I watched the video 3 times, and did not find anything wrong with the CEO's behavior. And don't understand why the CEO should be issuing any apology at all for this video. Might be just because of the bad-media coverage.
He was explaining the situation very politely. As a CEO, making business decisions amidst uncertainty is hard. Its when the driver started placing his $97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool, asked him to take responsibility for his actions and walked out.
Yeah, the driver was the one yelling and jabbing his finger at Kalanick. He obviously did not want to have a constructive dialogue, so Kalanick left. Seems reasonable enough to me.
I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because Kalanick is an asshole.
That being said, Kalanick has acted like an asshole in the past, but this is not one of those times.
Yes, it is. Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not taking responsibility for their own shit".
What the video shows isn't wrong on the level of the Fowler post. It just shows Kalanick as petty and deeply unserious about his role, which is an alarming look for someone whose company is embroiled in scandals about mismanagement.
Kalanick kept arguing that he didn't cut prices on Uber Black. That may be technically true, but overlooks nuance (probably intentionally). This is childish (and unclassy) because Kalanick is prioritizing winning an argument on technical merits over actually understanding the problems of his earliest adopters and closest partners, who have made big investments in his business.
This. I think it says something about the overall decline in the level of discourse that the acceptability of this kind of behavior by a CEO engaging with an employee, vendor, or otherwise is even arguable.
That's not accurate either. Uber has maintained from the start that their driver's are independent contractors. You can make all sorts of verbal/casual agreements, but if "we will ensure you have X amount of work at Y rate for Z amount of time" is not written into your contract, you have no right to complain.
Uber or any other company are not responsible for any tools a contractor might buy in order to complete their work, unless explicitly stated in a written agreement.
I really hate this notion of "you have no right to complain." The only thing that your contract takes away from you is your right to pursue legal action on things that fall outside of its scope. If you have a contract and the company begins doing things that you believe are outside of the spirit of the agreement, you should absolutely complain. This driver is even maintaining the terms of his contract by continuing to drive.
The idea that you shouldn't be allowed to express your grievances because you work at the pleasure of your employer/company is toxic and regressive.
Again, not an employee; in fact, the standing here is almost the opposite; it's Kalanick who has most of the obligation in this relationship. (I think we agree about the rest of this).
I keep bringing this up because it's crucial to Uber's business model and something that has been repeatedly disputed. Uber badly wants its drivers not to be employees but instead partners. Kalanick can't get huffy when his business partners have grievances for him.
> if [X] is not written into your contract, you have no right to complain.
Except that's not the way the law works, and there are cases where things in contracts are not enforced and things outside contracts are, because the law is all about how reasonable something is.
You have no right to sue. You certainly have a right to complain.
I've been in business for a long time. I've run into many vendors who didn't breach a contract or the law, but chose to do business in a way that impacted my business in a negative way. This has ranged from enterprise software vendors to janitorial services.
Ultimately, it hurt then in some way as we priced their bullshit into the next procurement cycle.
When a giant company pretends that some random afghani dude working as a contractor is a peer to any other vendor, that's either delusional thinking or a justification for bullying.
When The US referred to targeted assassination in Vietnam as "termination with prejudice", it didn't fool anyone.
That's not true in any way. Verbal contracts are harder to enforce, but enforceable they are. And if you say something that both parties agree on in good faith, you can't just back out of it!
That's not the ways things work, and it's not even how they are meant to work.
Kalanick is telling his customer the driver to suck it up. Drivers will go to a different vendor like lyft who if they want to keep their customers (the drivers) they won't pull shit like this.
I think it also has to do with how Uber (and its competitors) changed the Black Car market. From my conversations with Black Car drives back in 2011, they were using Uber to fill in time between there more lucrative contracts. In that way, it was a win/win. As Uber (and its competitors) became more popular, the more valuable contracts have dried up.Uber changed the economics of the Black Car business. I submit that if Uber had not done it, Lyft and others would have. That doesn't make it easier for the drivers, though.
