. Either he knows what's been happening on his watch, and he's so negligent in the discharge of his responsibilities that he's failed to avert a catastrophe - or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later. You seem to see some kind of tertium quid here, and I'd be delighted to hear you expand on that.
> Do you think that's because he has experienced a genuine change of heart and intends on doing all in his power to repair at least some of his myriad grievous failures in the exercise of his responsibilities?
I think that's impossible for anyone to judge but himself.
He said he's going to seek help. That's (a) admission he did something wrong and (b) a proactive attempt to do something about it. That is precisely the style of leader who has been missing in the tech world, and politics, in my opinion.
If you don't see that then I can't change your mind. I just wonder what kind of perfect person you're dreaming of. Nobody is perfect. CEOs and politicians make mistakes. If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, you'll only end up surrounding yourself with liars.
At this point, I can only support his statement, because there's no better reaction I could imagine than the one he decided.
BTW in case anybody thinks I'm some kind of shill, I've been pretty critical of Uber in the past. I think what they did in Austin and in the airport taxi strikes were awful. This statement is different and an action I support.
> Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
He could have deflected. We've seen plenty of people deflect worse. "locker room talk", etc. He could've said this was a private conversation, feels his privacy was invaded, etc. He didn't deflect. He accepted responsibility. I don't know what to say if you can't see that he had that option.
> or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later
His statement is an admission of incompetence. I don't see how you read it any other way unless you intend to just believe he lies about everything. If you insist on calling him a liar then he may just fall back on that. I don't think that would be good for Uber or the health of tech.
Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
If the local school bus driver turns out to be hooked on meth, and tearfully apologizes, says they're going to get help and get their life together, and means it... but won't stop driving the bus...
...would you feel the same way?
Support them getting help, respect that we're all human and frail and subject to fall, but don't let them keep their fucking job.
> Support them getting help, respect that we're all human and frail and subject to fall, but don't let them keep their fucking job.
Yup I agree. It'd be up to the board whether he remains as CEO or not.
I find his statement interesting and worthy of support because I've never had a boss who would admit when he made a major mistake, much less say he's seeking help for it.
I think the chances of Uber improving with a new CEO are small. It'll just be someone from the same culture. If Travis really intends to seek outside help then that may do something to change the culture there. I don't see any benefit from calling for Travis' head. It's not something you or I have much influence over.
Jim Collins' Good to Great convinced me that leadership consultants actually work.
I pretty much covered that when I said that option A was what he did, and option B was anything else. Deflecting would be "anything else". It would have had the result I described.
Instead, by tossing off a couple short paragraphs of apparent and frankly rather self-congratulatory contrition, Kalanick's PR staff has managed to actually pick up a little credibility with, among others, you. That's an impressive accomplishment on their part, and it says a lot about your own lack of cynicism. I hope that doesn't end up screwing you over, because Silicon Valley, as anywhere else in the US that's rife with any kind of politics, can be cruel as hell to people who believe a lot of what they read.
> Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
I don't live in SV because I didn't want to be in a bubble. I made that choice 15 years ago.
You seem to have it all figured out, including how Uber has brainwashed me and how the only imaginable scenarios are the ones you've written.
> Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
Would I stay if I were the guy? Probably not. As a 3rd party, I'd certainly support the woman's admission of guilt and her effort to get help.
What kind of society would we be if we did not have services to support people who sought help?
Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs, you're going to end up with better liars.
Well, again, I did define option A as this and option B as everything else. That wasn't by accident.
You're doing the same thing, too, but on the sly. Don't think I didn't see you palm the card:
> Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize Kalanick as merely less than perfect? Not that you're wrong in so doing, exactly, but it does seem to take the principle of charity to a pathological extreme. You might have a point here, if we weren't discussing someone who has such a long record, both personally and on the collective part of the company for which he is ultimately responsible, of bad behavior. But we are.
> Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize Kalanick as merely less than perfect?
Not really, no. I doubt he is the worst CEO. The scandals you're referring to are all one-sided and haven't yet come before an arbiter. I think Uber is unpopular among their drivers and customers, and that's a pretty big problem, but, the CEO hasn't been convicted of anything.
In 2005, a video of this nature would have had to show a CEO striking the driver in order to get a public outcry. In 2017, one says "bullshit" to an employee and everyone freaks out. The pitchfork party is a bit over the top, in my opinion, and not productive.
The level of help he needs is beyond what he can get while serving as the CEO of Uber, and won't happen fast enough to matter to Uber's practices and culture. I support his desire to get help, after he's stepped down as CEO.
You don't have to be all that suspicious a person to think that a 40 year old man, who has demonstrated a repeated pattern of behavior over his life, in a situation where his job is on the line and a crisis manager is writing letters like this, should probably be assigned a prior greater than 0.95 of, well, lying.
> has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else
You know, a year ago I would have nodded along to your reply. But after seeing Trump choose B every time and repeatedly get away with it, I have to give Travis at least a modicum of credit for not going full Trump on this one. Not a lot of credit, but the decision was his.
Speaking of Trump, Jon Stewart pointed out something interesting recently - it's clear he's always lying, because no-one says 'believe me' when they're not lying. And Trump says it all the time.
I'm Australian, and after hearing Stewart say that, I thought back on my own experiences. The only time I can recall it being used in a somewhat truthful manner is in an angry parental warning "Believe me, you're going to suffer if you continue that way" - some sort of threat that the person in question can carry out. Every other time, it's been bluster with no substance.
I mean seriously, if you throw out the question "Okay, who dropped the production database?" and one of the staff said "It wasn't me. Believe me!", that's kind of instant suspicion right there. It's a really weird thing to say in the contexts that Trump says it in.
I certainly do not intend to take Travis' side on anything, but sometimes genuine internal realizations are set off by external events (e.g. Spiderman and his Uncle getting shot, or in more seriousness, any number of reformed ex-cons). The problem is that it is largely impossible for an external observer to differentiate genuine internal realization and competency at public relations.
> ...it is largely impossible for an external observer to differentiate...
Not impossible at all. You do it by observing behavior before and after the supposed epiphany; time will reveal whether this particular leopard has truly managed to change his shorts.
It'll be interesting, in particular, to observe how he reacts when people directly challenge his fitness to discharge his role in ways he can't or won't ignore. I gather that in the past he's tended to react to such challenges precipitously and, where possible, punitively. If he's genuinely gained a new perspective on his behavior and its consequences, I would not expect that to continue.
Very fair. I meant to say that it is hard to tell in this moment, and agree with your assessment that behavior change over a future time interval (presumably with longer intervals resulting in better confidence) is a good test.
The good news is that determining the truth of "internal realizations" is entirely irrelevant. Look at what people do, what they have done, not what they say.
On that account, Uber and Kalanick's track record is quite clear. We've gone through this apology ruse any number of times, and yet here we are again.
