5 ms·

has Kalanick himself ever harassed women? I'm genuinely asking, I haven't followed the Uber story closely but I thought the harassment accusations weren't aimed

has Kalanick himself ever harassed women? I'm genuinely asking, I haven't followed the Uber story closely but I thought the harassment accusations weren't aimed at the CEO. I don't think anyone's suggesting that sexually harassing women is good for business.

dsg42 9y ago
Boob-er anyone? http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1 http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1
qb45 9y ago
I don't think he has been accused of doing it personally. It also is weird that matt4077 repeatedly contrasts Kalanick with Steve Jobs in this thread, despite Apple having been accused many times of mean culture, sexism, harassment and cover-ups too.
bjacobel 9y ago
When another executive (probably illegally) obtained medical records of a woman who was raped by a driver in India, Travis viewed the records and repeatedly aired his belief internally that the whole thing was a setup by a rival company and no rape had occurred. https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-records https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-indi...
- Sacho 9y ago
  This is not sexual harassment.
  - lucaspm98 9y ago
    Agreed, much more in the asshole (this is a good thing?) category.
matt4077 9y ago
There are some stories documenting what seems to be a somewhat strange relationship to women, but that's not quite the point. He has, and this seems to be almost undisputed at this point, certainly let far too many serious incidents including sexual harassment and assault go by without taking action. I've commented all over this thread (as a sister comment points out) because it appears there is a narrative that his attitude towards his employees misbehaviour is at least closely linked to the personality traits that allowed him to be successful. That can be seen, I believe, by the many comparisons to Steve Jobs, for whom it's accepted more widely that it was often hard to work for him because of his perfectionism, but that this was a necessary trait for his success. The danger here is that people (mis)understand the situation and start excusing inexcusable behaviour, or even imitate it, because they think it's linked to success. It is not. You have to separate the strip-club-going bravado from the other law-breaking, which could at least in theory explain Uber's success.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > it was often hard to work for him because of his perfectionism Honestly, this feels like a white-wash. Jobs was exceedingly demanding, but that's hardly unique. Jobs was also dishonest, secretive, and simply cruel to the people around him. This comes up over and over, even in his non-business interactions. I agree that it's an error to lionize Kalanick's behavior. But it's also wrong to say that Jobs' behavior was radically different, or that Kalanick's party-boy bravado is clearly separable from his disregard for the law. Realistically, I think we'd be better off admitting that an urge to ignore boundaries usually applies across many topics. If Jobs was more capable Kalanick, I don't think that was a function of his nastiness somehow being more noble. He seems to have simply brought a lot more skill to his task.
_jal 9y ago
No, he oversaw the harassment and managed HR's nonresponse to it. Like any good late-stage US capitalist, he outsourced it.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  > he oversaw the harassment so he was standing over watching with approval as his employees were accosted? I doubt it. I think what's more likely is he didn't know about the extent of harassment (or didn't care, if you want to be cynical) and the initial HR non-response was likely just a really poor quality HR department designed to manage PR rather than solve employee problems. Organisations are more than just their CEO and while you can lay plenty of blame on him for allowing such a poor quality workplace culture to evolve, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a big fan of sexual harassment in the workplace.
  - _jal 9y ago
    > I doubt it. I bet you do, because nobody in their right mind believes that, and you are obviously attempting to cast the notion that a CEO might know what happens in their company as absurd. Or do you also think that others believe oversight committees on BoDs literally stand over the managers and nod or grimace? If he didn't know what HR was up to, he was incompetent. > that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a big fan of sexual harassment And... exactly nobody I've read here or anywhere else has asserted that. If you want to argue, do so in good faith.
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      I don't think a CEO knows what happens in such a large company at the level of individual employees. If he didn't know what HR was up to, perhaps he wasn't the director in charge of HR? You can't expect a CEO to know 100% of what's happening in a larger company. > And... exactly nobody I've read here or anywhere else has asserted that. If you want to argue, do so in good faith. > ... managed HR's nonresponse to it. your quote seems to imply that he went out of his way to make sure HR did nothing about the harassment. I'd be inclined to argue incompetence (or just a lack of ground-level micromanagement) over malice.