Travis surely realized he should have stopped once driver went ballistic at him with $97k. He should have just uttered: "Have a good day" or something neutral, stand up and leave. There is no win situation for a CEO arguing with angry people the same way as they do, even if he knows he is right. I believe that's what he meant by "fundamentally change and grow up".
I think the problem here is this: "even if he knows he is right." Considering all we've learned recently how the hell could you ever make Travis Kalanick consider that he might be wrong?
>I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because Kalanick is an asshole.
I'm curious how many people here agree with this sentiment, but blame the banks and mortgage brokers for people losing their homes during the last crash.
I think you need to look at the video as the last straw, not the primary cause for this apology. Kalanick has always acted remarkably immaturely for the CEO of a major company [1], and now Uber has dragged themselves into a total shitstorm with the recent sexual discrimination/abuse stories, and the Waymo/Otto IP theft debacle.
He's just trying to save some face for him and the company in the midst of a glut of PR disasters.
The driver took a risk, and went is possibly going into bankruptcy because of it. He did this based off of the pay structure which Uber offered him.
They changed that pay structure, and he got screwed, with little recourse. He had an opportunity to complain to the head of the organization which made that change and took it.
The CEO in this situation could have been more supportive, understanding and offered some recourse... even if it was just to email some HR or driver support person at Uber, that would have been a better response.
Instead the CEO felt attacked, kicked in his defensive mode, was flippant and dismissive of this persons struggles. Zero compassion or empathy, that's the problem here.
But what if for example, someone put all their money on Twitter stocks and then go bankrupt because of it? Is that Twitter's fault?
The driver took a big risk and expected a big reward, but that didn't work out, but it was his own decision. Personally I wouldn't buy a luxury car based on the promise of a startup, certainly not if I wasn't able to afford it to begin with.
That's why companies like Uber don't try to recruit people like you.
Most people have a very poor ability to assess and measure risk. These drivers see an opportunity to make money, and use that to get a loan to buy the car.
Everyone is losing here. The driver goes bankrupt, the metro area loses as Uber puts cabs and black cars out of business and takes business from public transit, and ultimately the investors since Uber tapes $10 bills to each ride.
As an employee at an At-Will business; I'm always potentially subject to being asked to take a lower salary, get fewer benefits.
Will I blame my employer for limited notice? Sure.
Does my employer have legal liability? Not in my state. Maybe for 2 weeks. If I hire the right lawyer, maybe until a "reasonable time to find a new job"
If he was really a good professional CEO and leader, he would have asked for the guys number or given his, and had his EA follow up the next day to chat in the office. This just shows how lacking in experience and measure he is, you just shouldn't act like this, especially if you're the CEO of a company that employees many people who rely on you to make sure they can put their kids through school/food on table. Arguing your supply chain costs with a component of your supply chain in the back of a car isn't constructive.
I also don't get it. It can happen to anyone to lose their cool and it's not like he's insulted the driver or anything (in fact the driver is more aggressive). Also I'm not sure the driver should be video tapping his customers without their authorisation.
Maybe it's a way for Uber to divert attention from the recent scandals and allow the CEO to apologise for something that's actually quite minor compared to the rest.
It's not how you talk to people and, as the CEO, you have to take the high road.
He's at the helm of a mulit-billion dollar company. He should be expected to deal with partners with more respect and deftness. Not only is it a decency thing, but losing his cool so easily doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to manage real crises.
I think your perspective is valid/reasonable for most of us. ...but as a CEO of any company I believe that it's necessary you to hold yourself to a MUCH higher standard. In that role you represent the interests of a lot of other people, you're entrusted with investor's money, your employee's livelihood and the welfare of their families/kids and in this situation your drivers/contractors and their livelihood and families. With so much at stake I think part of what you give up as CEO is the right to just speak your mind and have an argument like a normal person might. Right or wrong I think he needs to make sure if there is news about him or Uber that it's good news... that's a big part of the job of CEO and it's 24/7/365.