> We've gone through this apology ruse any number of times, and yet here we are again.
Not to this degree. He said he intends to get help. Companies don't change their culture without the CEO being involved in the process. A CEO saying this is a big deal.
I'm sorry, but its not. A "big deal" would have been not engaging in subprime lending that most likely put the driver in this desperate position, where he's recording the CEO in some last ditch effort to get the broader community to acknowledge his humanity. Or any of the other myriad atrocious things they've done to their customers and employees.
This is up against the wall PR BS. But the fact that people believe it explains a lot about how we got where we are with Uber.
> This is up against the wall PR BS. But the fact that people believe it explains a lot about how we got where we are with Uber.
Interesting. I'd say your unwillingness to accept someone who says they want help is what led us to having liars as CEOs. You want someone perfect, but, nobody is perfect.
This false binary you're pushing between Kalanick and perfect just doesn't hold water. There are plenty of CEOs whose values and track record I strongly disagree with, but don't hold in the same disregard(e.g. Zuckerberg).
When you're willing to send thugs to intimidate women who leak details about the prevalence of sexual assault at your company, it takes more than a blog post to climb back to credibility.
New companies don't develop a culture without the founder being a major influencer.
The idea that he has just now realized what was going on at "Boober" and is shocked, shocked! to learn about it and that it was bad, strains credulity well past the point of breaking.
This is him trying to say whatever he thinks will take the heat off for a while. Prediction: a year from now no substantive change whatsoever within Uber.
He doesn't sound shocked to me. The brevity of this post makes him sound pensive, like, oh my god, this is what I am, what have I done and how do I fix it?
You can't write much about that beyond what he did.
I'll make a counter prediction, that something does change. Nothing good comes from wishing for their failure.
Unfortunately, I don't think any sort of epiphany will undo the damage that has been done.
Looking beyond the employees at Uber who have had to suffer through a toxic culture, I am troubled by the fact that the largest private company in the world has done some shady shit[1], and has largely been allowed to get away with it. I shudder to think of the founders out there who are thinking "Maybe it isn't so bad to be a dick. It seems to be a key component of Travis' success!".
I'm pretty cynical but the language here seems more genuine than what you see in most crisis management firm written non-apology apologies. It's an actual apology for one.
Who cares? He's not a naughty boy who "done wrong", he's a negligent CEO who didn't give a fuck until someone lit his entire world ablaze. Now he's "genuine".
>Kamel: “But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.”
>Kalanick: “Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?”
>Kamel: “You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.”
> In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute.
That's a good data point, but not perfect, since the amount Uber charges customers isn't necessarily directly correlated with the amount they pay drivers...
They do. However I believe compensation to drivers is more complicated because of what are essentially marketing costs in the form of subsidized rides. A year or so ago before Uber left Austin a driver told me one weekend that Uber guaranteed him something like $400 to drive for the weekend so long as he picked up 30 fares (I'm fudging the numbers a bit here because I cant remember). Based on promotions being run for customers and increased rates Uber was definitely going to have to come out of their own pocket to meet that guarantee.
Back when UberX was pushing in my city, I was lured to drive for Uber since I was a Lyft driver: They offered me $1000 signing bonus, $1000 to my referrer; then $40/hr for 50 hours for three weeks. I went to a starbucks in the most distant part of the coverage area and worked on the paperwork for my nonprofit and various coding side projects... Between that and various promotions, Uber spent about $6000 cash on me that year (based on my 1099-G) and based on my 1099, they made about $2500 on me on fares.
The driver noted the mile price change in the video (although he may have been off with the figure). People posting 'transcripts' here seem to have conveniently left that out.
> That's bold. I can't remember hearing any recent CEO saying this.
It sounds more like the kind of apology one would make after getting caught diddling children and blaming it on an addiction to snorting horse tranquilizer.
As lovely as it must be to be the target of the tech world's ire, I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. I imagine he's feeling some pressure. He may be alpha, but he is still just one human.
If I could somehow wake up in his shoes tomorrow, I think I would.
The gullible public will be all over this one by next month.
Even then, I wouldn't be the first rich person to have the masses standing outside my estate carrying pitchforks, it's a real first world (0.001%) problem.
If anything, I'm impressed he handled it that well - I for one probably wouldn't have, and I suspect a lot of the angry mob wouldn't either. He's a billionaire, for what it's worth, and he actually sat down to try to explain things to a Uber drive, on his night out.
So what, he yells "b*llshit at the end? Or tells the guy to take responsibility? The driver obviously had a bone to pick, and he's ranting.
If social media wants his head, I'm sure they can get it.
I think it's bad for tech and the country when we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help. If you do that, you only end up with really good liars in charge.
Allow someone, somewhere, to admit a mistake and correct it in a leadership position.
> we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help.
> you only end up with really good liars in charge.
There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.
In this case, at a cursory glance, it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven. If that's what's happened in this case, then I'm not sure that forgiving them / supporting their subsequent activities is safe since it would be more like enablement, ie: just enabling the person to continue.
If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
> There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.
I agree there's a difference, I just don't see the value in calling for his head. There's nothing else to expect of him. He clearly wants to stay and keep trying. It's the board's job to decide if he's fit to remain as CEO.
> it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven
I don't see him expecting anything more from anyone but himself. You may infer that, but it's not written there.
I think his message is simple. He wants to remain as CEO and is willing to take steps to improve his leadership style to do so. You may feel those are empty words. To me, they're meaningful because I've read stories of companies that have been transformed by CEOs who become aware how their faults effect the company. It's possible he is not being sincere, but, I don't see much value in wishing for his demise. An in-company replacement would likely keep the same culture going, and an outside replacement isn't reliable in the tech world. As John Sculley showed, that's risky.
> If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
Given the shortness of this apology, I'd guess he isn't quite sure what his other faults are, and is seeking help to identify them.
We need clear and concrete proof that the myriad issues at Uber will be addressed, and a vague, handwavey "I'll do better" is not that.
He could have announced an advisory team being brought on board to help steer the company back on track, or a cleaning house of managers with abusive track records, or drastic new internal guidelines with harsh penalties for bullshit sexist/racist/intolerant behaviour.
Uber has just such an awful track record and is just so untrustworthy, why should we start trusting them when they've given us no actual reason to?
> He could have announced an advisory team being brought on board to help steer the company back on track, or a cleaning house of managers with abusive track records, or drastic new internal guidelines with harsh penalties for bullshit sexist/racist/intolerant behaviour.
It's been like 12 hours since the video came out, and only a couple since the CEO publicly admitted he needs leadership help... I'm not sure he's had time to seek an advisory team
I'd give them a week. I bet there will be more news from Uber.
