6 ms·

To me this illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in america which is the crazy firewall between rich and poor. Kamel wanted to have a serious discussi

To me this illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in america which is the crazy firewall between rich and poor. Kamel wanted to have a serious discussion with Kalanick about how his decisions as CEO were affecting Kamel's life and Kalanick gets upset about this. That's your job! At least it should be. If you can't even handle light criticism from the people you employ, you shouldn't be at the top.

dswiese 10y ago
This is driven by the argument that drivers are not employees. He has no vested interest in the drivers circumstances.
- nilved 10y ago
  As far as he is concerned drivers are not humans.
  - simplehuman 10y ago
    How did you reach this conclusion?
    - nilved 10y ago
      I saw a video of the CEO talking to a driver.
      - simplehuman 10y ago
        You are contradicting yourself. The video then proves that he thinks the driver is capable of intelligent conversation. Unless you have seen videos of Travis talk to rocks, trees and bots. If so, please do share.
- atomical 10y ago
  I showed up to uber to pick up a phone that my girlfriend at the time had left in an uber. They told me to wait in line behind the drivers. "Sir, we are all customers here."
MegaButts 10y ago
> If you can't even handle light criticism from the people you employ, you shouldn't be at the top. I ask this in all seriousness: what qualities make for a good leader assuming the ideals of capitalism? I understand many people here will say they would prefer to work for a moral leader who can handle criticism and adapt to make sure his employees are taken care of, but do those leaders perform better at growing companies quickly? I guess what I'm asking is for data - are assholes more likely to be successful CEOs? Or maybe they're better at the early stages when growing a company, or perhaps they're better at the later stages when a company needs to deal with regulations, or maybe they're always the worst. What data is there for this apart from anecdotes?
- harigov 10y ago
  Turning that question around, what sort of a leader do you want to work for? Or folks usually like to work for? This whole idea of growing a company as the only (or most important) thing that matters is something that should die. We want people who we genuinely respect and imitate as our leaders. We want to build products that are genuinely useful and bring about a positive change in the society.
  - MegaButts 10y ago
    Yes, that's a personal decision in deciding where to work. But it's easy to come up with specific examples of CEOs that are assholes who grow gigantic companies. I was just using this specific example with Kalanick to raise the question. Perhaps a better example is Steve Jobs, someone who had something of a cult following but from what I've heard was an all around terrible person. If these people truly weren't tolerated, they wouldn't get to the top in the first place.
    - harigov 10y ago
      I guess some of these leaders have strengths that we probably can't easily put into words. For ex., a leader who can bring about the best from people, a leader who has a knack for understanding people, etc., I wonder how much of those other qualities played role more than them being assholes.
simplehuman 10y ago
Have you worked at a big company? In none of the fortune 500 companies have I met the CEO who has taken a minute to explain like Travis tried. In fact in some of the companies I worked for the CEO won't even respond to email.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  I work for a gigantic corporation and you're right that the CEO wouldn't respond to me. In fact, if we were in a car together and I started talking to him about how my pay wasn't so hot this year I would expect him to be extremely uncomfortable. He should be! He makes huge decisions which affect thousands and thousands of lives. CEOs should be in constant contact with peons like me and Kamel. Maybe they would adjust their decisions so they wouldn't have to be confronted in this sort of way.
  - orange_county 10y ago
    Except the CEO works for the board whose goal is to keep the company profitable so it can continue to exist. If you are upset about pay, you go to your manager or in the case of Kamel, you go work for a competitor Lyft. You have every right to voice your complaints but don't be surprised when they fall on deaf ears.
    - mempko 10y ago
      Or ears that yell BULLSHIT!
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      I read something a while back (maybe here?) and I wish I could find the quote but my google-fu is failing me now, anyways it's something like this: "If the corporate structure is set up in such a way as to diffuse responsibility so thinly that no single person can actually be held responsible then the corporate structure is broken." This is a problem in many, many corporations but Uber is an extreme example. Kamel is just trying to hold someone responsible for the pay changes. Of course Kalanick is going to try to reject responsibility, it's what corporate America has taught him to do. That just seems a little messed up to me. EDIT: Furthermore, there is no good reason that a CEO should not work for the board as well as for their employees and their customers. Or maybe it's that the board should be looking out for their employees and customers. Either way, somebody should be listening to guys like Kamel so that outbursts like this don't have to happen.
synicalx 10y ago
In a large company it simply doesn't work like that, if everyone can come to the CEO with every little problem they have then he or she is going to be fielding complaints 24/7. Griping goes up in steps - you gripe to your manager, they gripe to theirs and so on. EDIT: Spleling
nichochar 10y ago
How is that his job? Stop being a silicon valley hippie for a second and think about how realistic that is.
computerex 10y ago
He was clearly off duty. Being the CEO of a company like Uber is very difficult indeed. Surely the guy doesn't have to answer to literally every single person he meets 24/7 because he is the CEO. He deserves no personal free time?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Bullshit. He gets paid the big bucks for exactly that.
  - computerex 10y ago
    He gets paid big bucks to lead a company like Uber and be held accountable by the board, not some random stranger. You seem to have some romanticized view of the world that's not congruent with reality.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Nope, he get's the money because he founded a company and didn't immediately drive it into the ground. Founders tend to maintain their seats at the table because they were the guys to originally build the table in the first place, and thus have political privilege.
- yladiz 10y ago
  If he wanted "personal free time" without being asked questions, including some pointed ones, he probably shouldn't have taken a car from the service he owns. This person wasn't just "literally" another person, they were technically his employee/contractor and were on the clock even if he wasn't. If I was in this situation where I was working while my boss was technically not but in my presence, I feel like it would be appropriate to ask my boss questions pertaining to my work.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dswiese 10y ago

