Trump-Style Tactics Finally Stopped Working For Uber (buzzfeed.com) 238
BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith describes a three-year-old meeting that Uber held -- which saw several influencers including actor Ed Norton among attendees -- as the beginning of the ride-hailing company's long slow meltdown. Later today, the company is expected to announce that its CEO Travis Kalanick would be temporarily stepping away, and his closest lieutenant is all set to hand his resignation. On Sunday, the company held a board meeting, which according to several journalists, lasted for nearly seven hours. The meeting capped a difficult stretch for the ride-hailing company, which is trying to weather an investigation into its workplace culture, a lawsuit by Google parent Alphabet over the alleged theft of self-driving car trade secrets, a federal probe into its business practices, and the recent departures of top executives. Back to Ben: At the dinner (which took place three years ago), Emil Michael, the right hand of CEO Travis Kalanick, heatedly complained to me about the press. The company, he told me, could hire a team of opposition researchers to fight fire with fire and attack the media -- specifically to smear a female journalist who has criticized the company. I suggested to him that this plan wouldn't really work because the story would immediately become a story about Uber behaving like maniacs. "Nobody would know it was us," Michael responded. "But you just told me!," I replied. [...] Instead of making any meaningful changes, Uber simply pressed on for years. It found both continued growth and accumulating scandals. Many of its crises, like those remarks to me, were tinged with misogyny, whether sexual harassment of its engineers or pulling a rape victim's medical files. After one of those engineers, Susan Fowler, stepped forward with a blog post detailing systemic sexual harassment and discrimination -- a post that was followed up by a series of devastating stories by The New York Times, Recode, and others -- the company invited former Attorney General Eric Holder to lead an internal investigation. Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael is set to resign, and Reuters reported Kalanick will take a leave of absence ahead of what's expected to be a deeply damning Holder report. (Kalanick is also coping with a family tragedy.) They will leave having built the most valuable private company in the world. But it is a company whose cultural darkness is inseparable from its place as the icon of the tech boom. Uber -- and the boom -- have been defined both by massive new conveniences and by a corporate culture that is aggressive, paranoid, and dismissive of, in particular, complaints from women; a culture of enemies lists and cavalier approaches to the law. Emil Michael told Uber employees Monday that he has left the company.
Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I hate to side with, "not appropriate for Slashdot" crowd, this seems more fitting for Slate or Salon.
Using this as a template we can look forward to seeing stories on intrigue and corporate politics at Dillards, because, you know, they use computers in their Point of Sale systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I just replaced a computer/media player at a Nordstrom last month. Is that close enough?
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber faced a legitimately wrong uphill battle in their business model, that of established taxi companies with government granted monopolies barring their entry into the market. They have a reasonable product that may do us all some good, but rather than addressing legitimate concerns they tried to be as slimy as existing taxi companies.
Legitimate concerns that led to establishment of granted monopolies (in some places) were drivers preying on tourists and strangers, drivers who did not have insurance, drivers who themselves were dangerous (criminal or mentally impaired), poor conditions of the vehicle, etc. These have been legitimate and widespread concerns in various points in history, and if you travel to certain places abroad you know that taking a taxi is a somewhat dubious affair that we have significantly less issues with here.
Uber did not wish to address these concerns in their business model, instead focusing on the various strong-arm tactics their competitors were using and shouting down anyone who pointed out the problems. I'm ignoring the "toxic work environment" stuff, I have no way of evaluating whether that is real or made up bullshit, my friends on the inside suggest more of the latter than the former. If instead they had managed to address the issues at hand, I am fairly certain that they would have won. It may be appropriate for their management to be replaced, it seems like they are most guilty of having chosen the wrong strategy, and their apparently devotion to the religion of Libertarianism may have led to their own failure, rather than working with the world as it actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber "claimed" doesn't mean much. This is sort of like those crackpots who claim their household is an independent nation and therefore they don't need to pay taxes. Making a claim to be exempt from regulation is meaningless. Uber would have to actually prove it is not a taxi company rather than merely walking, talking, and quacking like one.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so all they have to do is say they're not a taxi company while providing the exact same service as taxis? Well, good to know that we can just take them at their word for that.