I don't want to 'stick up' for the CEO, as there's lot about uber I fundamentally dislike - especially the way they typify this 'race to the bottom' business model which seems to be becoming prevalent.
However, I really think for this incident he has nothing to apologise for.
As much issues I may have with actions of Uber as a company, and to an extent actions of Travis as its CEO, this video isn't really saying anything bad about him.
He is running a business and doing what he thinks is right for it. He was trying to engage in a reasonable conversation. When the conversation became more emotional and blind blaming, he walked out in anger. Aren't people allowed be angered by what they believe are unreasonable accusations?
Poor guy, just added this to the list of negative things Uber is being called out on, and apologized.
Same. The conspiracy side of me wants to think that it was staged so he can apologize without having to touch the deeper issues surrounding uber now and thereby improving his image
The Uber driver(s) are all self-employed businessmen, with Uber and Lyft being apps that help them get business, taking care of things like payments etc. As a businessman, you take a risk, especially if making big investments like a $100K car. The 3rd party, in this case Uber, has no obligations to the businessman; if the driver wants more money, then stop relying on Uber or go to a better-paying competitor.
That's business. That's the American dream. That's the risk you take when starting your own business. Uber couldn't exist if it hired their drivers, so for Uber too it's a conscious decision.
He made a PR mistake. You don't drink and have fun like that in a crisis (or at least don't get caught doing it.)
Note: I'm not saying Uber's only mistake is PR. But it's a large part of what precipitates the unique reaction against them versus, say, Lyft. #DeleteUber? Came up because Uber cancelled surge at 7:36PM around a protest at JFK that was scheduled at 4:55 to last from 6 to 7PM. Lyft, meanwhile, earned more money and got a better reaction.
Similarly, in reaction to Fowler's account, instead of doing something substantive they hired an Uber Director, the head of the department implicated and an Uber lobbyist to conduct an "independent" investigation.
I'm sorry; this is not about PR, and not about getting caught. This is about the leaders of our most admired and successful companies being assholes who couldn't care less about anything but power and profit. And it's changing, right now; because we're reaching the point where people had enough of the bullshit.
Someone made an interesting point on a discussion I saw yesterday: Travis has never worked at a company that he hasn't started himself[0]. He had a short stint at Akamai when one of his companies was bought but it was shorter than one year.
The take away is that he has never worked at a place with a rigid corporate structure or real HR. While that might be good for a startup that needs to move fast, it's not good if you want to learn on how to cultivate a healthy company culture, or have any empathy for your employees.
In other words, he has been running a college frat house for the past 7 years and it shows. He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended.
And too many entrepreneurs/co-founders in Silicon Valley are in the same position.
> He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended. And too many entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are in the same position.
This is a common excuse that holds no water with me. "Good intentions" are worth absolutely nothing, in fact I'd prefer a CEO who is an asshole on purpose to one who is just naturally a piece of shit and can't see it until his company gets bad press.
It's an issue of maturity and responsibility and ethics with people's livelihoods at stake. There can't be excuses.
I didn't mean it as an excuse, but as a way to explain and understand the problem. I'm not even considering whether he had "good intentions" or not. I have no way of judging that.
Understanding is the first step on fixing it and preventing it in the future. Pointing fingers at someone as if they're the root and the single cause of the problem might feel good, but it's too easy an explanation.
In your case of an asshole CEO and an ignorant CEO, I wouldn't prefer either. Both are just as bad. But the ignorant CEO just never learned empathy and might be able to become a better human; the purposely asshole CEO is irreparably broken.
You wrote that he was probably more ignorant than ill-intentioned. That implies good intentions or no intentions.
The intentional asshole makes good decisions for the company, think Bill Gates in the 90s. These days he's shown that that was business, now with the Foundation he's choosing to not be that guy. TK does not appear capable of a change like that.
