5 ms·

> By now I’m sure you’ve seen the video where I treated an Uber driver disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My job as your le

by smdz 10y ago

> By now I’m sure you’ve seen the video where I treated an Uber driver disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My job as your leader is to lead…and that starts with behaving in a way that makes us all proud. That is not what I did, and it cannot be explained away. > It’s clear this video is a reflection of me—and the criticism we’ve received is a stark reminder that I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.... 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. He was explaining the situation politely. Its when the driver started placing his $97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool. If the CEO is contemplating changing this polite no-nonsense behavior -investors should be very concerned EDIT: I came across this interesting comment from gpawl, somewhere down this thread >>> It's a good tactic -- blow off all the worse things you do, then apologize for the one time you weren't at fault, people notice and give you sympathy, and start to forget those worse things.

tptacek 10y ago
You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded: 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.
- smdz 10y ago
  Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Beyond the fact that there's no employer/employee relationship between Kalanick and the driver, I don't think the specifics of the business partnership they have much matters. Nor does the amount of market power the driver has. The driver has a specific grievance. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he clearly has standing to relate it to Kalanick. Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.
  - fragmede 10y ago
    The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver. Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago. It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal. Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage. Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole. In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit. Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.
vinceguidry 10y ago
I haven't watched the video yet, but I suspect that the whole incident was made up out of whole cloth, right down to coaching the driver on the right tenor to set his arguments in. The reason being to make a statement about the sexual harassment issue, without actually talking about the sexual harassment issue.

by smdz 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded: 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.

smdz 10y ago
Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Beyond the fact that there's no employer/employee relationship between Kalanick and the driver, I don't think the specifics of the business partnership they have much matters. Nor does the amount of market power the driver has. The driver has a specific grievance. He might be right or he might be wrong, but he clearly has standing to relate it to Kalanick. Kalanick's insulting response isn't unethical; it's just a breach of norms. As I said, it shows something about Kalanick's character that I'm confident Uber doesn't want to be broadcasting right now.
- fragmede 10y ago
  The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver. Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago. It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal. Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage. Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole. In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit. Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.

vinceguidry 10y ago

I haven't watched the video yet, but I suspect that the whole incident was made up out of whole cloth, right down to coaching the driver on the right tenor to set his arguments in. The reason being to make a statement about the sexual harassment issue, without actually talking about the sexual harassment issue.