We're saying this because of the hearsay but increasingly well-documented track record since the beginning of the company of a racist and sexist work environment, directly attributable to and encouraged by Travis Kalanick.
I'm not one to hop on the politically correct train at the first opportunity, but there's "Coworkers making borderline comments to each other" and then there's "My manager propositions me for sex, and HR lies to me, threatens my reviews, and encourages me to be silent about it because they've been told to do so by management."
So yes, he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the video.
But no, he in-no-fucking-way deserves leniency for fucking up people's lives by abrogating his responsibilities as CEO previous to that. And then the video.
You think Uber's sexual harassment problems are unique? (If only!) I can't think of a time in recent memory that a founder was removed for something like this. He'll certainly need "leadership help" to reign-in the madness that's been described, but it seems more likely that will take a Sheryl Sandberg-esque form. (An awesome new 2nd-in-command with real leadership experience and chops.)
In that scenario, he could still deflect. He could have refused, denying to himself and others that he ever made any mistake. He could've retired rich.
I think it's likely someone recommended he get help, either today or sometime earlier. That he agrees to do so now is notable.
Was there any word on whether Travis banned the driver after that encounter? I heard from employees that, in the early days, he had to be pried away from Twitter due to a propensity for perma-banning those who harshly criticized the company.
The driver covertly filmed a passenger during a ride he was being paid for and disclosed the footage to a news organisation. This is extremely unethical IMO. Even if this is the CEO of Uber, it is entirely inappropriate, and he IMO is still entitled to an expectation of privacy equally as you or I would when we are paying for the exclusive private hire of a vehicle.
So, welcome to the world, where there's a reason why the phrase "public figure" contains the word public. I tend to agree that, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be that way. But this is hardly an ideal world, and I'm kind of frightened that someone confused on this point should be building a read/write API on bank accounts.
Is it really that? I don't believe I'm indicting his qualities as a person; certainly that's not my intent. But if Teller takes off, he's going to have, to a first approximation, the entire world gunning for him - because whoever suborns him or his company has a reasonable chance of getting rich, or at least a solid payday, out of it. That's not a tremendously safe place to be uncynical.
I'm not defending Kalanick's behavior, although I do think it is regretful he ended the interaction in the way he did. Public figure or not I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to completely waive their expectation of privacy. There are right and wrong ways to pursue a grievance, IMO this was not the right way and two wrongs do not make a right.
The interaction with the driver, that's fine to film. The long section before their conversation, watching that made me feel uncomfortable, like a voyeur. I suppose that's what makes me cringe when watching "reality TV".
Every taxicab I have been in for the last few years has had internal video cameras. Where are you getting the idea that someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's vehicle, for hire or not? In general in America, this expectation extends no further than one's home.
I live in the UK and the place is covered by CCTV including private hire vehicles, but we also have the Data Protection Act, which makes this kind of thing illegal. I know if I am being filmed in a taxi because there must a notice prominently displayed, and I also know that the only way this footage will ever be used, is if I attack the driver and it is used as criminal evidence against me, or if make a complaint about a driver and he uses it to bolster his case with Transport for London.
What are you talking about? Every uber car has a camera in it in case of disputes or insurance, which are common. There is no expectation of privacy in a car with clear windows and a stranger sitting in front of you.
Being the driver of a passenger car for hire is one of the more dangerous occupations. I would expect that every last one of them would have a forward-facing dash-cam, an inside camera that covered the entire passenger seating area, and possibly also cameras covering the external approaches to the vehicle doors.
The driver or cab company owns the car, and they have the same right to film the customers for the safety of the driver as a convenience store does to promote the safety of its clerks and cashiers.
You are correct that it is unethical to release that footage in most circumstances, without it being evidence of a crime, but the CEO of a company like Uber might be considered a public figure, and if you want other people to be ethical in their dealings with you, you must also be ethical in your dealings with them. I think we never would have seen this video if the driver didn't think that Uber's top-level management pulled a bait-and-switch on him with respect to the recruiting promises versus the actual income. If you act like an ass, you shouldn't expect discretion from anyone.
Were this an ordinary passenger that engaged in a mildly argumentative conversation with the driver, yes, that would be very unethical to post the video without explicit two-party consent. But for the guy that technically signs your paychecks and controls whether you get fares or not and how much you get for them, having a conversation about the business? I'd say that's fair game.
There was a #DeleteUber campaign going on well before this became public, and the reasons for that come from the company's management culture. If he's going to apologize for anything, he still has a lot more to answer for.
It strikes me as a mistake to apologise for something that you shouldn't apologise for.
I thought the video was humanising, and if anything, he remained cool in the face of threatening behaviour. Apologising just legitimses the critics, who'll remain critical regardless.
For me the video humanizes Uber drivers - the people who have the most to lose when Uber brass damage the company through scandal and mismanagement. The fact that Kalanick dismisses the driver's opinions on what might be good for the company reveals the fragility of his ego. If he'd listen to the opinions of the people who actual make Uber work, he might learn a lot.
Kalanick is also a leader in many communities: in Silicon Valley, in the business community, in the U.S., and worldwide.
Many respond to such issues with more bluster, with defensiveness, with pressure on the weaker party (who then retracts their claims, blames themselves, forgives the powerful person, etc.), with claims that such behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately this behavior is now seen in world leaders.
I think his note is responsible and appropriate. It's good to see.
(I'm no Uber fan; I don't use them due to their treatment of their drivers, and their disrespect for and undermining of local legal authority.)
The problem with SV's propensity for turning twenty-somethings into CXOs is that they are fundamentally NOT mature. Studies have shown that our brains aren't fully mature until we're 25 but it seems to take a long time for the feeling of entitlement you garner before that age to wear off after you've reached the quarter-century mark.
I actually do hope he's sincere - I hope he's really going to get help - and I specifically hope that counseling leads him to eliminate the misogyny that we've all read about the last couple days. I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen. After all, how would it move the valuation forward? Unfortunately I think that the most likely scenario is that he'll become more of a detriment to the company and the investors will "ease him out".
Perhaps the experience of having one of his contractor-chumps call him out on his worker-hostile corporate policy changes while working will mature him a bit more.
The rest of us have to make do with mundane stuff like the births of our children, not making rent/mortgage on the first of the month, having our water/power/gas shut off, getting laid off, drinking too much tequila, catching a flat tire at 1 AM during a downpour, losing the championship match, putting our favorite dog or cat down, burying our parents, getting married, experiencing a perfect day miles from any stranger out in the wilderness, finishing the marathon run, getting stopped by the cops for a BS pretext reason, or writing a horrendously long run-on sentence.
I'm a bit unclear what is so negative about this. While there is an argument that a leader should be able to handle criticism without losing his/her temper, he appears to respond to the driver as an equal with whom he profoundly disagrees. He didn't write the man off or act as though he wasn't worth his time, he simply responded in a frustrated manner to an interaction that he clearly was not in the mood for.