dsg42 9y ago

Boob-er anyone? http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1 http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1

qb45 9y ago

I don't think he has been accused of doing it personally. It also is weird that matt4077 repeatedly contrasts Kalanick with Steve Jobs in this thread, despite Apple having been accused many times of mean culture, sexism, harassment and cover-ups too.

bjacobel 9y ago

When another executive (probably illegally) obtained medical records of a woman who was raped by a driver in India, Travis viewed the records and repeatedly aired his belief internally that the whole thing was a setup by a rival company and no rape had occurred. https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-records https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-indi...

Sacho 9y ago
This is not sexual harassment.
- lucaspm98 9y ago
  Agreed, much more in the asshole (this is a good thing?) category.

matt4077 9y ago

There are some stories documenting what seems to be a somewhat strange relationship to women, but that's not quite the point. He has, and this seems to be almost undisputed at this point, certainly let far too many serious incidents including sexual harassment and assault go by without taking action. I've commented all over this thread (as a sister comment points out) because it appears there is a narrative that his attitude towards his employees misbehaviour is at least closely linked to the personality traits that allowed him to be successful. That can be seen, I believe, by the many comparisons to Steve Jobs, for whom it's accepted more widely that it was often hard to work for him because of his perfectionism, but that this was a necessary trait for his success. The danger here is that people (mis)understand the situation and start excusing inexcusable behaviour, or even imitate it, because they think it's linked to success. It is not. You have to separate the strip-club-going bravado from the other law-breaking, which could at least in theory explain Uber's success.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> it was often hard to work for him because of his perfectionism Honestly, this feels like a white-wash. Jobs was exceedingly demanding, but that's hardly unique. Jobs was also dishonest, secretive, and simply cruel to the people around him. This comes up over and over, even in his non-business interactions. I agree that it's an error to lionize Kalanick's behavior. But it's also wrong to say that Jobs' behavior was radically different, or that Kalanick's party-boy bravado is clearly separable from his disregard for the law. Realistically, I think we'd be better off admitting that an urge to ignore boundaries usually applies across many topics. If Jobs was more capable Kalanick, I don't think that was a function of his nastiness somehow being more noble. He seems to have simply brought a lot more skill to his task.

_jal 9y ago

No, he oversaw the harassment and managed HR's nonresponse to it. Like any good late-stage US capitalist, he outsourced it.

beaconstudios 9y ago
> he oversaw the harassment so he was standing over watching with approval as his employees were accosted? I doubt it. I think what's more likely is he didn't know about the extent of harassment (or didn't care, if you want to be cynical) and the initial HR non-response was likely just a really poor quality HR department designed to manage PR rather than solve employee problems. Organisations are more than just their CEO and while you can lay plenty of blame on him for allowing such a poor quality workplace culture to evolve, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a big fan of sexual harassment in the workplace.
- _jal 9y ago
  > I doubt it. I bet you do, because nobody in their right mind believes that, and you are obviously attempting to cast the notion that a CEO might know what happens in their company as absurd. Or do you also think that others believe oversight committees on BoDs literally stand over the managers and nod or grimace? If he didn't know what HR was up to, he was incompetent. > that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a big fan of sexual harassment And... exactly nobody I've read here or anywhere else has asserted that. If you want to argue, do so in good faith.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    I don't think a CEO knows what happens in such a large company at the level of individual employees. If he didn't know what HR was up to, perhaps he wasn't the director in charge of HR? You can't expect a CEO to know 100% of what's happening in a larger company. > And... exactly nobody I've read here or anywhere else has asserted that. If you want to argue, do so in good faith. > ... managed HR's nonresponse to it. your quote seems to imply that he went out of his way to make sure HR did nothing about the harassment. I'd be inclined to argue incompetence (or just a lack of ground-level micromanagement) over malice.