That's not Uber's problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber breaks social and legal contracts left and right. They're competitive edge is that they got away with it when everyone else doing it got shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
The enforcement of a lot of these legal protections were often driven by protecting an already established industry, that of Taxis. It's merely your opinion that it's illegal for Uber to declare the people who work for them are contractors; someone who can choose when and how often they work, and who uses their own equipment (a car and a phone) seems like a pretty clear-cut case of being a contractor to me.
Its beneficial to the various cities' tax bases that these folks are named as employees because they
Re: (Score:3)
Obstructing justice is a bad idea. That's what turns a slap on the wrist into a serious crime that attracts high level attention and guarantees that the authorities won't look the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the problems being solved are no longer a problem, but the way regulation is implemented has become far more of a burden than it was supposed to be. Poorly crafted regulations meant to ensure safety also limited numbers and participation.
The regulation model needs to be re-done. Require the insurance and background checks of any worker- paid, contract, or slave. Do not limit entry in to the industry, numbers, or the like. Anyone who owns a car and is willing to get the proper type of ins
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trump-style tactics?"
Quotes like that (although not surprising coming from super-leftist Buzzfeed), just make it obvious that this is part of a concerted journalist smear campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The left hates uber because it enacts a lot of it agenda via the W2 relationship. The uber model is the urban flight of employment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still struggling to determine where Trump fits into this at all. Why was he even mentioned? Which of Trumps tactics specifically was Uber employing? Lol, it's funny (and telling) that he was even brought up.
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:5, Informative)
As a current Uber driver, I hate Uber too, but not for the same reasons others do.
Uber/Lyft actually save lives. This fact shouldn't be underestimated. Talk to any longtime bartender or policeman in an area that allows Uber and Lyft and they'll tell you that Uber/Lyft have made a huge impact on the reduction of drunk driving accidents. This is the real benefit to society. And I don't care if you're a Democrat, or a Bernie Sanders supporter, but trying to outlaw or regulate Uber/Lyft out of existence is sheer insanity if you really claim to care about your fellow human beings.
With that said, the CEO of Uber has autistic tendencies and lacks emotional maturity. While Trump is a compulsive liar, Uber's CEO (Travis) is a compulsive truth-sayer (but not in a good way either). And I'm not saying this lightly. For instance, Uber's CEO has spoken to a dinner with hundreds of journalists and told them that Uber was doing opposition research into journalists that were critical of Uber. Now, he didn't say that to threaten journalists, he just said to explain his strategy (which he really should never have). And I don't care that probably most large corporations do use opposition research and compose extensive dossiers on whoever they deem an enemy of the company, I'm sure that many of them do. As an executive, it's just not something that you should just blurt out and say, especially to other journalists.
But that too is not the reason I hate Uber. The reason I hate Uber is because the company has no human empathy for any of its drivers. For instance, when Uber deactivates (fires) a driver, it does it while the driver may still be driving a passenger and it does it in the most dangerous way possible. It just logs you out of the driver app (and it doesn't let you log back in). That's it. So imagine, you're a passenger, you're in the car of an Uber driver, you're about halfway towards your destination on some freeway, and suddenly, the trip gets canceled, the driver won't get paid for having picked you up, in fact, he just got fired. Who does that? Seriously? Not even Walmart will fire their employees when they're in middle of a transaction with another customer. And if the employee was unstable to begin with, that's why you're firing him, then all the reason you shouldn't do that when your associate/employee is in a car alone with your customer. Plus, it's not like Uber is a new company anymore. Uber was founded six or seven years ago. Six or seven years, in my opinion, should be enough to rectify such an issue.
And the second reason I hate Uber is wage theft. Now, I won't go into the details. There is a class action lawsuit on this issue. That is the main reason Uber changed its terms of services with its drivers three weeks ago. But now instead of telling its drivers, sorry, we made mistake, we're sorry we stole the money we owed you and lied about what riders were actually paying us. Uber is now doubling down by essentially telling us, from now on, the amount the rider is paying us has no relation to the amount that we'll be paying you. This is a take it, or leave it, deal. If you don't accept the new terms of services, you can't drive for us anymore.