For me, the issue is all of what he's done (or not done) leading up to this. The time for a fireside chat has long since passed, and it's only happening now because it's literally the least that can be done.
And you're talking to someone who works for you (though you bend over backwards to say they don't so you can avoid being responsible for them) and earns a tiny, tiny fraction of what you earn.
It is a truth; however here it is being misapplied I believe. Failure to accept responsibility for failings is a sign of neuroticism... Trump has it; so does Kalanick it would appear from these reports (and all others).
In reality it is necessary for growth (and for leadership) to accept responsibility for things. In medicine, every layer up the chain is responsible for the actions of those below; i have encountered many situations where a senior accepts and owns responsibility for a failing or mistake even though that mistake was performed by a junior doctor/nurse. Blame culture is toxic; ownership therapeutic as it leads to growth. In the situation you quote above, it is ironic.
Something that struck me is: almost half of the country would disagree with you (the more conservative half). A lot of the American public believes what Kalanick said to be very true when it comes to low-ish income people complaining about what wealthier people do to them.
Dunno if you're being /s or not but there are myriad serious answers, most of them pointing back to the elevation of predatory capitalism to an quasi-religious ideology, often intermixed with judaeo-christian symbolism and messaging.
In my experience, it isn't the wealthy who think the poor are lazy/irresponsible-- it's the working poor and the lower middle class. The "more conservative half" of the country isn't particularly the wealthier half of the country. Speculating as to why that is would probably overflow this comments section.
I know a lot of well off programmers who absolutely believe that the only reason anyone isn't a well off programmer is laziness and poor character. Don't know how you're making your class divisions, but I certainly wouldn't call them lower middle class or below.
Many lower-middle-class Americans look down on the poor because they see themselves on equal footing, and believe that "If I can work two jobs and make ends meet, so could s/he if s/he had the work ethic."
The most arrogant programmers I know seem to think the exact opposite: that they are among the elite few graced with the gift of true programming intuition. (Not true.) They don't think the poor are lazy, they think the poor are helpless and un-talented.
>Most people out there would rather blame someone else for their problems than take personal responsibility.
And why not? There are 8 billion people out there, and one of you. And tons of people who came before the person was even born and shaped the place one was born in, were responsible for their childhood, designed their education programs etc. And of course others are in power and shape policy.
Who is more likely to have created/sustain the situations affecting someone? Themselves or the tons of others?
...and the "other half" (as if there are only two perspectives) scapegoat just as handily: corporations, racist people, sexist people, homophobic people, Russian hackers, Fox News, the bourgeois, disloyal white women, people who "vote against their interests", patriotic people, spiritual people, uneducated people, cherry-picked structural injustice, and pretty much anything that doesn't support their preconceived notions of the world.
I'm frankly tired of people seeing problems and immediately outgrouping others, attaching blame, and spewing hate. This will continue to be a disease in our culture until people can learn to understand and disagree and live and let live.
For many progressives I know, those things are blamed indeed, but for society's problems, not their own. There's a real difference there, deriving from the difference in political philosophy. Broadly speaking, the left believes that if you address structural social issues, individuals will eventually have paths to succeed. The right believes that if everyone focuses on the problems they themselves experience, society will eventually improve. Either ethic can be applied in the extreme with disastrous results.
> ...those things are blamed indeed, but for society's problems, not their own.
That's a good point in some cases. But in many cases that doesn't hold. Meryl Streep outgrouped popular, middle American, and "lowbrow" culture(s) when ranting about how they impact on her job. Gay marriage and abortion views are certainly personal complaints as well as social ones. Distaste for spiritual people typically stems from a personal grudge more than a dry academic philosophy about the social impact of disagreements about metaphysical reality or something. How about bikes versus cars disputes in urban areas? Or disagreements about Bay Area rent?
I can come up with more examples. I think there's a "I'm just being the rational one here" type of cognitive dissonance from basically all perspectives. Even that attitude holds the seeds for outgrouping (those irrational people!).
So many (seemingly) intractable issues in contemporary life regress back to the question of personal responsibility.
It's a difficult thing to push back on, because even those of us most sympathetic a complex-systems based understanding of inequality don't want to completely give up on the value of personal responsibility, as to do so would be to tacitly give up the belief in free will. But if we grant that each individual does have some degree of agency and responsibility, then the libertarian side immediately points to any number of self made/rags to riches individuals and says "So? Stop complaining and do that!". But why can't they admit that it's an issue of degrees?
Sure, you have some agency in improving your situation, but if you're born less advantaged the systemic factors arrayed against you make it significantly harder to leverage your agency to improve your lot. Just because some lucky few do rise from rags to riches doesn't mean that a winner take most, predatory lottery system will create the best outcome for the most.
Is it a failure of human probabilistic intuition? Or is it a more malicious effort to control and frame the debate, pushed by those who benefit from the unequal system? Probably both.
It's absolutely a true statement, and it is absolutely and completely an inappropriate tone for the CEO of a company to take toward someone that just got fucked over by his company's changing policies, after his company pushed people into taking out loans they can't realistically afford.
It's like Taleb's stuff about skin in the game--Kalanick pushed the risk of his business model onto drivers like this one while keeping the upside for himself. When the driver got screwed by Kalanick's pricing changes, he comes back with technicalities and finally blames the guy for not taking responsibility. Talk about projection!
That's the reason why this is disrespectful to the driver. Kalanick minimizes his loss and refuses to take any responsibility for it himself, despite the fact that the only real mistake the driver made was trusting Uber.
Out of curiousity, what do you think could have caused the driver to go bankrupt? It sounds like he bought an expensive, UberBlack-eligible car, intending to pay for it with his fares, but the fares were reduced and now he can't make the payments. How common is that scenario amongst Uber drivers?
If Uber drivers are, in fact, independent contractors, then they have some responsibility to determine whether the business they're engaged in is a profitable one, and to judge the risk involved. It seems like it would be very easy to underestimate both the costs and the risk.
it's not just the fare reduction, it's also the loss in business as customers stopped using UberBlack in favor of UberX.
Having driven for Uber and Lyft for a year and a half (even during the "good years") - the rate of new hires was most definitely a major concern and there were definitely rocky times. I was lucky to be able to mitigate this by moving to San Francisco from San Diego. While in San Diego I saw my take go down from ~$1200/wk to something like $800/wk, then back up to $1200-1600/wk when I moved to SF, and then back down to about $800 by the time I finished.
Personally I approached it as an exercise in entrepreneurship, a deep study in the dynamics of real-time economics, and an opportunity to vastly improve my "people skills" in addition to making more money than a PhD postdoc in biochemistry... So a success in all fronts, personally, but also I knew when to quit.
