4 ms·

This seems like an absurd attempt at trying to lay the blame for recent reports on someone who was hired a month ago?

• Ensorceled 10y ago
  Or an effort to actually clean house. There is not enough evidence from this one act to make ANY judgment on whether Uber is fixing their problem or carrying on as usual.
  • HelloNurse 10y ago
    In the best case, firing a very expendable recent hire for a good reason is much less painful than getting rid of an important engineer, or even HR and top management. Fixing the problem would require company-destroying purges.
    • FireBeyond 10y ago
      No, the best case would be actually fixing the problem. Heaven forbid we "get rid of an important engineer", when, literally, that's the exact problem that got Uber into this mess. Multiple times complaints were met with "well, he's a high performer, so try to stay on his good side, and well, if he gives you a negative review, we can't do anything about that". If removing the problem would destroy the company, that's a much bigger issue in itself.
      • HelloNurse 10y ago
        I meant "the best case" as the morally best possibility in which Uber is least evil: neglecting the serious behaviour problems, but at least firing someone who deserved to be fired. They might also have fired an innocent, or a conniving expendable employee, to improve their image. Today's commotion about their CEO insulting a humble Uber driver suggests a ruthless PR campaign of distraction and damage control.