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you please define "Progressive" for me? It seems we use different definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what this has to do with progressive, I've mostly met that kind of behaviour with conservatives, but I guess each country has its own kind of douchebags.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.. No true 'progressive' would ever...
Re: (Score:2)
And since no one on slashdot fits that description, that means no progressives are commenting on slashdot?
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's not to hate about Uber from a Progressive point of view
Forget "progressive". What's not to hate from a fundamental human decency point of view?
Re: (Score:3)
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy. We don't tolerate it from the religious right so why should we from the left?
Re: (Score:3)
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy.
So, we can't do anything to improve human decency because it's a fallacy? Because 'for the children' is also an invalid argument. Yet, most of the laws "for the children" actually benefit them. Just because a reason is invalid for some arguments doesn't mean that all reasons are invalid for all arguments!
Unless... did you vote Trump? It's okay, you can tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
Human decency has a liberal bias?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Uber and Lyft are massively, massively popular in San Francisco, which is arguably the most progressive city in the US.
"Progressives don't like people having choices outside the Progressive's preferred range of "guided" choices."
Then explain who so many "progressives" use those services in San Francisco?
Re: (Score:2)
Ideologically charged people often compartmentalize their beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Uber customers being progressive hipsters form urban cores.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Pointing out 'virtue signalling' is 'trolling'. Pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that recur to the third degree?
Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score:4, Informative)
...because of this The Late Show is unwatchable.
Followed by:
Since hating Trump is the in thing though it has lifted his rating up past the other late night hosts.
...
Does not compute.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. That's blatant Libel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's rank speculation, I'll grant you that, I haven't the foggiest idea how to prove it one way or the other. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it as well. That said, it's the explanation that fits best in my mind. If true, it puts Uber in a bind since they can't run to conservative politicians for help, because their customer base is overwhelmingly liberal. If they get painted as being Red Team(TM), it will hurt them immensely.
As I said before, the question will be answered if Lyft gets the same treatme
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Misogyny (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, weapon has been found that shall sink the Battleship Uber. Legislation couldn't do it, Taxi's couldn't do it, running story after story about how evil they are on Slashdot couldn't do it.
Time to call in the feminists.
Fucking sorted.
Re: Ah, Misogyny (Score:2)
'Fucking sorted'
Yep the feminists sorted that one too!
BuzzFeed "news" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Headlines have always been click-bait, especially front-page ones. The nature of the bait changes over time and with audience, but if you wrote off all media that used baiting headlines you wouldn't have any sources left.
Even most non-fiction books and scientific papers do it these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BuzzFeed "news" (Score:2, Insightful)
No, fuck you for trying to normalize this. It isn't normal.
It's propaganda. It's making negative associations where none exist, in order to manipulate opinions. It isn't "news" or even of interest to the public.
It's a lie and conniving. Shit like this ends with violence. People will be killed by brainwashed dimwits, which is entirely the point and objective.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
why BuzzFeed is being treated like a legitimate news agency?
Apparently because they're anti-Trump/anti-Republican. That's all it takes, it seems.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:BuzzFeed "news" (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't even vote for him and I'm sick of the left's raving obsession with him!
I'm just curious why the Democrats are so upset that a lifelong Democrat got elected instead of someone whose career highlight is "kicked off of Watergate prosecution team for extreme dishonesty."
Don't forget, she also slept with Monica's boyfriend. Or claims to have, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BuzzFeed "news" (Score:2)
That's not actually how logic works.
Additionally, I've disrespected all sorts of women. I have also disrespected all sorts of men. I don't care what is between your legs, or what gender you are. If you don't deserve respect, I'm not giving you respect. That's called equality.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, that Dossier has only become more and more discredited with each passing day. Perfectly framed by the fact that Michael Cohen didn't go to Prague. The super duper investiga
Kids nowadays... (Score:5, Funny)
these are Nixon-style tactics!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, glad he learns from someone who is not a crook.
Re: (Score:2)
these are Nixon-style tactics!
