People should report crimes to police, they shouldn't report them to school or company. Everyone who tells the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is not at fault in this situation and it doesn't enable anything.
If I understood the letter correctly, what Uber did was not illegal. And if I understand how police works in most countries, if you report a crime to police they are obliged to investigate it
So my point stands. If you think that people shouldn't report crimes, you enable crimes. "‘strongly under the impression’ that they would." is a laughable excuse. What did Uber do that would provide a strong impression, yet wasn't enough to be accused of being misleading in court?
If what Uber did is illegal in UK, they should face punishment. But as far as I can tell, they did nothing illegal in this situation.
I see lots of folks trying out an argument along the lines of, "if Uber managers aren't being marched in front of magistrates, then everything's peachy and Leave Uber Alloooone!" I can't wait for the ads "Uber - not officially a criminal enterprise yet!"
Unfortunately, this argument ignores the fact that requirements for unusual privileges - like running massive fleets of vehicles on public streets - are a bit higher than the requirements for staying out of jail.
Reporting sexual assault is not exactly difficult. Whether it is a cynical PR issue, some weird philosophical thing, or simply bizarre institutional/emotional damage around sexual assault[1], Uber has a problem that they are apparently incapable of handling, even with years, warnings and a near complete change of management.
It really is freakish.
[1] Given so many different incidents handled over multiple years in multiple countries, that their competitors don't seem to have the same problem with, I'm starting to wonder, frankly.
Businesses should also report crimes to the police. A business who does the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is at fault in this situation and directly enables sexual assault.
The only difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I imply Uber is run by people and you imply they are a force of nature (or something.)
If you've been a victim of a crime, you should report it. If you've witnessed a crime, you should report it too. Otherwise you enable criminals. If you were told that there were a crime by a random person, you don't have to report it. I think it is as simple as that. I don't think or imply that Uber is a force of nature, I don't know where you got this idea from.
Oh come on there's way more nuance to this issue than you're letting on. Taking away a person's livelihood can be just as bad as a jail sentence and you're acting like companies should act as judge and executioner in the court of public opinion. What's the point of even having a justice system when we can dispatch a lifetime of suffering by blacklisting suspected criminals from employment?
This whole things seems just like "But her emails!" where people are latching onto anything they can to justify their dislike for something they already hate.
Is there really that much more nuance? Uber received a complaint of sexual assault by a driver. The victim was under the impression that Uber would contact the police. Uber did not contact the police and continued to employ the driver. Uber then received a second complaint of sexual assault by the same driver. The second victim was "strongly under the impression" that the police would be contacted. The police were not contacted.
In this situation, Uber are complicit in the second sexual assault to at least some degree. (Perhaps they carried out a thorough investigation which presented nothing. Perhaps they did not carry out an investigation again). They are complicit in any further sexual assaults this driver carries out.
With regards to "Taking away a person's livelihood", that's precisely what a police investigation and CRB/DBS checks are for. The driver simply should not be allowed in such a position if they have a history of sexual assault. No-one is asking for the company to "act as judge and executioner" (in fact, in this case the company is doing exactly that except ruling not-guilty), merely to alert the appropriate authorities so that a legitimate investigation can be carried out according to the established judicial system.
If Uber is complicit, where are the charges? Where are the fines? Where are managers getting jailed for concealment of a crime? Is there even a prosecution?
Uber is not having license, which is a big punishment I would say, is fine on top also needed? Concealment of a crime and failure to report one are two different things with two different punishments. And while I believe companies crimes should be personalized to managers who lead employees to commit them, where such thing can be proven, jail time for this one would be probably too much of a punishment.
We dont need to jail for everything, really. It is expensive and ineffective overall.
It is the job of the justice system to understand whether he is guilty or not. I think that if a company fires a person for a claim of sexual assault that wasn't proved, this person is justified to sue the fuck out of the company for false pretense.
Innocent until proven guilty.Uber respected due process expecting that if the allegation are true the police would have arrested the man.
Uber is not a court, it does not and in my opinion should not have the right to play judge.