Recognizing that you may not have been the prototypical Uber driver, I'm curious what kind of research/ evaluation (if any) you did before/ while driving for them re: the financial prospect. How much did you "take home" after gas, repairs, taxes, etc...? Did you have an estimate of that beforehand?
My suspicion is that many people who begin driving for Uber overestimate their net earnings and underestimate their deferred expenses e.g. vehicle depreciation and maintenance. If Uber knows this and is taking advantage (with new-driver bonuses, etc...), they're essentially a multi-level marketing company.
I didn't do a formal estimate beforehand. by feeling, I underestimated my net earnings. Take home was probably somewhere in the 50/yr range. Keep in mind that I didn't "buy a new car" - I drove with my own car that I'd had since 2010. The whole thing put on about 100k miles; but the car is still running more or less fine, a year and a half later.
If something's true, does it really matter if it insults someone?
Driver buys a $97k car, goes bankrupt because as it turns out buying a super expensive car that you obviously can't afford is a dumb idea, then decides to blame someone else for his poor decision making.
Uber could have remained a premium cab company with a fancy app, but everything start-up is rated on growth numbers, not profit, and definitely not on profit of drivers.
If not for abusing growth, it would have not raised funding and would have likely failed.
What business incentive would they have to be a black car app, if they can make more money by expanding into UberX? Not to mention, if they had remained a black car app, they might have gone out of business.
Uber is a business, not a charity. They exist to maximize profits. If you understand that point, then you see why your point is irrelevant.
Also, what the heck does it mean to "abuse growth"?
If I had to guess, abusing growth means taking advantage of the fact that a lot of investors use growth as a core metric in their decision-making process. Thus, Uber optimising for growth over any other "more reasonable" option, just to obtain funding.
Even if that's true, the CEO is the right person to make a complaint to. Or do you think the cab driver should get an economics degree and acquire a fine understanding of market forces?
I don't think it was unreasonable to consider a $97K car as a business expenditure was such a bad idea. Let's say you get a 5-year loan, liberally that's about $30k a year, which is more than covered by the cost and business that Uber (UberBlack) was generating at the time; Until of course the volume of UberBlack got eaten into by the presence of UberX on top of fare cuts.
Making the correct short-term business decision without fully understanding the long-term market forces in that domain, can still be a bad long-term decision.
It is the business owner's (investor's) responsibility to understand and plan for the long-term. Not planning for the long-term is exactly what happened here. I do not believe this man should have been disrespected, however, his decision to buy a car he could not afford, was his own and was objectively a bad decision.
Do you know the story of the grasshopper and the ants[0]? Regardless of who is controlling the weather (in our case, Uber). Its the grasshopper's fault for not storing food for the winter.
So you're saying making sound decisions regarding driving for Uber requires good economic skills, long-term planning capabilities aswell as insider information regarding Uber's policy ?
This sounds like an unrealistic expectation. One would argue Uber was either disloyal or disillusioned if they rely on such people to advance their business.
> Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.
The interesting part happens when you understand that it is impossible to make an educated decision to become a Uber driver without having a relation of trust between Uber and drivers (because otherwise you would need insider information about Uber's business innovations, to get fixed pricing agreement for a given duration, which Uber will never do, etc).
Then, you don't fault Uber for being "flexible to market forces", you may fault them for engaging in deceptive business, just like you would blame a multi level marketing scheme. And when you specifically look at Uber's strategy to mislead potential drivers, there's tons of telling stuff.
In that light, you can still blame the drivers for making bad decisions (discussing the reality of Homo œconomicus would drive us out of scope). But you must also fault Uber for maliciously luring their drivers in a scheme that is not sustainable for them.
We've seen Uber discussed here and not just in context of this incident, but much worse stuff. It would be interesting to see what comes of that...
But taken it on its own, this is what apologies should be like and not the "I am so very sorry you all feel this way" type apologies which then usually also proceed to shift blame (circumstances, others, acts of God, bad mood, etc).
Now whether he actually feels this way or not or this is just good PR I am not sure. It remains to be seen.
It's an expression. When I write something like, "My deepest condolences". I'm using a fairly standard expression. Same with, "My most heartfelt apology". Yes, the veracity of those statements will be judged in time, but it's still a common, and idiomatic, way to say things in English.
That was my take on it, too. There was nothing profound about this apology at all. On the contrary, it seems the very smallest and least controversial response he could have made.
No. The profound in "please accept my sorrow" is a comment on the depth of your sorrow, something that you are uniquely equipped to describe. "A profound apology follows:" is a comment on how I expect my reader to interpret this message, something I am not at all equipped to describe.
And the "profound" in "please accept my profound apology" can't likewise be a comment on the depth and sincerity of the apology, a trait the issuer is similarly uniquely equipped to describe?
Come on. I get all the backlash against Uber — the outrage they're experiencing is rightly deserved — but this is truly asinine.
That was the first thing that caught my attention. Travis' statement reeks of narcissism and grandiosity. The understatement is "extreme." "My job as your leader," -- it's an episode of Lost? The remedy is to behave in a way ..."that makes us all proud."
Of course, we elected a narcissistic and grandiose president, so there's nothing new here.
Strange! I was perplexed that the apology is followed by a multi-racial image of gym rats, but then saw it was part of a "featured article" on Uber delivered influenza vaccine from last year.
405 comments
[ 21.4 ms ] story [ 6367 ms ] threadDirect link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-...
(Actually a lot of stuff seems to do that lately - I find myself doing a daily check of the second page, just to see which big stories got flagged down before I saw them.)
Seriously.
Right?
He hasn't passed the buck and is taking responsibility for his actions, for once.
Taking responsibility is simple. You just say you did something wrong and intend to seek help. Yet, so few people do this, because it is so hard to get those words out. That's exactly what this CEO did.
If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, I'd argue you will only end up surrounding yourself with liars. Everyone makes mistakes.
Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that you're trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where there's any meaningful doubt left. Either he knows what's been happening on his watch, and he's so negligent in the discharge of his responsibilities that he's failed to avert a catastrophe - or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later. You seem to see some kind of tertium quid here, and I'd be delighted to hear you expand on that.
I think that's impossible for anyone to judge but himself.
He said he's going to seek help. That's (a) admission he did something wrong and (b) a proactive attempt to do something about it. That is precisely the style of leader who has been missing in the tech world, and politics, in my opinion.
If you don't see that then I can't change your mind. I just wonder what kind of perfect person you're dreaming of. Nobody is perfect. CEOs and politicians make mistakes. If you don't accept when people admit their mistakes, you'll only end up surrounding yourself with liars.
At this point, I can only support his statement, because there's no better reaction I could imagine than the one he decided.
BTW in case anybody thinks I'm some kind of shill, I've been pretty critical of Uber in the past. I think what they did in Austin and in the airport taxi strikes were awful. This statement is different and an action I support.