I think being an asshole and being demanding can also get really misconstrued, lots of people who have worked for me think I'm demanding, probably annoying, and sometimes an ass, however I'd like to believe they would also say they have grown because they were pushed, and I don't think they would say I'm unkind, or a jerk, or hurtful. I don't believe that's what is going on with TK.
I'd say that a significant amount of founders of unicorn companies have not worked at a company that they didn't start themselves, so I don't see how that makes this situation unique/excusable.
That is very possibly accurate. Redswoosh lost the support VC's in ~2001, and it was just him, in a shared office with a single engineer. He stuck with it though where most would have abandoned it, and was able to sell it years later to Akamai, and RedSwoosh was a dog of a product. [1] [2] To say he pushed hard is an understatement. That's his mindset, he's cocky but he believes in what he's doing, and he keeps pushing no matter what. The difference is, Uber is a success by all measures, [3] and it may need a different mentality to move it forward.
A "college frathouse" isn't the default attitude of human beings. You don't create a toxic bro-themed caricature of a company from a lack of skill.
In fact I'd say it takes more effort, and deep-seated character flaws, to create such a culture, considering most of his employees are probably well-adjusted people with prior experiences that had to be unlearned.
This would be grounds for termination for a mere peasant. When you're the boss at Uber, however, you can just apologize for condoning sexual harassment and move along your merry way.
This is a good reason for people who think sexual harassment is wrong to remove Uber from their phones.
My comment is what should happen when people in positions of power condone sexual harassment.
When they issue an apology for something that is also wrong, the fact that they have also systematically condoned sexual harassment is absolutely relevant.
This should be brought up until either they resign or they get fired.
Then, it should be brought up about the members of the board of directors who condone his actions until they resign or are fired.
Until people decide that people like this shouldn't be in positions of power, we're going to live in a society where behavior like we've seen at Uber is commonplace.
Given Travis's experience with Redswoosh [1], and to a lesser extent Scour, I doubt he put himself in a situation to be ousted from his startup by investors. I suspect it's a situation akin to Mark Zuckerburg. [2] It would probably take Garrett Camp [3] push him out.
If I had to take a guess, his lawyers probably counseled him not to. That would be an admission and then he would get incriminated pretty quick in court.
(To be clear, I still think management there should be held responsible for turning a bling eye on this stuff. It's never excusable and it's the perception of being unaccountable that keeps this stuff happening again and again.)
Sure, lawyers will always counsel you not to. It's their job to minimize risk. But if you are getting advice from a lawyer, it's your job to decide when to listen to it.
In particular, taking responsibility for a problem requires things like admitting it and apologizing. Especially so when it's a big company culture problem. If Kalanick has put short-term Uber cash flow above solving his company's culture problems, then it's a sign they are going to remain the same bro-y toxic cesspit.
I'm not so sure. I don't know about Uber's specific corporate structure and bylaws, but in many corporations, the Board of Directors has the power to fire CEOs for cause.
If that's the case there, Kalanick might have been on the other end of a very painful phone call with Uber's board. Yesterday's news might have been the last straw for them.
Even powerful heads of successful companies have even more powerful people to answer to.
I've heard it said on another thread that the board can't actually fire Kalanick. I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia that could verify this. Anybody know if it's true?
It is likely that the board has the legal power to fire him, but not the willpower, which would be due to him having control of most of the board's voting seats.
Are there not taxis where you live? They may be slightly less convenient (or they might not be!) but sometimes that's the price for doing the right thing.
From what I've seen, Uber is far more convenient than taxis. When I call a taxi I have to wait anywhere from 20 - 40 minutes only to ride in a usually dirty vehicle for inflated prices by an aggressive driver. Never mind the typical "our VISA machine isn't working" bit.
I've literally never waited more than 5 minutes for an Uber and it's usually closer to 2 - 3. They're fast, clean, fare splitting is a non-issue, and the drivers are almost always friendly. It really is on a different level than taxis in my experience.
