Few people are treating it like jvm haskell in production, although a certain subset of really loud people wish it wasn't otherwise. They all tend to work in the same OSS projects, while the rest of the community does their best to pretend they don't exist.
I think that the reality of modern scala is that, while there is in no way a unified use of the language, the way to use Scala is in its own, intermediate location. Libraries have big gains from the most exotic features that make it be closer to FP, like higher kinded types. while business code tends to look more like java with case classes and algebraic data types. The difficult part is the fuzzy middle.
Another important part of adoption is that Scala's strengths lie in a few good libraries that underpin some great use cases. For instance, using Scalding or Spark as ways to do big data, or building other kinds of distributed systems on top of Akka. For other uses, like writing simple CRUD services, there are many options, and almost all of them are bad, which is why treating the language as just a better Java just doesn't fly.
Verizon is one of the bigger scala shops (a few hundred scala programmers on a "project") and is much closer to the functional side than a better Java. However, micro services and good library support mean some of the less experienced teams (in FP) use it more of Java++. Both are very pleasant to maintain/work on though.
This is just one [massive] project, but HMRC are rebuilding in Scala atm, & from talking to the developers working on the project, bit of both: selling it as a better Java with all the associated interop with existing stuff, but individual devs attracted by the functional side. The Guardian seemed to have similar reasoning.
