It's not a bad piece. Probably everything that could be said about the Fowler piece has already been said, but the explanation of SRE culture is valuable (most people, including developers not in SFBA or NYC, probably aren't familiar with the concept) and it does capture a callow thoughtlessness that I think many of us have experienced from large employers.<p>I'm not sure any of this is going to be newsworthy to HN commenters, but, solidly written.<p>The title is, of course, godawful. Remember that most story authors don't get to pick their titles.
Smart companies should start giving ethical puzzles to their management candidates. Many tech companies select from the pool of engineers by setting clever brainteasers to evaluate their problem-solving ability. How many do the same to evaluate supervisors' understanding of social technology and relations?<p>I know some firms have ethicists on staff, but they seem to be there more to guide and/or provide cover for working with potentially dangerous technology. I don't get the impression that they have much input into shaping the organization's culture beyond signing off on a list of diversity goals. I'd like to be wrong about this, though, can anyone shed more light on this question?
> It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences from essentially telling the very few women in his group — something that in and of itself should have been a prime concern to him — that they are not welcome in his organization.<p>Also, keep in mind that Fowler's original story noted that when she started 25% of the organization was women, and when she left it was 6%. Have so few women should be a concern, having so few and that's partially because 75% of them have left in roughly a year's time should have been an "all hands on deck, company emergency, we're likely to be sued by multiple parties!" situation.<p>Unless you have a <i>really</i> good explanation for why that is, chances are you've created an extremely hostile work environment. Even if you <i>do</i> have a good explanation, it's probably in your best interest to look at it with a more critical eye, because the stakes are so high.<p>I mean, nobody want's to be stuck with <i>such a bad PR nightmare</i> that they feel the need to hire a former attorney general to signal how serious you're taking it. At that point, you're already screwed.
"it is not a stupid person ... It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences"<p>Jackets and sexual advances are likely just the symptoms. From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. Any employee can safely ignore another if that other employee is not politically tied to their personal advancement.<p>I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top.<p>I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. A political culture will eventually weed out those who are not.
This is something that stood out to me in the original blog post as well. It is unfathomable to me that anyone in a leadership position could harbor such a myopic view.<p>If this were my team and I somehow faced (at a Director level?) some resistance to the cost for the <i>6</i> women's jackets, I would have paid out of my own pocket.
Really? Uber won't pay full price for <i>six</i> jackets?<p>This is either sexist, or an example of their obsession for getting anything for less, including the services of contractor/employees.<p>Or both.
Penny-wise and pound foolish.<p>Quite a lot of this scenario reminds me of a local case that got a bit of press, and it's analogous, as in bad thinking:<p>Drunk guy takes a cab to hotel, doesn't want to pay cab driver $40, so he punches the cab driver and runs into the hotel. Cab driver follows, has hotel staff call Police. Police get info for drunk guy's room and knock. Drunk guy's friend answers and lets the Police in. Police discover bag after bag after bag full of Tax Return ID theft evidence. Multiple arrests, leading to other arrests in other states. Multi-million dollar bust...over a $40 cab fare...<p>Yet another instance where "Do unto others" as a basic "Hmm is this fair" moment of reflection can be very enlightening. Other side of the fence type thing. I've been on both sides enough to understand it's not everybody's skill, but, eh, for management it's rather fundamental...
The last line of the article is something that has been blazing out to me since the first few negative media articles started appearing about Uber's work practises.<p>For all the continual PR damage control that the CEO utters, the problem is the CEO and the board. All the bad business practises that are leaking out aren't 'oversights', a generic 'management/process' problem, or actions of an isolated 'bad apple' - it's ingrained culture established by what the CEO allows explicitly or implicitly (through omission of action).<p>The problem is at the very top of Uber.
So a note on Google's leather jackets that is completely tangential to the article: They source theirs from Golden Bear, who make amazingly high quality jackets (on par with Schott). They are actually quite expensive at retail <i>unless</i> you buy them in bulk, which Google does.
Good to see so many people here are agog with disbelief at this story, which understandably didn't get as much talk as the more disturbing harassment charges. I am assuming by Uber's lack of a counter narrative to the jacket story that it is accurate. To be sure I did write Uber asking if Fowler's account was correct, but they did not reply.
>Instead he replied that if Uber paid a little more for the women’s jackets, they would have been beneficiaries of special privilege. This is standard bigot’s code for denying people protection from discrimination because of their gender, race, religion, or sexual preference.<p>I think the jacket issue has Uber clearly in the wrong, but it's a huge stretch to claim that opposition to giving a minority group special privileges is always "standard bigot's code".
I'm curious now. What do companies that give out company shirts or jackets do when everyone is male so there is no male/female style problem, but some of the males are fat enough or tall enough to need a big & tall size, and those sizes are not available or are a special order for the shirt/jacket they've chosen?<p>There is enough basis in fact for the fat programmer stereotype that this surely must come up now and then.<p>Another one I've seen is giving out food. My employer gave out hams one Christmas. There was one vegetarian, but he was a vegetarian for health reasons, not moral reasons, and was OK with getting that gift and then giving it to a friend of his who liked ham and everyone was happy.<p>But what if we'd had someone who was vegetarian for religious reasons? Or someone who was not vegetarian but could not eat ham for religious reasons? Could giving out that ham be construed as discriminating against them on religious grounds? And would it matter that it was given out for Christmas, which is nominally a religious holiday, as opposed to if it had been given out for, say, President's Day, which is completely non-religious?
I am confused why the jackets would be different in the first place. And the discount argument makes zero sense. If anything, this is a reason to find a different supplier, it's not like there is only one company making jackets.
It gives some background to jacket thing. From all the complaints in the original article, I found this one puzzling. I understood that it was annoying, I did not understood why would someone pick that one as an example for article.
Do private equity firms audit their investments' processes/practices? What at astonishing way expose themselves to liability and destroy their brand while alienating talent at the same time.
cleverness of management at ueber (or anywhere else for that matter) is overrated. this story is typical example of idiocy that rules above certain level in each organization. janitors are the only ones that do honest and useful job. it is all downhill from there.
And yet- as much as I'd like to be wrong, as much as I wish it were different, their investors don't care (except one wrote a medium.com post), their board doesn't care, and their business will most likely survive this short blip and continue as before. In 6 months, will this dustup matter?
these misogynist women-hating lunks turn my stomach. They need to terminated immediately, be humiliated on social media and have their careers ruined forever. They can wear their stupid war jackets while they cry.
Is this actually real? This is utterly ridiculous. Sounds like a company run by a bunch of privileged entitled amateurs with zero consequences for their actions. This culture needs to be punished severely. Name and shame the director involved.
I think that the company which sold the leather jackets is the one in the wrong, if the facts are correct in this example. If you are paying a bulk rate for jackets, that bulk rate must apply to male and female jackets. They don't have to be the same price at the end, but the discount has to apply to the entire order.<p>I also, however, think that the facts are probably misrepresented in this article.
I'm sorry but none of this story makes any sense at all and I feel like I'm living in some kind of weird alternate reality. Sit down, look at the world around you, and ask yourself if the account seems plausible <i>at all</i>. The number of people not just indifferent but actually full to the brim with malice for this to have gone down at claimed is staggering. Literally dozens of people would have be outright evil - to no benefit of their own, just caricatures of masculine evil - for even half of it to be true as-written. It's just such a cartoonish version of villainy it's what a collective Tumblr mind would spit out as a novella.