4 ms·

Willingness to generalize an entire group seems far more deserving of a black mark.

zippergz 10y ago
Hiring is hard. We have to use all the data points available to us. If someone seems to have thrived in a culture that is counter to the culture we're trying to build, that's a valuable data point.
- mantas 10y ago
  Insert {protected minority} and see how it sounds. People may have worked there for a variety of reasons and/or in different team. Let alone that stuff like Stockholm syndrome exists for a reason.
  - knorby 10y ago
    That's absurd and offensive on a lot of levels... The thing anyone in a protected class wants is to not be judged on that as a factor one way or the other. People working at Uber are "struggling" because their perceived ticket to the stars is looking kind of bad; they wish there were getting offers left and right for working there, because plenty of people get jobs on the basis of their last company. You get judged in interviews, and it is a best case scenario if it is over recent stuff you had control over.
    - mantas 10y ago
      I don't care of they're struggling with or without quotes. What sucks is sweeping generalisations. Which is exactly what is going on. I'm pretty sure most people went were because of tech challenge and/or money. Not because of chasing bro culture or possibility to offend coworkers. From what I read about Uber, it looks like most people were not happy about what was going on. There were a small amount of assholes (which exist in any company or community). The problem is that management is OK with assholes and give them a pass. However, all the good folks are thrown together with few assholes. P.S. I'd be happy to see Uber gone. I'm not using it on principle for their "disruption" mentality. As well as the rest of "sharing economy".
  - otterley 10y ago
    The reason certain minorities are protected is in part because the reason for discrimination is because of race, gender, or other attributes they were born with and cannot change. The choice of where to work is just that--a choice. Choices have consequences. If you willingly accept continued association with a known group of bad actors, it's reasonable that someone might judge your character poorly for that choice.
    - mantas 10y ago
      As if majority of Uber workers thought "hey, I could offend women and do shit there, I want to work for them!". And sure all programmers value workplace image over technical challenges? It's as reasonable to think ex-Uberist is douche as that ghetto-looking dude stole a bicycle on the way to job interview. Possible? Yes. More likely than average citizen? Yes. Reasonable? If people would be (soft-)forced to steer clear from anyone who might look like a bad actor, it'd suck big time. Want to take down opponents? Spread some rumours and people are afraid to work with them. Or companies would be over-the-top to look good instead of focusing on what they actually do. Github and their diversity team comes to mind.
      - sgift 10y ago
        > And sure all programmers value workplace image over technical challenges? No, but then they've made a decision and sometimes those come back to haunt you. That said: I wouldn't dismiss someone from a position just because they've worked at Uber, but I would ask "pointed questions" to quote the article. At the end of the day you will have to work with that person and I'd rather work with nice people than not.
    - mahyarm 10y ago
      I wont hire someone from google, because they have hyper creepy dossiers on everyone. I wont hire from FB, because they were bros in the past, have privacy problems and also have creepy dossiers on everyone. I wont hire from apple, because how could someone support an asshole like steve jobs? I wont hire someone from amazon/AWS, have you seen how they treat their warehouse workers? I won't hire someone from microsoft, they were monopolist assholes! I wont hire someone who worked at a chinese company, they act even worse than all of the above! I won't hire someone who moved to large powerful country X, because they could immigrate to europe and not support such a bad government with their tax dollars. I wont hire a person who moved to city X, because they generate the housing disaster displacing poor people. I wont hire a religious person, becaue religion has done horrible things. I wont hire a non-religious person, because they have no morals. I won't hire a guy who stayed at media-hated company for X years even though I have no idea what their personal situation was. Maybe if they left, their green card would be delayed for a year a two. A year of someones life is nothing right? Maybe the 100 person team at their 10-50k employee company was really nice and had none of the toxic crap reported by the media. It's a dangerous road to judge people like that, lest you be judged the same, in secret.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Wow. So being black is the same as choosing to work at Uber? Wow.