> Or do you think it's because, this time, he's actually in the video, and really has no options beyond a) try to seem sincerely humbled and intent on improving, or b) do literally anything else, and look like such an unbelievably transparent asshole that no one will ever again take even slightly seriously anything he or his company tries to say or do to defuse the ongoing PR shitstorm, to say nothing of actively worsening said shitstorm?
He could have deflected. We've seen plenty of people deflect worse. "locker room talk", etc. He could've said this was a private conversation, feels his privacy was invaded, etc. He didn't deflect. He accepted responsibility. I don't know what to say if you can't see that he had that option.
> or he doesn't know what's been happening on his watch, and he's so arrantly incompetent that he's failed to recognize the possibility that, left unchecked, behavior like that apparently endemic within Uber would guarantee a catastrophe sooner or later
His statement is an admission of incompetence. I don't see how you read it any other way unless you intend to just believe he lies about everything. If you insist on calling him a liar then he may just fall back on that. I don't think that would be good for Uber or the health of tech.
Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
...would you feel the same way?
Support them getting help, respect that we're all human and frail and subject to fall, but don't let them keep their fucking job.
Yup I agree. It'd be up to the board whether he remains as CEO or not.
I find his statement interesting and worthy of support because I've never had a boss who would admit when he made a major mistake, much less say he's seeking help for it.
I think the chances of Uber improving with a new CEO are small. It'll just be someone from the same culture. If Travis really intends to seek outside help then that may do something to change the culture there. I don't see any benefit from calling for Travis' head. It's not something you or I have much influence over.
Jim Collins' Good to Great convinced me that leadership consultants actually work.
Instead, by tossing off a couple short paragraphs of apparent and frankly rather self-congratulatory contrition, Kalanick's PR staff has managed to actually pick up a little credibility with, among others, you. That's an impressive accomplishment on their part, and it says a lot about your own lack of cynicism. I hope that doesn't end up screwing you over, because Silicon Valley, as anywhere else in the US that's rife with any kind of politics, can be cruel as hell to people who believe a lot of what they read.
> Support people when they seek help, whoever they are.
Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
You seem to have it all figured out, including how Uber has brainwashed me and how the only imaginable scenarios are the ones you've written.
> Woman beats her husband regularly for years. Eventually, he gets up the gumption to ditch her. When he tells her he's done, she bursts into tears and promises between sobs that she'll get help and do better. You buy that, too?
Would I stay if I were the guy? Probably not. As a 3rd party, I'd certainly support the woman's admission of guilt and her effort to get help.
What kind of society would we be if we did not have services to support people who sought help?
Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs, you're going to end up with better liars.
You're doing the same thing, too, but on the sly. Don't think I didn't see you palm the card:
> Again, if you only seek perfection in CEOs
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize Kalanick as merely less than perfect? Not that you're wrong in so doing, exactly, but it does seem to take the principle of charity to a pathological extreme. You might have a point here, if we weren't discussing someone who has such a long record, both personally and on the collective part of the company for which he is ultimately responsible, of bad behavior. But we are.
Not really, no. I doubt he is the worst CEO. The scandals you're referring to are all one-sided and haven't yet come before an arbiter. I think Uber is unpopular among their drivers and customers, and that's a pretty big problem, but, the CEO hasn't been convicted of anything.
In 2005, a video of this nature would have had to show a CEO striking the driver in order to get a public outcry. In 2017, one says "bullshit" to an employee and everyone freaks out. The pitchfork party is a bit over the top, in my opinion, and not productive.
You know, a year ago I would have nodded along to your reply. But after seeing Trump choose B every time and repeatedly get away with it, I have to give Travis at least a modicum of credit for not going full Trump on this one. Not a lot of credit, but the decision was his.
"I didn't take the last cookie... believe me"
Is that an general thing in English-speaking countries or just American?
Where I grew up I think it would be perfectly fine to say this even when I have been speaking the truth all the way.
(Don't want to defend Trump. I don't like him. Just curious about the idiom or whatever this is.)
I mean seriously, if you throw out the question "Okay, who dropped the production database?" and one of the staff said "It wasn't me. Believe me!", that's kind of instant suspicion right there. It's a really weird thing to say in the contexts that Trump says it in.
"Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."
Travis removed himself from Trump's team and admitted his faults here. These are two signs he seeks internal change, in my opinion.
Not impossible at all. You do it by observing behavior before and after the supposed epiphany; time will reveal whether this particular leopard has truly managed to change his shorts.
It'll be interesting, in particular, to observe how he reacts when people directly challenge his fitness to discharge his role in ways he can't or won't ignore. I gather that in the past he's tended to react to such challenges precipitously and, where possible, punitively. If he's genuinely gained a new perspective on his behavior and its consequences, I would not expect that to continue.
On that account, Uber and Kalanick's track record is quite clear. We've gone through this apology ruse any number of times, and yet here we are again.
Not to this degree. He said he intends to get help. Companies don't change their culture without the CEO being involved in the process. A CEO saying this is a big deal.
This is up against the wall PR BS. But the fact that people believe it explains a lot about how we got where we are with Uber.
Interesting. I'd say your unwillingness to accept someone who says they want help is what led us to having liars as CEOs. You want someone perfect, but, nobody is perfect.
When you're willing to send thugs to intimidate women who leak details about the prevalence of sexual assault at your company, it takes more than a blog post to climb back to credibility.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/former-uber-worker-cl...
The idea that he has just now realized what was going on at "Boober" and is shocked, shocked! to learn about it and that it was bad, strains credulity well past the point of breaking.
This is him trying to say whatever he thinks will take the heat off for a while. Prediction: a year from now no substantive change whatsoever within Uber.
You can't write much about that beyond what he did.
I'll make a counter prediction, that something does change. Nothing good comes from wishing for their failure.
Looking beyond the employees at Uber who have had to suffer through a toxic culture, I am troubled by the fact that the largest private company in the world has done some shady shit[1], and has largely been allowed to get away with it. I shudder to think of the founders out there who are thinking "Maybe it isn't so bad to be a dick. It seems to be a key component of Travis' success!".
[1] exercise for the reader
Please don't take that as a defeatist statement, though. Present day asshole leaders shouldn't get away with it.
Riiiight.
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14766964/video-uber-travis-k...
>Kamel: “But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.”
>Kalanick: “Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?”
>Kamel: “You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.”
>Kalanick: “On Black? Bullshit.”
>Kamel: “We started with $20.”
> In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute.
I've seen both Uber and Lyft advertise that if you become a driver and do X rides in Y time you'll get Z credits to use as a rider.
When I drove a few years ago, easily half of my income came from subsidies and guarantees.
/r/cars/comments/5wrdk2/comment/decxcxi
That's bold. I can't remember hearing any recent CEO saying this.
