7 ms·

Really? Uber won't pay full price for six jackets? This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the service

by a3n 10y ago

Really? Uber won't pay full price for six jackets? This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the services of contractor/employees. Or both.

syshax 10y ago
I agree. There was a report in December that they had lost $800 million in the previous quarter. It seems like utter insanity that: 1. They'd even bat an eyelash at paying retail for the needed quantity, and 2. They'd think it's even remotely ok to exclude a section of the team completely due to any reason (sex, race, size, whatever) Yes, it's just a jacket, but this definitely smells of a deep seeded cultural problem due to how ludicrous it is.
- btown 10y ago
  One must remember that individual managers have budgets much more stringent than the overall burn. That said, the manager didn't feel it necessary or acceptable to escalate what could clearly become an HR nightmare to ask for an expansion of budget. That such a request would expend enough political favor to make it a nonstarter, is indicative of an institutional problem.
vogt 10y ago
Well, by definition, it's the former, whether as a byproduct of the latter or for whatever other root cause.
- nickff 10y ago
  Interestingly, you could also make the case that buying "women's" jackets for the women on the team is sexist, as it does involve treating them differently on the basis of sex. The only non-sexist way to give out these jackets is to ask people which 'sex' of jacket they want, along with their size.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Unless you're buying "one-size-fits-all" jackets, "gender" is usually included in "size". "Men's size 30" is different than "women's size 30".
    - nickff 10y ago
      Most garment companies have differing 'styles' depending on gender, as they use different 'patterns' (shapes) for cutting the materials.
      - foldr 10y ago
        Thank you for that very informative comment. So that's why those sweaters I bought in the women's section at Uniqlo don't seem to fit me very well!
    - cbr 10y ago
      Still, you could ask employees to specify cut+size instead of just size (inferring cut from their gender). So I'd put down "men's small" or whatever.
      - clort 10y ago
        I think if you were being obsessively "fair" then yes you would have to do that (personally, I don't really want a leather jacket its not my thing .. but I could choose one for my SO or my sister or my dad or something)
      - watwut 10y ago
        Guys, all went to fittings. Jackets were right size for whoever was wearing. Fat guys did not got thin guy jackets and thin guys did not got maxi-XXL jackets.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - st3v3r 10y ago
chipgap98 10y ago
This is sexist. No way around it. You could argue that it was not intentionally sexist, but the facts of the situation scream sexism.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > but the facts of the situation The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another. That's something we should all keep in mind.
  - dmansen 10y ago
    Uber hasn't denied any allegations, all of which have an paper trail (otherwise known as "direct evidence")
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      None of this paper trail has been surfaced or aired in a public forum. And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements. Right now, this is trial by mob.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      It's common for an organization to stop to review facts (aka investigate) before taking action or issuing claims or a defense. That's the stage they're at right now. The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    Pretty sure the evidence is that the women didn't get a jacket and the men did. The discussing was just about the complaint, but that core fact remains. It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
nickff 10y ago
Here's a question: Would it be sexist if the women on the team were offered either the men's jacket, or an opportunity to purchase the women's jacket at a cost equal to the difference in cost between the two (i.e. Uber pays the same in both cases, but the women have to add a bit)? Would it be acceptable to only be offered one of the two options, or would each woman have to be allowed to choose for themselves? These questions also implicitly ask whether Uber should be considered to have given the men "a jacket", or "a value equal to the jacket".
- RodericDay 10y ago
  Yes, it would be sexist. If the company is doing their employees a courtesy, it's a courtesy to all or a courtesy to none.
  - nickff 10y ago
    I am trying to ask what the 'courtesy' is; is it the value of the jacket, the sense of belonging, or the protection from the weather?
    - lzecon 10y ago
      It's the sense of belonging... employees didn't get jackets because they were cold and asked the company to buy one for them...
    - geofft 10y ago
      Here's another hypothetical: suppose a manager makes a practice of emailing all their male reports every week with "Just wanted to say that we appreciate your work at this company. Your work this week on ___ was fantastic," and not their female reports. Then there is no question of cost or value or function, other than the five seconds required to figure out something the female reports worked on this week. Would this be an acceptable thing for the manager to do?
      - nickff 10y ago
basseq 10y ago
This is a combination of a) short-sighted unit cost calculations and b) an idiotic response to A. Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men + 6 women, per the article). Let's say because you're buying 120 men's jackets, you get a 20% bulk discount. That's an $80 unit cost for men's jackets and a $100 unit cost for women's jackets (where you don't qualify for a volume discount). The idiot manager says, "Wait a second, we said we were OK with an $80-ish per-employee cost... I can't go spending 25% more on some versus others!" This, on its face, is a fair statement. But the real answer is, "We're buying equivalent goods and our per-employee unit cost is $80.95. Cool? Cool." ($80.95 = [$80 * 120 + $100 * 6] / 126) So instead of doing the real per-employee math, they stopped at the per-item cost, where it looked out of whack. Then they were even more idiotic. Let's say the per-employee cost argument was legitimate (remember: it's not). The right answer would then be, "OK, we need to find something equivalent for $80 unit cost." Instead, they opted for a $0 unit cost for women ("no jacket for you"), a 100% differential. That's not bias or sexism or any of that... it's just idiocy. But it is discrimination, so lawsuit for you. Fire that idiot manager for being an idiot on both risk management and being incompetent.