  - arjie 10y ago
    Well, yes, that's why it's a protected category. It's the fact that it's a protected category that distinguishes it from non protected categories. That's the distinction and that's why the same doesn't apply there as for any random thing. If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense. That's the thing with substitutions. They change the meaning. I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds. They're the people reducing their own hiring pool. Everyone else is going to evaluate the candidates directly for culture and consequently have a competitive advantage.
    - mantas 10y ago
      > If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense Why would it? From my experience, companies with poor code quality are great to poach junior-to-mid programmers. They're super happy to jump the ship and they're well aware of code smells and problems poor code causes. > I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds. Would you discriminate based on person himself or because he dared to work for company you don't like?
      - arjie 10y ago
        I won't actively do that though I suppose some bias will seep into my judgment for every company whose work I admire. But I think it's important that other people are able do it. Also I picked "poor programming skills environment " to mean everyone there has poor programming skills.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Insert {protected minority} and see how it sounds. I inserted a variety of choices, and it always came out sounding like a false equivalency. (Hint: you can be born black, but I've heard no reports of someone being born an Uber employee.)
    - maverick_iceman 10y ago
      How about religion?
  - bjacobel 10y ago
    Being an asshole isn't a protected class.
- mc32 10y ago
  Those people were not borne and bred at Uber, many are talented people who were poached from other "high status" companies. It may be the "culture" at Uber makes some people do dumb things, but it seems to follow that if they behaved well while at other well managed companies that they would become good assets under a positive management structure elsewhere.
- whyenot 10y ago
  Data are useful, but interpretation is more murky. You are interviewing the people who don't want to work at Uber anymore. The people who might not "fit in" (following your logic) are the people who aren't interested in leaving.
zorpner 10y ago
If someone stayed with Uber this long (specifically, in an engineering role, where they have ample other opportunity), they have serious ethical problems. I wouldn't hire them.
- orange_county 10y ago
  My friend's wife was previously in an abusive relationship. Some people would say she stayed too long. She's a great person and I'm glad my friend married her.
  - zorpner 10y ago
    Comparing voluntary highly-compensated employment to domestic abuse is an insult to your friend's great wife, among many others.
    - tbrownaw 10y ago
      ...yeah, you're going to have to explain that one. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that relationships are voluntary too, and there's groups offering help to anyone looking to escape a bad one. Yet, blaming people for not leaving immediately tends to be rather frowned on. Is the difference just that in one case you're getting paid, and are therefore transformed into a perfectly rational homo economicus? Is it that it's easier to (know you need to) leave if the only danger is to your morals rather than to your physical body? Is it somehow easier to recognize moral danger than physical danger?
      - lazyasciiart 10y ago
        I suspect you're just making a fun comparison without much thought, but it comes across as pretty obnoxious. Nobody at Uber is afraid they'll be murdered if they quit their job. Stop trivializing domestic abuse.
        throwanem 10y ago
dikdik 10y ago
So assuming someone that went to Harvard must be really smart means you deserve a black mark?

