5 ms·
The "position" might have given them more leverage over his actions: They can control the communications and other actions of an employee, to a significant degr
by forapurpose 9y ago
The "position" might have given them more leverage over his actions: They can control the communications and other actions of an employee, to a significant degree, and as someone investigating the bad behavior, the employee now shares some liability for what Uber does in that regard.
- tptacek 9y agoThis is the kind of thing that makes sense on a message board, but having been a party to a situation in which a former employee (not at one of my companies) made claims which the management team believed to be bogus, the (professional) management of that company did whatever they could to get that employee _as far as they possibly could_ from the operations of the company, _as quickly as they could_. The idea that there was some machievellian scheme to keep this guy on the books in order to monitor him more closely does not ring true at all.
- user5994461 9y agoI agree that professional management would get rid of the guy as quickly as far away as possible. If we assume for a minute that uber is abysmal at management, it makes sense that they would go for the crazy strategy to keep him aboard and monitor him.
- tptacek 9y agoNo it doesn't! That's crazy logic. "They're dumb, so it's reasonable to attribute every possible dumb decision to them." Dumbness doesn't work that way.
- forapurpose 9y agoTo omit statements like the following would not at all detract from the comments or from the discussion. > This is the kind of thing that makes sense on a message board > That's crazy logic. The HN guidelines almost directly address this kind of comment: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Brevity is the soul of wit.