3 ms·

The article gives no direct indication that Uber was different from any other high-stress job, other than the fact that Thomas committed suicide. Right, it giv

The article gives no direct indication that Uber was different from any other high-stress job, other than the fact that Thomas committed suicide. Right, it gives indirect indications. Given the seriousness of the issue (and the fact that a father of 2 children may have died as a result) -- along with Uber's by now well-established track record for malfeasance (and all-around asshole-ery in general) it's certainly worth looking into what the direct causal factors may have been. Can you account for a person being put under a "life-threatening" amount of stress, but choosing not to quit? It's the very nature of high-stress situations that (1) they appear to have "no way out" and (2) people not embedded in those situations have difficulty identifying with the experience of those who are. And if I my paraphrase your last sentence: There is no indication [in the article] that working conditions at Uber where unreasonably stressful. You keep repeating that, but the statements in the article from the deceased's family members strongly suggest otherwise.

Chris2048 10y ago
Not 'indications', insinuations. > Given the seriousness of the issue Is exactly why we should not speculate. > along with Uber's by now well-established track record for malfeasance aka, prejudice. > it's certainly worth looking into what the direct causal factors may have been I don't deny that it "could have been", but it also "could have not been" - you don't know, and have no way to "look into" or otherwise investigate the situation. If the article did have the means, they did not present anything that would indicate fault. > It's the very nature of... I disagree - but if you have a psych degree I'll recant. point #2 is pretty much an ad-hom - no one need to "identify" with anyone, I've seen stressful jobs and people fall apart in them entirely separately to the issue of whether the stress was undue or criminal; your statement is circular in that it assumes that this was one of "those situations", when you don't know anything directly about the environment. This is all a tangent - you are still arguing "it might be this way", when I never argued otherwise. You are attacking a straw man; The point is the article implied one thing, without substance - whether that thing is possible is irrelevant; it is no more likely, given that we've only hear one side of the story from a party wanting to promote that possibility, but with no direct claim of why they believe it it true. > the statements in the article from the deceased's family members strongly suggest otherwise FFS! yes, they do imply that, that is what those family members believe and are promoting, but the article gives no credible reason why they believe that - in fact they give good reason why the family might promote that position without any reason to believe it is more likely than not - not only might they gain much-needed money if it is believed, but it is probably easier to believe it psychologically, given they are the family of the man. The direct evidence/testomony they give, about actual facts are only that Thomas was highly stressed, due to work, and suffering from anxiety - that is not what I take issue with. What I do take issue with, is the conclusion that this must be because the work environment was unduly stressful - they have no reason to believe this.

Chris2048 10y ago

Not 'indications', insinuations. > Given the seriousness of the issue Is exactly why we should not speculate. > along with Uber's by now well-established track record for malfeasance aka, prejudice. > it's certainly worth looking into what the direct causal factors may have been I don't deny that it "could have been", but it also "could have not been" - you don't know, and have no way to "look into" or otherwise investigate the situation. If the article did have the means, they did not present anything that would indicate fault. > It's the very nature of... I disagree - but if you have a psych degree I'll recant. point #2 is pretty much an ad-hom - no one need to "identify" with anyone, I've seen stressful jobs and people fall apart in them entirely separately to the issue of whether the stress was undue or criminal; your statement is circular in that it assumes that this was one of "those situations", when you don't know anything directly about the environment. This is all a tangent - you are still arguing "it might be this way", when I never argued otherwise. You are attacking a straw man; The point is the article implied one thing, without substance - whether that thing is possible is irrelevant; it is no more likely, given that we've only hear one side of the story from a party wanting to promote that possibility, but with no direct claim of why they believe it it true. > the statements in the article from the deceased's family members strongly suggest otherwise FFS! yes, they do imply that, that is what those family members believe and are promoting, but the article gives no credible reason why they believe that - in fact they give good reason why the family might promote that position without any reason to believe it is more likely than not - not only might they gain much-needed money if it is believed, but it is probably easier to believe it psychologically, given they are the family of the man. The direct evidence/testomony they give, about actual facts are only that Thomas was highly stressed, due to work, and suffering from anxiety - that is not what I take issue with. What I do take issue with, is the conclusion that this must be because the work environment was unduly stressful - they have no reason to believe this.