Hiring is hard. We have to use all the data points available to us. If someone seems to have thrived in a culture that is counter to the culture we're trying to build, that's a valuable data point.

mantas 10y ago
Insert {protected minority} and see how it sounds. People may have worked there for a variety of reasons and/or in different team. Let alone that stuff like Stockholm syndrome exists for a reason.
- knorby 10y ago
  That's absurd and offensive on a lot of levels... The thing anyone in a protected class wants is to not be judged on that as a factor one way or the other. People working at Uber are "struggling" because their perceived ticket to the stars is looking kind of bad; they wish there were getting offers left and right for working there, because plenty of people get jobs on the basis of their last company. You get judged in interviews, and it is a best case scenario if it is over recent stuff you had control over.
  - mantas 10y ago
    I don't care of they're struggling with or without quotes. What sucks is sweeping generalisations. Which is exactly what is going on. I'm pretty sure most people went were because of tech challenge and/or money. Not because of chasing bro culture or possibility to offend coworkers. From what I read about Uber, it looks like most people were not happy about what was going on. There were a small amount of assholes (which exist in any company or community). The problem is that management is OK with assholes and give them a pass. However, all the good folks are thrown together with few assholes. P.S. I'd be happy to see Uber gone. I'm not using it on principle for their "disruption" mentality. As well as the rest of "sharing economy".
- otterley 10y ago
  The reason certain minorities are protected is in part because the reason for discrimination is because of race, gender, or other attributes they were born with and cannot change. The choice of where to work is just that--a choice. Choices have consequences. If you willingly accept continued association with a known group of bad actors, it's reasonable that someone might judge your character poorly for that choice.
  - mantas 10y ago
    As if majority of Uber workers thought "hey, I could offend women and do shit there, I want to work for them!". And sure all programmers value workplace image over technical challenges? It's as reasonable to think ex-Uberist is douche as that ghetto-looking dude stole a bicycle on the way to job interview. Possible? Yes. More likely than average citizen? Yes. Reasonable? If people would be (soft-)forced to steer clear from anyone who might look like a bad actor, it'd suck big time. Want to take down opponents? Spread some rumours and people are afraid to work with them. Or companies would be over-the-top to look good instead of focusing on what they actually do. Github and their diversity team comes to mind.
    - sgift 10y ago
      > And sure all programmers value workplace image over technical challenges? No, but then they've made a decision and sometimes those come back to haunt you. That said: I wouldn't dismiss someone from a position just because they've worked at Uber, but I would ask "pointed questions" to quote the article. At the end of the day you will have to work with that person and I'd rather work with nice people than not.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    I wont hire someone from google, because they have hyper creepy dossiers on everyone. I wont hire from FB, because they were bros in the past, have privacy problems and also have creepy dossiers on everyone. I wont hire from apple, because how could someone support an asshole like steve jobs? I wont hire someone from amazon/AWS, have you seen how they treat their warehouse workers? I won't hire someone from microsoft, they were monopolist assholes! I wont hire someone who worked at a chinese company, they act even worse than all of the above! I won't hire someone who moved to large powerful country X, because they could immigrate to europe and not support such a bad government with their tax dollars. I wont hire a person who moved to city X, because they generate the housing disaster displacing poor people. I wont hire a religious person, becaue religion has done horrible things. I wont hire a non-religious person, because they have no morals. I won't hire a guy who stayed at media-hated company for X years even though I have no idea what their personal situation was. Maybe if they left, their green card would be delayed for a year a two. A year of someones life is nothing right? Maybe the 100 person team at their 10-50k employee company was really nice and had none of the toxic crap reported by the media. It's a dangerous road to judge people like that, lest you be judged the same, in secret.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Wow. So being black is the same as choosing to work at Uber? Wow.
- arjie 10y ago
  Well, yes, that's why it's a protected category. It's the fact that it's a protected category that distinguishes it from non protected categories. That's the distinction and that's why the same doesn't apply there as for any random thing. If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense. That's the thing with substitutions. They change the meaning. I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds. They're the people reducing their own hiring pool. Everyone else is going to evaluate the candidates directly for culture and consequently have a competitive advantage.
  - mantas 10y ago
    > If you substitute "poor programming skills environment" it suddenly makes sense Why would it? From my experience, companies with poor code quality are great to poach junior-to-mid programmers. They're super happy to jump the ship and they're well aware of code smells and problems poor code causes. > I'm all in favour of letting people discriminate on these grounds. Would you discriminate based on person himself or because he dared to work for company you don't like?
    - arjie 10y ago
      I won't actively do that though I suppose some bias will seep into my judgment for every company whose work I admire. But I think it's important that other people are able do it. Also I picked "poor programming skills environment " to mean everyone there has poor programming skills.
- mikestew 10y ago
  Insert {protected minority} and see how it sounds. I inserted a variety of choices, and it always came out sounding like a false equivalency. (Hint: you can be born black, but I've heard no reports of someone being born an Uber employee.)
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    How about religion?
- bjacobel 10y ago
  Being an asshole isn't a protected class.
mc32 10y ago
Those people were not borne and bred at Uber, many are talented people who were poached from other "high status" companies. It may be the "culture" at Uber makes some people do dumb things, but it seems to follow that if they behaved well while at other well managed companies that they would become good assets under a positive management structure elsewhere.
whyenot 10y ago
Data are useful, but interpretation is more murky. You are interviewing the people who don't want to work at Uber anymore. The people who might not "fit in" (following your logic) are the people who aren't interested in leaving.

zorpner 10y ago

If someone stayed with Uber this long (specifically, in an engineering role, where they have ample other opportunity), they have serious ethical problems. I wouldn't hire them.

orange_county 10y ago
My friend's wife was previously in an abusive relationship. Some people would say she stayed too long. She's a great person and I'm glad my friend married her.
- zorpner 10y ago
  Comparing voluntary highly-compensated employment to domestic abuse is an insult to your friend's great wife, among many others.
  - tbrownaw 10y ago
    ...yeah, you're going to have to explain that one. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that relationships are voluntary too, and there's groups offering help to anyone looking to escape a bad one. Yet, blaming people for not leaving immediately tends to be rather frowned on. Is the difference just that in one case you're getting paid, and are therefore transformed into a perfectly rational homo economicus? Is it that it's easier to (know you need to) leave if the only danger is to your morals rather than to your physical body? Is it somehow easier to recognize moral danger than physical danger?
    - lazyasciiart 10y ago
      I suspect you're just making a fun comparison without much thought, but it comes across as pretty obnoxious. Nobody at Uber is afraid they'll be murdered if they quit their job. Stop trivializing domestic abuse.
      - throwanem 10y ago

dikdik 10y ago

So assuming someone that went to Harvard must be really smart means you deserve a black mark?