Some places I lived in the states, you couldn't rely on a taxi to get you to work on time. I specifically asked. You had to call when you needed it and they said you'd wait anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours.
Nothing like being nearly 2 hours early for work when the place isn't even unlocked yet.
The taxis here in Edinburgh are great - the problem I have is when you travel somewhere else and they are often awful: rude, attempting scams, refusing to take you somewhere....
I guess services like Uber have that advantage of relative ubiquity....
Would you pay less for it? Biking places in any weather and with reasonable amounts of cargo is very much a solved problem. Been doing it for years, have never needed an Uber or Lyft. Granted I don't know where you live, but moving to where this is possible, is kind of part of the deal. I moved across the country.
You are 40 years old and run a startup valued well into the billions. You are probably far beyond the growing up stage. This is who you are Travis.
For context, many people said Steve Jobs needed to grow up during his first stint at Apple (and no one ever accused him of running a company that has major issues with sexual harassment). Jobs was 29 when the Mac came out, and this was after the big success with the Apple II. By the time Steve Jobs came back to Apple in the 1990s and performed an amazing turnaround of Apple, he was in his early 40s.
Like you mentioned there are fundamental differences b/w a CEO who creates a culture where sexual harassment is OK to where a CEO will bully employees occasionally, steal their ideas as their own and park in the handicapped parking lot. I mean, both sound terrible, but the first one is definitely on a different level of nastiness.
One of the key differences is that Jobs may have personally been hard to work with at times and done childish things, but the companies that he ran (Apple and Pixar) were very professionally run and progressive companies. Uber's culture is fomenting harassment throughout the entire organization.
Uber is now big enough that most employees will never meet executives, so they won't be personally harassed by them, but if middle managers feel empowered to harass employees, that's a huge issue.
Kalanick is 40 years old. Demographically, he must have been surrounded by "grown-ups" for more than half of that time, i. e. people who don't consider sexual harassment a fun hobby for his brand of overachievers. If he didn't get it before, I doubt he will now.
But, if he's seen the light, great. It's obviously tainted by being motivated solely by his effort to safe Uber. If he's sincere, his newfound believes would be best served by resigning, or switching to a role at Uber where he's no longer responsible for managing people.
Not that it matters – Uber isn't much more than a bro-themed ponzi scheme anyway. Their investors are subsidizing each ride on the order of 100% of the fare, there's no economies of scale to grow to, nor are there barriers to entry. Maybe consumers will continue to use the service. But investors, employees, and drivers won't. It's anybody's guess as to how long they can survive without fresh cash, but I bet this apology stems from Kalanick's ability to see the end of the runway.
That's precisely it. Uber is dependent on outside investors to stay afloat, and I'm guessing they don't want the bad publicity to be associated with someone like him, which is forcing him to take these actions. On some level, I don't trust this guy one bit but hopefully he is serious about making changes (a lot of people depend on/use Uber).
"End game" indeed. Self-driving cars shed the only competitive advantage they have: efficiently organizing thousands of drivers.
Surely self-driving cars will also be available to consumers. It's just a software update from there to a mode that lets your car earn some money when you don't need it. The manufacturers will be the first to offer the remaining booking/billing/insurance service, but there'll be plenty of competitors.
Uber, meanwhile, will start with >100 billion already burned in a 5-year mission to obsolesce.
If they're smart (and for all their dipshit culture they do have a good product) they will use all the data they have gathered on rideshares to possibly improve that experience. Or pivot into something else.
I don't understand why they cut prices. I've never used Uber because it's cheaper, I use it because it's better. If the drivers are able to make decent money, I feel even better about using it.
Ideally, I wish the price was high enough that drivers didn't ask for tips. However, if tipping becomes the norm, Uber should remove the friction of tipping by adding it into the app.
Part of the reason it is better is that the rides are subsidized which pays drivers more than otherwise and attracts more drivers (availability) while making driving a newer car possible (quality). For it to remain "better" prices would have to rise significantly which wouldn't work outside of a niche market. Worse still - if Uber loses riders and starts serving a niche again, availability will get worse as there will not be enough demand to keep that many drivers on the road.