Best of luck to Uber and their CEO.
It sounds more like the kind of apology one would make after getting caught diddling children and blaming it on an addiction to snorting horse tranquilizer.
The gullible public will be all over this one by next month.
Even then, I wouldn't be the first rich person to have the masses standing outside my estate carrying pitchforks, it's a real first world (0.001%) problem.
It's very bold to sit here and armchair commentate things. But I watched the actual video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
If anything, I'm impressed he handled it that well - I for one probably wouldn't have, and I suspect a lot of the angry mob wouldn't either. He's a billionaire, for what it's worth, and he actually sat down to try to explain things to a Uber drive, on his night out.
So what, he yells "b*llshit at the end? Or tells the guy to take responsibility? The driver obviously had a bone to pick, and he's ranting.
I think it's bad for tech and the country when we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help. If you do that, you only end up with really good liars in charge.
Allow someone, somewhere, to admit a mistake and correct it in a leadership position.
> you only end up with really good liars in charge.
There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.
In this case, at a cursory glance, it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven. If that's what's happened in this case, then I'm not sure that forgiving them / supporting their subsequent activities is safe since it would be more like enablement, ie: just enabling the person to continue.
If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
I agree there's a difference, I just don't see the value in calling for his head. There's nothing else to expect of him. He clearly wants to stay and keep trying. It's the board's job to decide if he's fit to remain as CEO.
> it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven
I don't see him expecting anything more from anyone but himself. You may infer that, but it's not written there.
I think his message is simple. He wants to remain as CEO and is willing to take steps to improve his leadership style to do so. You may feel those are empty words. To me, they're meaningful because I've read stories of companies that have been transformed by CEOs who become aware how their faults effect the company. It's possible he is not being sincere, but, I don't see much value in wishing for his demise. An in-company replacement would likely keep the same culture going, and an outside replacement isn't reliable in the tech world. As John Sculley showed, that's risky.
> If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.
Given the shortness of this apology, I'd guess he isn't quite sure what his other faults are, and is seeking help to identify them.
We need clear and concrete proof that the myriad issues at Uber will be addressed, and a vague, handwavey "I'll do better" is not that.
He could have announced an advisory team being brought on board to help steer the company back on track, or a cleaning house of managers with abusive track records, or drastic new internal guidelines with harsh penalties for bullshit sexist/racist/intolerant behaviour.
Uber has just such an awful track record and is just so untrustworthy, why should we start trusting them when they've given us no actual reason to?
It's been like 12 hours since the video came out, and only a couple since the CEO publicly admitted he needs leadership help... I'm not sure he's had time to seek an advisory team
I'd give them a week. I bet there will be more news from Uber.
We're saying this because of the hearsay but increasingly well-documented track record since the beginning of the company of a racist and sexist work environment, directly attributable to and encouraged by Travis Kalanick.
I'm not one to hop on the politically correct train at the first opportunity, but there's "Coworkers making borderline comments to each other" and then there's "My manager propositions me for sex, and HR lies to me, threatens my reviews, and encourages me to be silent about it because they've been told to do so by management."
So yes, he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the video.
But no, he in-no-fucking-way deserves leniency for fucking up people's lives by abrogating his responsibilities as CEO previous to that. And then the video.
On the flip-side, it could simply mean that he's been told to get leadership help or he may be replaced. (Uber's board can do that, I assume?)
In that scenario, he could still deflect. He could have refused, denying to himself and others that he ever made any mistake. He could've retired rich.
I think it's likely someone recommended he get help, either today or sometime earlier. That he agrees to do so now is notable.
https://www.quora.com/Are-Uber-drivers-allowed-to-have-a-cam...
> A California appellate court has ruled that the Penal Code statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations.
You think Uber would still be in business if drivers made a habit of publicly posting videos of passengers?
The driver or cab company owns the car, and they have the same right to film the customers for the safety of the driver as a convenience store does to promote the safety of its clerks and cashiers.
You are correct that it is unethical to release that footage in most circumstances, without it being evidence of a crime, but the CEO of a company like Uber might be considered a public figure, and if you want other people to be ethical in their dealings with you, you must also be ethical in your dealings with them. I think we never would have seen this video if the driver didn't think that Uber's top-level management pulled a bait-and-switch on him with respect to the recruiting promises versus the actual income. If you act like an ass, you shouldn't expect discretion from anyone.
Were this an ordinary passenger that engaged in a mildly argumentative conversation with the driver, yes, that would be very unethical to post the video without explicit two-party consent. But for the guy that technically signs your paychecks and controls whether you get fares or not and how much you get for them, having a conversation about the business? I'd say that's fair game.
There was a #DeleteUber campaign going on well before this became public, and the reasons for that come from the company's management culture. If he's going to apologize for anything, he still has a lot more to answer for.
I thought the video was humanising, and if anything, he remained cool in the face of threatening behaviour. Apologising just legitimses the critics, who'll remain critical regardless.
They're all screwed in the end anyway.
Many respond to such issues with more bluster, with defensiveness, with pressure on the weaker party (who then retracts their claims, blames themselves, forgives the powerful person, etc.), with claims that such behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately this behavior is now seen in world leaders.
I think his note is responsible and appropriate. It's good to see.
(I'm no Uber fan; I don't use them due to their treatment of their drivers, and their disrespect for and undermining of local legal authority.)
I actually do hope he's sincere - I hope he's really going to get help - and I specifically hope that counseling leads him to eliminate the misogyny that we've all read about the last couple days. I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen. After all, how would it move the valuation forward? Unfortunately I think that the most likely scenario is that he'll become more of a detriment to the company and the investors will "ease him out".
Perhaps the experience of having one of his contractor-chumps call him out on his worker-hostile corporate policy changes while working will mature him a bit more.
The rest of us have to make do with mundane stuff like the births of our children, not making rent/mortgage on the first of the month, having our water/power/gas shut off, getting laid off, drinking too much tequila, catching a flat tire at 1 AM during a downpour, losing the championship match, putting our favorite dog or cat down, burying our parents, getting married, experiencing a perfect day miles from any stranger out in the wilderness, finishing the marathon run, getting stopped by the cops for a BS pretext reason, or writing a horrendously long run-on sentence.
Does being brusque require a public apology?
>Kamel: What?
>Kalanick: Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else.
I think that is a very insulting and superior thing to say to someone.
In reality it is necessary for growth (and for leadership) to accept responsibility for things. In medicine, every layer up the chain is responsible for the actions of those below; i have encountered many situations where a senior accepts and owns responsibility for a failing or mistake even though that mistake was performed by a junior doctor/nurse. Blame culture is toxic; ownership therapeutic as it leads to growth. In the situation you quote above, it is ironic.