We're millenials. Taking something that is decades old and declaring it hip and "new" is kind of our thing.
Disclaimer: I am a millenial in age only. I actually own a house, and married, and even have an actual full time job.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I am a millenial in age only.
Age is the only criterion for being (or not being) a millennial.
I actually own a house, and married, and even have an actual full time job.
Well, aren't you special.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was doing it before it was cool.
Trump-Style (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be good reporting in here but the Trump bashing shows how petty they are. I want neutral reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone has ever persuaded someone to their own point of view through the use of insults. The opposite is what generally happens.
"Clinton-style" (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm...that's been the Clinton couple's bread-and-butter for decades. (Why do you think she was the only "major" candidate for the Democratic nod last time?) Trump's a fast learner, but he's got a ways to go to catch up.
Re:"Clinton-style" (Score:4, Informative)
Trump is a b-list celebrity...
I always love seeing a line like that. As if Trump is only famous because he was on a TV show for a season or two. That's all we know him from, so what a loser he must be. He's practically a Kardasian.
You guys are so cute when you're blitheringly angry.
We get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We get it, you're being paid to manipulate the news
Russian Hackers have taken over Slashdot????
That explains a lot.
Mod points tip please. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mod points tip please. (Score:5, Funny)
Call the Slashdot 1-800 support line and open a ticket. Or click through the Help link to chat with a live Slashdot editor. They'll help you right out.
-1 Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
How did flamebait from buzzfeed ever get posted to the front page of Slashdot?
Uber will die on its own (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as everyone realizes that fact that most Uber drivers actually LOSE MONEY when you figure in the low rates they pay people combined with the total cost of driving for them (insurance, gas, auto maintenance, etc) most honest figures come up with either less than minimum wages or you are actually losing money on the deal.
Uber is a scam.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, just thinking, it isn't as expensive to own a car everywhere in the US. And you pretty much have to have a car anyway, so that total cost isn't just for uber driving. From pe
Re: (Score:2)
If the people you know are anything like the people I know... They see the cash c
Re: (Score:2)
Just off top, you have to own a car pretty much to live anywhere in the US.
That's a given.
It costs you "$X" as you mentioned, to own a car...insurance, gas, maintenance...etc.
You are going to be paying that anyway.
SO, if you can make some $$ off that car you will own and be paying for anyway, but doing a little uber on the side, then it is helping to help pay for itself a bit, no?
Sure, I know there is a little extra wear on the uber shifts....without having
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uber will die on its own [Fogie Rant] (Score:5, Interesting)
Similar pattern to most IT fads: the fanboys harp on a few key issues and convince suckers and PHB's that those few factors are the bee's knees. Over time they find out the hard way that every factor is important, not just the ones the fanboys highlight and exaggerate.
Just because factors like insurance, lawsuits, cleaning up puke, and mechanical maintenance don't show up in the first Uber paycheck doesn't mean they don't matter in the longer run.
It makes me sound like a fuddy-duddy at work, but I'm usually right because I've seen the same pattern for decades. People are suckers. The inexperienced just don't know how to look at a wide array of factors when evaluating something, and their egos and/or shiny UI objects prevent them from listening to those who can. (On the plus side, reinventing the wheel is great job security, although you start to feel like Sisyphus.)
Uber might survive, but their halcyon days are probably behind them as reality winds its way into their market.
Re:Uber will die on its own (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If they were truly losing money, they would just stop.
I'm not sure, I think most people aren't very good at estimating the cost of wear-and-tear that each additional mile adds for their vehicle. They see the money they get, they compare that to the gas bill, and that's about that. More long-term costs like whether the engine is wearing out, break pads needing replacing, wheels, etc, those are costs that people often don't factor in, or really they don't know how much it'll be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been reading variations on this theme for years with respect to Uber, yet in looking at the Uber app during lunchtime on a Monday, I see nine vehicles within five minutes of my l
Trump-style tactics? (Score:2)
Trump-style tactics? This is the most cringeworthy attempt at spin that I've seen on slashdot since Jon Katz wrote that fake crap about Junis in Afghanistan digging up a Commodore 64 to download porn and movies [wikipedia.org].