Take a look at airlines for what a race to the bottom in transportation looks like. People in aggregate are often unwilling to pay a premium for better service and will choose cheaper tickets over amenities like in-flight meals or "free" checked luggage.
I definitely wouldn't use it if it was more expensive. Heck, I'd probably become more motivated to save up and buy a car if Uber wasn't so affordable and accessible.
The cynic in me believes there will never be an IPO. They've started to hide their balance sheets, even from large investors. Their valuation is already sky-high, and it's basically impossible for them to realistically return 10x for new investors, but the risks are higher than they were two or three years ago.
They're a time bomb financially, a mine field politically, and a toxic swamp morally. The Uber->Under transition is just a matter of months.
Yup. I think he would have been smarter to do a Groupon-style IPO, where he wraps it in Christmas paper, gets everybody hyped up, and quickly sells off his personal shares before everybody that they've bought a box full of dog turds and the share price falls by 80-90%.
I'm of course happy he didn't, as he deserves to go down in flames. If we're especially lucky, he and Shkreli will end up sharing a cell. But we're probably not that lucky.
Uber is not a taxi company. They do not compete with Taxis, but with car ownership.
EDIT: I knew if I won't make my point explicit it will be misread. I was referring to:
> Then, we'll see if they'll really survive as a taxi company.
They are building self-driving cars to create a logistic company. They have a limited interest in being a taxi company(in a classical sense), therefore they don't care much.
right, because nobody on here has read Zero To One, so nobody will recognize that "define yourself as a new category if your real category is highly regulated" game.
and because taxi companies don't already compete with car ownership.
Only in the world of American business can a 40 year-old billionaire with a history of threats, intimidation, and blatant disregard for the law, come out and say "I need to grow up" and have people nod along approvingly.
I used to think the idea that Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" was a grotesque caricature. But then I saw people watch a video where a wealthy guy, known for his history of exploiting the poor, scream "personal responsibility" at a bankrupted immigrant. And they overwhelmingly identify with Kalanick.
Put another way, only in the US do businesspeople have to publically apologise for not-being-nice. Towards the end of the video, Kalanick was brusque and even demeaning, but I don't think his position as CEO grants me the right to get high-and-mighty on my keyboard and demand he "grow up." Nor do I expect much insight into anyone's character can be gleaned from a 30-second argument in the backseat of an Uber.
I'm not saying Kalanick is a good (or a bad) CEO. But his job is to build the company, not to serve as its' Mascot-in-Chief.
This was not a mere failure of niceness, as if he didn't say please and thank you.
He was also unkind, arrogant, self-centered, thoughtless, ungrateful, and foolish. As well as failing to demonstrate compassion and moral responsibility.
You're also wrong on what CEOs are supposed to do. Companies are made out of people. His primary job is as a leader of people. The way you build a company is mostly through getting a hundred thousand small interactions with people right. He visibly failed as this guy's boss, just as he's been privately failing to build a sane company culture.
An important secondary job is being the public face of the company, the human representation of the brand. Even if you are a terrible human being, it's your job to get up there and simulate being the kind of person that people would like to associate with your brand.
I agree. In other places billionaires' minions would go and throw some money at driver/law-enforcement/lawyers or simply threaten the victim and get these kind of issues simply go away.
I'm sorry but any good exec coach can point you to Patrick Lencioni or whatever... That man does not need leadership help, he needs how to act like a human help.
There is an interesting theory [1] that Uber's value prop to consumers is dependent on subsidizing 59% of the cost of each ride. Over time they have to remove this subsidy to stem the Billion $ annual losses. The relationship with drivers will undoubtedly be more strained over the coming years, whether it happens as a financial necessity or due to Uber's push into self-driving. Managing the nuance of this transition will be one of the greatest challenges for Uber and require strong skills in empathy, communication and strategic thinking.