In reality, it's a dismissal indicating a lack of respect and/or lack of any fucks to give. Yes, I'd say that's about half the country.
The most arrogant programmers I know seem to think the exact opposite: that they are among the elite few graced with the gift of true programming intuition. (Not true.) They don't think the poor are lazy, they think the poor are helpless and un-talented.
In fact, I'd say Travis is 100% correct. Most people out there would rather blame someone else for their problems than take personal responsibility.
And why not? There are 8 billion people out there, and one of you. And tons of people who came before the person was even born and shaped the place one was born in, were responsible for their childhood, designed their education programs etc. And of course others are in power and shape policy.
Who is more likely to have created/sustain the situations affecting someone? Themselves or the tons of others?
A few opportunities aside, I'm not sure it's much different for a modern person.
I'm frankly tired of people seeing problems and immediately outgrouping others, attaching blame, and spewing hate. This will continue to be a disease in our culture until people can learn to understand and disagree and live and let live.
That's a good point in some cases. But in many cases that doesn't hold. Meryl Streep outgrouped popular, middle American, and "lowbrow" culture(s) when ranting about how they impact on her job. Gay marriage and abortion views are certainly personal complaints as well as social ones. Distaste for spiritual people typically stems from a personal grudge more than a dry academic philosophy about the social impact of disagreements about metaphysical reality or something. How about bikes versus cars disputes in urban areas? Or disagreements about Bay Area rent?
I can come up with more examples. I think there's a "I'm just being the rational one here" type of cognitive dissonance from basically all perspectives. Even that attitude holds the seeds for outgrouping (those irrational people!).
It's a difficult thing to push back on, because even those of us most sympathetic a complex-systems based understanding of inequality don't want to completely give up on the value of personal responsibility, as to do so would be to tacitly give up the belief in free will. But if we grant that each individual does have some degree of agency and responsibility, then the libertarian side immediately points to any number of self made/rags to riches individuals and says "So? Stop complaining and do that!". But why can't they admit that it's an issue of degrees?
Sure, you have some agency in improving your situation, but if you're born less advantaged the systemic factors arrayed against you make it significantly harder to leverage your agency to improve your lot. Just because some lucky few do rise from rags to riches doesn't mean that a winner take most, predatory lottery system will create the best outcome for the most.
Is it a failure of human probabilistic intuition? Or is it a more malicious effort to control and frame the debate, pushed by those who benefit from the unequal system? Probably both.
It's like Taleb's stuff about skin in the game--Kalanick pushed the risk of his business model onto drivers like this one while keeping the upside for himself. When the driver got screwed by Kalanick's pricing changes, he comes back with technicalities and finally blames the guy for not taking responsibility. Talk about projection!
That's the reason why this is disrespectful to the driver. Kalanick minimizes his loss and refuses to take any responsibility for it himself, despite the fact that the only real mistake the driver made was trusting Uber.
If Uber drivers are, in fact, independent contractors, then they have some responsibility to determine whether the business they're engaged in is a profitable one, and to judge the risk involved. It seems like it would be very easy to underestimate both the costs and the risk.
Having driven for Uber and Lyft for a year and a half (even during the "good years") - the rate of new hires was most definitely a major concern and there were definitely rocky times. I was lucky to be able to mitigate this by moving to San Francisco from San Diego. While in San Diego I saw my take go down from ~$1200/wk to something like $800/wk, then back up to $1200-1600/wk when I moved to SF, and then back down to about $800 by the time I finished.
Personally I approached it as an exercise in entrepreneurship, a deep study in the dynamics of real-time economics, and an opportunity to vastly improve my "people skills" in addition to making more money than a PhD postdoc in biochemistry... So a success in all fronts, personally, but also I knew when to quit.
My suspicion is that many people who begin driving for Uber overestimate their net earnings and underestimate their deferred expenses e.g. vehicle depreciation and maintenance. If Uber knows this and is taking advantage (with new-driver bonuses, etc...), they're essentially a multi-level marketing company.
Driver buys a $97k car, goes bankrupt because as it turns out buying a super expensive car that you obviously can't afford is a dumb idea, then decides to blame someone else for his poor decision making.
If not for abusing growth, it would have not raised funding and would have likely failed.
Uber is a business, not a charity. They exist to maximize profits. If you understand that point, then you see why your point is irrelevant.
Also, what the heck does it mean to "abuse growth"?
Even if that's true, the CEO is the right person to make a complaint to. Or do you think the cab driver should get an economics degree and acquire a fine understanding of market forces?
It is the business owner's (investor's) responsibility to understand and plan for the long-term. Not planning for the long-term is exactly what happened here. I do not believe this man should have been disrespected, however, his decision to buy a car he could not afford, was his own and was objectively a bad decision.
Do you know the story of the grasshopper and the ants[0]? Regardless of who is controlling the weather (in our case, Uber). Its the grasshopper's fault for not storing food for the winter.
[0] http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtm...
This sounds like an unrealistic expectation. One would argue Uber was either disloyal or disillusioned if they rely on such people to advance their business.
Here Uber changing policy or pricing is a risk! In this case, to make a sound investment, you need to calibrate the rewards against that risk.
Only looking at the potential upside, not realizing that the risk exists, is foolish.
Faulting Uber, for being flexible to market forces, is naive. Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.
[0] Either to facilitate driving for Uber, or something else
The interesting part happens when you understand that it is impossible to make an educated decision to become a Uber driver without having a relation of trust between Uber and drivers (because otherwise you would need insider information about Uber's business innovations, to get fixed pricing agreement for a given duration, which Uber will never do, etc).
Then, you don't fault Uber for being "flexible to market forces", you may fault them for engaging in deceptive business, just like you would blame a multi level marketing scheme. And when you specifically look at Uber's strategy to mislead potential drivers, there's tons of telling stuff.
In that light, you can still blame the drivers for making bad decisions (discussing the reality of Homo œconomicus would drive us out of scope). But you must also fault Uber for maliciously luring their drivers in a scheme that is not sustainable for them.
I'm glad they lost this case: http://www.moneylife.in/article/uber-to-pay-20-million-for-a...
We've seen Uber discussed here and not just in context of this incident, but much worse stuff. It would be interesting to see what comes of that...
But taken it on its own, this is what apologies should be like and not the "I am so very sorry you all feel this way" type apologies which then usually also proceed to shift blame (circumstances, others, acts of God, bad mood, etc).
Now whether he actually feels this way or not or this is just good PR I am not sure. It remains to be seen.
"He has profound insights on the topic of healthcare" vs. "Please accept my profound sorrow for your loss".
Come on. I get all the backlash against Uber — the outrage they're experiencing is rightly deserved — but this is truly asinine.
Of course, we elected a narcissistic and grandiose president, so there's nothing new here.
Also: "I want to apologise" and "I apologise" are subtly but distinctly different.