[rdgthree]

I feel the same way - not because either side is necessarily wrong, but because these kind of articles are grossly simplified. Uber is not pure evil, or pure good.

Even the #DeleteUber hashtag originated from a misunderstanding: https://www.axios.com/uber-didnt-deserve-deleteuber-22258932...

Certainly the article about sexism in the workplace is deeply concerning, but that doesn't suddenly mean Uber is a force for pure evil in the world and has done no good for anyone. It means, like many organizations (especially ones that are growing aggressively), they have serious internal problems. Travis immediately responded to the article, and I have no doubt that he is against rampant sexism occurring in the company. What would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening?

[bdavisx]

I don't know anything about Travis or Uber directly except what I've read. But I've read enough to know something is really wrong.

>What would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening?

Because the company got where it is with exactly this culture. Look at AIG in the 2000's -- huge portions of the company lying about their finances, leading to the ouster of their CEO. Only to be followed up by a huge bailout in the 2008 financial crisis under the new CEO. The culture was poisoned, it comes from the top down - everyone in management is cutthroat because that's the only way to survive. And it's pretty much impossible to change.

I worked at a company that was purchased by AIG - American General. My executive level boss was dishonest - lied about people working for her, and lied to other executives. She made her way from a low level executive to a Executive VP once the company was bought by AIG. Once you've got a toxic culture, that's how the company works; and I think there are a lot of companies like this.

[pyrale]

> Travis immediately responded to the article

I believe one of the huge problems about it is that this problem has been running for years, and that the CEO "immediately" responded only now that bad PR is at the gate.

We actually no idea about whether these internal problems are actually perceived as problems ; Susan Fowler's article isn't merely about a sexism problem, several other problems are referenced (like hiding information from an executive in order to help another exec). All of the bad things in that article actually come from the company's culture of pardoning anything from someone who shows good performance.

[feedjoelpie]

To characterize #DeleteUber as a misunderstanding is a quasi-straw man argument. The author of that article picked the most vulnerable argument in favor of deleting Uber and focused on that to the exclusion of myriad others.

Personally, I believe that Uber would have loved to get in on the strike. But Uber's premise, which is anti-organized labor, does not allow for this. So they tried glom onto the protest in a ham-fisted way that only highlighted the problem. Uber can't be part of a positive social protest that is driven by workers uniting and standing up because Uber is too invested in dividing them and pushing them down.

As for what would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening... Now that it's been publicized? Nothing. At the time the incidents happened? Read Susan's article again. There were numerous opportunities to address the problem, and leadership instead chose to protect problematic employees that they otherwise considered high performers. The motivation couldn't be more clear.

[sjs382]

> Uber is not pure evil, or pure good.

Agreed. I'm going to go with "sociopathic" and "reckless".

> I have no doubt that he is against rampant sexism occurring in the company. What would be the motivation for him to allow it to continue happening?

To keep badly-behaving, toxic people who are otherwise "high performers" (politically or otherwise) with the company.