by a3n 10y ago

Really? Uber won't pay full price for six jackets? This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the services of contractor/employees. Or both.

syshax 10y ago

I agree. There was a report in December that they had lost $800 million in the previous quarter. It seems like utter insanity that: 1. They'd even bat an eyelash at paying retail for the needed quantity, and 2. They'd think it's even remotely ok to exclude a section of the team completely due to any reason (sex, race, size, whatever) Yes, it's just a jacket, but this definitely smells of a deep seeded cultural problem due to how ludicrous it is.

btown 10y ago
One must remember that individual managers have budgets much more stringent than the overall burn. That said, the manager didn't feel it necessary or acceptable to escalate what could clearly become an HR nightmare to ask for an expansion of budget. That such a request would expend enough political favor to make it a nonstarter, is indicative of an institutional problem.

vogt 10y ago

Well, by definition, it's the former, whether as a byproduct of the latter or for whatever other root cause.

nickff 10y ago
Interestingly, you could also make the case that buying "women's" jackets for the women on the team is sexist, as it does involve treating them differently on the basis of sex. The only non-sexist way to give out these jackets is to ask people which 'sex' of jacket they want, along with their size.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Unless you're buying "one-size-fits-all" jackets, "gender" is usually included in "size". "Men's size 30" is different than "women's size 30".
  - nickff 10y ago
    Most garment companies have differing 'styles' depending on gender, as they use different 'patterns' (shapes) for cutting the materials.
    - foldr 10y ago
      Thank you for that very informative comment. So that's why those sweaters I bought in the women's section at Uniqlo don't seem to fit me very well!
  - cbr 10y ago
    Still, you could ask employees to specify cut+size instead of just size (inferring cut from their gender). So I'd put down "men's small" or whatever.
    - clort 10y ago
      I think if you were being obsessively "fair" then yes you would have to do that (personally, I don't really want a leather jacket its not my thing .. but I could choose one for my SO or my sister or my dad or something)
    - watwut 10y ago
      Guys, all went to fittings. Jackets were right size for whoever was wearing. Fat guys did not got thin guy jackets and thin guys did not got maxi-XXL jackets.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- st3v3r 10y ago

chipgap98 10y ago

This is sexist. No way around it. You could argue that it was not intentionally sexist, but the facts of the situation scream sexism.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> but the facts of the situation The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another. That's something we should all keep in mind.
- dmansen 10y ago
  Uber hasn't denied any allegations, all of which have an paper trail (otherwise known as "direct evidence")
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    None of this paper trail has been surfaced or aired in a public forum. And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements. Right now, this is trial by mob.
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    It's common for an organization to stop to review facts (aka investigate) before taking action or issuing claims or a defense. That's the stage they're at right now. The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  Pretty sure the evidence is that the women didn't get a jacket and the men did. The discussing was just about the complaint, but that core fact remains. It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.

nickff 10y ago

Here's a question: Would it be sexist if the women on the team were offered either the men's jacket, or an opportunity to purchase the women's jacket at a cost equal to the difference in cost between the two (i.e. Uber pays the same in both cases, but the women have to add a bit)? Would it be acceptable to only be offered one of the two options, or would each woman have to be allowed to choose for themselves? These questions also implicitly ask whether Uber should be considered to have given the men "a jacket", or "a value equal to the jacket".

RodericDay 10y ago
Yes, it would be sexist. If the company is doing their employees a courtesy, it's a courtesy to all or a courtesy to none.
- nickff 10y ago
  I am trying to ask what the 'courtesy' is; is it the value of the jacket, the sense of belonging, or the protection from the weather?
  - lzecon 10y ago
    It's the sense of belonging... employees didn't get jackets because they were cold and asked the company to buy one for them...
  - geofft 10y ago
    Here's another hypothetical: suppose a manager makes a practice of emailing all their male reports every week with "Just wanted to say that we appreciate your work at this company. Your work this week on ___ was fantastic," and not their female reports. Then there is no question of cost or value or function, other than the five seconds required to figure out something the female reports worked on this week. Would this be an acceptable thing for the manager to do?
    - nickff 10y ago

basseq 10y ago

This is a combination of a) short-sighted unit cost calculations and b) an idiotic response to A. Let's say each jacket is $100. You need 126 of them (120 men + 6 women, per the article). Let's say because you're buying 120 men's jackets, you get a 20% bulk discount. That's an $80 unit cost for men's jackets and a $100 unit cost for women's jackets (where you don't qualify for a volume discount). The idiot manager says, "Wait a second, we said we were OK with an $80-ish per-employee cost... I can't go spending 25% more on some versus others!" This, on its face, is a fair statement. But the real answer is, "We're buying equivalent goods and our per-employee unit cost is $80.95. Cool? Cool." ($80.95 = [$80 * 120 + $100 * 6] / 126) So instead of doing the real per-employee math, they stopped at the per-item cost, where it looked out of whack. Then they were even more idiotic. Let's say the per-employee cost argument was legitimate (remember: it's not). The right answer would then be, "OK, we need to find something equivalent for $80 unit cost." Instead, they opted for a $0 unit cost for women ("no jacket for you"), a 100% differential. That's not bias or sexism or any of that... it's just idiocy. But it is discrimination, so lawsuit for you. Fire that idiot manager for being an idiot on both risk management and being incompetent.