I wonder why he is even apologizing. I assume he can't be fired because of dual class voting structure. I don't think he actually cares about the driver.
I have talked to numerous Uber people over the past month and there are many that are locked in because they can't trade the stock and can't afford to exercise the options because of the valuation. Very unhappy .
I don't know whether I'm more embarrassed or sad for the company as a whole. There's a lot of people with their entire lives wrapped up in a company run by a guy who's probably going to headline /r/cringe today.
It's just too easy to jump on Uber hate bandwagon but I seriously hope their bubble will just burst in 2017, then the whole "economy of sharing" will take a hit and similiar services will start show some maturity. Contract of employment would be a good start.
I am a user of Lyft and (very rarely) Uber. As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect to be private.
Travis may have had the same expectation.
On the other hand, a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached about how to politely react to criticism.
> As a passenger in these services, I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect to be private.
My understanding is that California law likely protects Travis in this situation because it was just him and the driver and he could thus expect privacy.
However, it's unlikely that you can prevent someone from publishing your private conversation in a Lyft or Uber, and given that most of these drivers are not high earners you're not likely to get a major payout from them, so while you might legally have the protections of privacy it still probably means very little in practice.
I would have expected some privacy also. If there is no policy on this in Uber then this may be a greater blow to the their brand than anything else in this affair.
Personally I do not see what Kalanick did wrong here. He did not seek personal interaction with the driver. He was not abusive and IMO responded at the same level at which the driver engaged him.
That is all separate from my opinions about the (from my perspective) problem with replacing a publicly funded transport service with a for-profit effective monopoly.
There should be city-wide public transport running 24/7 driven by trained, unionized workers. Not a race-to-the-bottom, gig-economy semi-monopoly.
You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one.
In this case, the recording device was in clear view.
More broadly, the vehicle is owned by a party that has a vested interest in protecting its value. The driver also has prerogative to be able to record incidents / interactions with users so that he can report damage / throwing up. The driver also has prerogative to protect himself from legal liabilities in instances of rape, kidnap, theft, or violence.
"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one"
This varies by jurisdiction.
"968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited." ...
"whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony"
Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol.
Relying on upbringing as a CEO for public image purposes is very naive. He should have been professionally coached on how to react in certain situations, regardless of what his parents taught him.
I had a conversion with a yellow cab driver in NYC who was an uber driver for 2015, said it bankrupt him. I asked him why, he said "because I'm an idiot" - I asked him to elaborate and he said he didn't know basic finance well, and hadn't taken into account what it would actually cost him to drive cab for uber for the year (guy was in his late 50s, immigrated from Egypt 25 years ago). The uber rep who signed him up told him he should expect to make X dollars, that ended up not being true and his costs for insurance, fule, etc etc ended up putting him behind on the year, couldn't afford his mortgage or his car payments so he just declared bankruptcy. A medallion owner I talked to yesterday who was driving his own yellow cab is declaring bankruptcy because uber made his medallion worthless and the bank no longer considers it an asset. All in all it's a fucking mess for drivers yellow cab or otherwise.
Yes... I do... not sure where you are going? Are you suggesting regulatory contracts are always positive? Or randomly pointing out how the tax code has exceptions to encourage investment?
I bet a lot of Uber Black drivers are really hurting from the fare changes. If the amount of money you get paid as a driver drops below your car payment, and you're upside down on your car loan - seems likely, for a full-time Uber driver - then you're going to be in a pretty tight spot.
More generally, I suspect that a big part of Uber getting people to sign on to drive for them full time involved transferring the costs of fleet management to the drivers (at inflated rates, no less, since they have a higher cost of capital, have to pay retail prices for mechanics, etc), without the drivers fully understanding the financial ramifications of that arrangement.
Seeing this apology (that I didn't think was necessary) just made me more angry about their failure to acknowledge anything is wrong with their culture of harassment.