This is driven by the argument that drivers are not employees. He has no vested interest in the drivers circumstances.

nilved 10y ago
As far as he is concerned drivers are not humans.
- simplehuman 10y ago
  How did you reach this conclusion?
  - nilved 10y ago
    I saw a video of the CEO talking to a driver.
    - simplehuman 10y ago
      You are contradicting yourself. The video then proves that he thinks the driver is capable of intelligent conversation. Unless you have seen videos of Travis talk to rocks, trees and bots. If so, please do share.
atomical 10y ago
I showed up to uber to pick up a phone that my girlfriend at the time had left in an uber. They told me to wait in line behind the drivers. "Sir, we are all customers here."

MegaButts 10y ago

> If you can't even handle light criticism from the people you employ, you shouldn't be at the top. I ask this in all seriousness: what qualities make for a good leader assuming the ideals of capitalism? I understand many people here will say they would prefer to work for a moral leader who can handle criticism and adapt to make sure his employees are taken care of, but do those leaders perform better at growing companies quickly? I guess what I'm asking is for data - are assholes more likely to be successful CEOs? Or maybe they're better at the early stages when growing a company, or perhaps they're better at the later stages when a company needs to deal with regulations, or maybe they're always the worst. What data is there for this apart from anecdotes?

harigov 10y ago
Turning that question around, what sort of a leader do you want to work for? Or folks usually like to work for? This whole idea of growing a company as the only (or most important) thing that matters is something that should die. We want people who we genuinely respect and imitate as our leaders. We want to build products that are genuinely useful and bring about a positive change in the society.
- MegaButts 10y ago
  Yes, that's a personal decision in deciding where to work. But it's easy to come up with specific examples of CEOs that are assholes who grow gigantic companies. I was just using this specific example with Kalanick to raise the question. Perhaps a better example is Steve Jobs, someone who had something of a cult following but from what I've heard was an all around terrible person. If these people truly weren't tolerated, they wouldn't get to the top in the first place.
  - harigov 10y ago
    I guess some of these leaders have strengths that we probably can't easily put into words. For ex., a leader who can bring about the best from people, a leader who has a knack for understanding people, etc., I wonder how much of those other qualities played role more than them being assholes.

simplehuman 10y ago

Have you worked at a big company? In none of the fortune 500 companies have I met the CEO who has taken a minute to explain like Travis tried. In fact in some of the companies I worked for the CEO won't even respond to email.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
I work for a gigantic corporation and you're right that the CEO wouldn't respond to me. In fact, if we were in a car together and I started talking to him about how my pay wasn't so hot this year I would expect him to be extremely uncomfortable. He should be! He makes huge decisions which affect thousands and thousands of lives. CEOs should be in constant contact with peons like me and Kamel. Maybe they would adjust their decisions so they wouldn't have to be confronted in this sort of way.
- orange_county 10y ago
  Except the CEO works for the board whose goal is to keep the company profitable so it can continue to exist. If you are upset about pay, you go to your manager or in the case of Kamel, you go work for a competitor Lyft. You have every right to voice your complaints but don't be surprised when they fall on deaf ears.
  - mempko 10y ago
    Or ears that yell BULLSHIT!
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    I read something a while back (maybe here?) and I wish I could find the quote but my google-fu is failing me now, anyways it's something like this: "If the corporate structure is set up in such a way as to diffuse responsibility so thinly that no single person can actually be held responsible then the corporate structure is broken." This is a problem in many, many corporations but Uber is an extreme example. Kamel is just trying to hold someone responsible for the pay changes. Of course Kalanick is going to try to reject responsibility, it's what corporate America has taught him to do. That just seems a little messed up to me. EDIT: Furthermore, there is no good reason that a CEO should not work for the board as well as for their employees and their customers. Or maybe it's that the board should be looking out for their employees and customers. Either way, somebody should be listening to guys like Kamel so that outbursts like this don't have to happen.

synicalx 10y ago

In a large company it simply doesn't work like that, if everyone can come to the CEO with every little problem they have then he or she is going to be fielding complaints 24/7. Griping goes up in steps - you gripe to your manager, they gripe to theirs and so on. EDIT: Spleling

nichochar 10y ago

How is that his job? Stop being a silicon valley hippie for a second and think about how realistic that is.

computerex 10y ago

He was clearly off duty. Being the CEO of a company like Uber is very difficult indeed. Surely the guy doesn't have to answer to literally every single person he meets 24/7 because he is the CEO. He deserves no personal free time?

st3v3r 10y ago
Bullshit. He gets paid the big bucks for exactly that.
- computerex 10y ago
  He gets paid big bucks to lead a company like Uber and be held accountable by the board, not some random stranger. You seem to have some romanticized view of the world that's not congruent with reality.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Nope, he get's the money because he founded a company and didn't immediately drive it into the ground. Founders tend to maintain their seats at the table because they were the guys to originally build the table in the first place, and thus have political privilege.
yladiz 10y ago
If he wanted "personal free time" without being asked questions, including some pointed ones, he probably shouldn't have taken a car from the service he owns. This person wasn't just "literally" another person, they were technically his employee/contractor and were on the clock even if he wasn't. If I was in this situation where I was working while my boss was technically not but in my presence, I feel like it would be appropriate to ask my boss questions pertaining to my work.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]