I don't check in here very often anymore...this is a great example of why.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the article? (Score:2)
Where's the tie-in to the headline?
Re: So meetings can "see" now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, who cares if their vehicles are powered by a forsaken child, out of sight, out of mind!
That's why sweatshops in Asia, Mexico, and Africa exist, because you don't have to see it. Heck, you don't care that much about polluted water in Michigan. Or prescription drug overdoses in West Virginia.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, who cares if their vehicles are powered by a forsaken child
Rusty Venture runs Uber???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So meetings can "see" now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are indeed too many people quick to try and cite Darwinism without actually knowing what Darwinism is. Probably a lot of "we support science!" types also who get it wrong.
Re: So meetings can "see" now? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, you know.....the people getting those nice, convenient rides at reasonable prices, couldn't care less about all this.
An awful lot do. As you say, many (perhaps most) aren't even really aware of how disastrously awful the company is, but plenty of them, once they find out, stop using Uber.
Re: (Score:3)
If consumers truly didn't care about how things are run at a company, then companies would stop trying to hide their dirty laundry.
Re: So meetings can "see" now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My uber usage dropped 80% in the last year.
I pay with a few extra minutes of wait time (5-10 instead of 3-8), and a 20% tip.
At weird hours, the wait for a lyft goes up dramatically, and I still use Uber, but I can't be the only person that has reduced their usage of Uber, and I suspect at the very least, that's apparent in Lyft's usage (smaller number to start with, so easier to spot the signal through the noise).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But, you know.....the people getting those nice, convenient rides at reasonable prices, couldn't care less about all this.
Hey, it keeps me from drinking and driving, I love the service and use it constantly. What they do at corporate is their problem, I really don't care and I'd dare say most of their customers don't either...if they even know about it at all.
Hey, I've never had a problem with the Uber drivers, the cars, or the ride experience. Everything else about the company is scum, though, and I would question why I would support a company that does those things when there are available alternatives. My company severed its connections with Uber and contracted with Lyft for the last company event where they offered shuttles home. At least for most areas, it's not like Uber is the only game in town -- you're certainly free to choose other options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this SJW crap does not stop I am deleting
Re:Trump-style tactics would be fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, then I'll trash your HQ to the point where you can't use it for months to come, then have to renovate it again.
You can of course sue me and you will of course win, but you will not be able to recover the loss.
Don't play against someone who doesn't mind losing as long as you lose more.
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of action can provide grounds to pierce the corporate veil and bypass the limited liability of a corporation, thus giving the plaintiff the right to directly garner your wages until the end of time.
Re: (Score:2)
What wages?
When you got me at the point where I do this, rest assured that I'll go out of my way to ensure you won't be able to recover a dime. Like I said, it's not possible to win against someone who doesn't mind losing.
Re: Trump-style tactics would be fraud (Score:2)
Suicide bombers pose exactly that problem in extremis
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd personally drive yourself to ruin and destitution because someone was a dick to you once?
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas all the rest of the contractors quickly figure out that a corporation is a deadbeat and will stiff them on the final payment. They just pad all future bids/arrange payment schedules to reflect this knowledge. They all do it, he gets no low bids.
It's not like 'Trump' is the only company that plays this game or that the contractors are stupid.
Any contractor big enough to bid on a Trump job, goes in with their eyes open.
Re: (Score:2)
Most businesses don't play those kinds of games because it's not worth losing good faith, for reasons you've noticed. People want to work with you and are willing to take low bids if that 3% profit margin is off a rather large amount of revenue from all the work you're sending them. They don't want to work with you if that 10% profit margin is contingent on somehow dealing with all your blatant abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the customer is predictable, they cope.
I maintain that contractors do understand that some generals/builders will stiff them on the final payment and adjust their bids accordingly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The "failed" casino that closed down to the employees wanting more money. So they unioned and protested till they got a raise. Then the casino couldn't afford to pay because the casino was all ready bring in less. So the only thing the casino could do was go under. This was years after Trump sold the casino. but the casino was able to still use his name and image.
That "failed" casino?