Obviously they can't actually acknowledge the harassment issues because it would put them in a terrible place legally, but it's funny how that omission makes this such a negative PR move in my mind. Better to say nothing at all and just keep pretending they can unicorn-horn themselves through the rough patches?
It looks like I'm in the minority here, but I honestly don't see what's so bad with how Kalanick reacted. The guy was giving him a hard time and he reacted accordingly, I even think he held back alot more than he could have. Kalanick's right, 'Some people don’t like to take responsibility for their own s‑‑‑.' There's alot of truth there. If a company changes their policy, and it affects your income, it's not the company's responsibility to fix that for you. either you find a competing company that can make you more money, or you have to find another way to get your income. In either case, it's your problem to handle. It reminds me of Amazon's recent changes to their affiliate program. There will be people that will maneuver around the policy changes and pull through, then there will be people that will remain stagnant, lose money and blame everyone but themselves.
Kalanick should have doubled down. "Yeah, I was mean, but the guy was a d*ck." Then again, I'm just an armchair analyst. I don't have a multi-billion dollar company to handle.
The strategy here is that Kalanick is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Pretend he's apologizing for the sexual harassment issue, when he's really just apologizing for this one incident. From what I can see here on HN it's working.
The cynic in me is telling me that he planned this whole thing, down to paying the driver to tailor his arguing perfectly.
It would work if it wasn't "pot calling kettle." Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit? You don't say, Travis, you don't say.
I'll be very interested to see what happens if Uber does decide to go public.
Prior to recent events I'd have thought if they did go public they'd almost certainly follow the recent trend of setting up a class structure that gives little to no voting control to most common shareholders. Will they be able to get away with that if it means Travis retains control?
Sorry but the words "I must fundamentally change and grow up" are unbecoming and not befitting of a CEO. As genuine and sincere as it may have been intended - if at all - it just comes across pathetic, weak and a failure. No one wants apologies. You're the fucking CEO, we want ACTIONS.
I think everyone gets one of these. You clearly screw up, you admit to it, and you say you'll fix it (as long as it's not a clearly vicious screw up with irreversible effects).
Gimme a break. It's a fauxpology designed to wedge people into a "well, at least he admitted he was wrong" mindset so that it all quiets down and people stop talking about the fundamental problem with Uber: it replaces solid jobs providing public transportation financed from public taxation with a private systems in which the individual peons are powerless, poorly paid and racing to the bottom.
Normally you expect someone in leadership to have gone past a teenager's mindset before they become the CEO of a company with thousands of employees and stakeholders who rely on them to make wise and good decisions on their behalf.
If he needs to grow up and he hasn't yet, then he should step down.
I didn't see he did anything wrong, he was just a cutting through the crap the driver was spewing. The driver was soliciting the CEO when he should be doing his job and driving, and just shut up. As if a Uber driver knows the business so well that he has the right to tell the damn CEO how the innerworkings of Uber pricing work. The driver just (inappropriately) used the opportunity to lambaste the CEO about his problems.
There is wide disagreement about drivers employment status.
There are several localities that have had legal status ruled one way or the other [1][2], but it's not settled enough to be able to claim that uber drivers aren't employees.
Uber, on the other hand, certainly would like to classify them as such.
It seems to me the Uber driver should find a different job if he's not able to make a go of it. What possible benefit to arguing about pricing with the passenger, regardless whether he's the CEO? I admit, I'd be intrigued if I knew my passenger was the Uber CEO -- I might ask some polite questions about the direction of the company and so forth but probably not directly argue with the man regardless of the CEO's people skills or lack thereof :)
> What possible benefit to arguing about pricing with the passenger, regardless whether he's the CEO?
How about "getting that CEO so far into a corner, you can rate him one star, shame him publicly, and still get an apology"?
That driver, even though he didn't make the best possible argument for his position, has been tremendously influential.
And the position of "don't complain, you're free to leave" didn't even make sense in the 19th century when it was used against people complaining about child labor or fire safety.
