Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Transportation

Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi Will Be Offered the Job as Uber's New CEO (recode.net) 60

Posted by msmash from the next-up dept.
Kara Swisher, reporting for Recode: The board of Uber has voted and wants Expedia Dara Khosrowshahi to be its next CEO. But here is a shocking twist for those who have had to endure this awful, messy and convoluted process: He has not been officially offered the job as of 15 minutes ago, said sources. Still, most expect him to take it and he appears to be the one person dueling factions of the board can agree on. Unknown until now, Khosrowshahi was the third candidate -- after Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman and former General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt. Khosrowshahi is considered the "truce" choice for the board, which has been riven by ugly infighting between ousted CEO Travis Kalanick and one of its major investors, Benchmark. Benchmark had backed Whitman, while Kalanick had backed Immelt. Sources said that going into this morning, after Immelt withdrew his name from contention when it was clear he would not win the job, Whitman had the upper hand in the race for the job. But she also wanted a number of things -- including less involvement by ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and more board control -- that became too problematic for the directors, said sources.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi Will Be Offered the Job as Uber's New CEO More

Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi Will Be Offered the Job as Uber's New CEO

Comments Filter:

  • Meg Whitman (Score:4, Funny)

    by doctorvo ( 5019381 ) on Monday August 28, 2017 @10:17AM (#55096965)

    Oh, please, let it go to Meg Whitman! Let Meg Whitman demonstrate how female power can transform an evil, hated corporate empire into a loving, kind, progressive transportation company! Please! Let her do for Uber what she has done to, I mean for, HP!

  • Given how many issues Uber has had with sexism and the "bro culture", hiring a female CEO would be a really good idea, IMO. I'm sure Khosrowshahi will be fine, but putting a woman at the head of the company would be a stronger statement. As for Whitman's credentials as CEO, while she hasn't turned in great results at HP I'm not sure that anyone could have done better, and her eBay experience shows she clearly knows how to grow a startup.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      Given how many issues Uber has had with sexism and the "bro culture"

      Whether they have such issues or not is none of our business. Do they deliver good service at a good price is what should concern us. How they choose to treat various groups of employees is entirely up to them — so long as nobody is forced to work there. And no one is — not in this country, not since early 1860-ies...

      • Given how many issues Uber has had with sexism and the "bro culture"

        Whether they have such issues or not is none of our business. Do they deliver good service at a good price is what should concern us.

        You're certainly welcome to make that your only basis for evaluation. In terms of my day to day transactions, I agree with you. But there are larger issues, and many people do choose to care about them.

        I understand the argument that a company that does not discriminate will be more economically effective than one that does, and that over time the former will win and the latter will lose. I even believe it's correct. But we have ample evidence that "over time" doesn't mean a few years, but rather means at

        • And market forces were not enough in that case, either, else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

          The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with striking down Jim Crow era state government laws that made it impossible for market forces to exist. When you had state-mandated segregation, how the hell can a market function? If the law says it was illegal to allow white and black people to ride in the same train car [wikipedia.org] (this is the famous Plessy v. Ferguson case) then how can the market offer an integrated solution?

          You can't blame the free market for failing to do someth

          • The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with market forces and everything to do with striking down Jim Crow era state government laws that made it impossible for market forces to exist.

            True, but an analysis assuming a purely rational and efficient market would indicate that separate and equal options would have arisen. Sure, trains would have to have separate cars for different races, but it was societal attitudes, not economics, that caused those cars to be so different. Note that the argument that the difference arose from differences in ability to pay doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

            The reality in the Jim Crow south was that business owners were expected not only to segregate (as require

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          but any evenhanded analysis of

          Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded... One would've thought, this method for pre-emptively disarming a dissenter was mocked out of existence by Hans Christian Andersen [wikipedia.org] in the 19th century, but no, evidently, the "sophisticated" debaters continue to employ it with smug self-satisfaction...

          else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

          If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later.

          • but any evenhanded analysis of

            Nice. So, any analysis that disagrees is automatically not evenhanded

            I did not make that claim. If you have reference to good analysis that finds otherwise, cite it.

            else we'd never have needed the Civil Rights Act and related legislation.

            If anything, that legislation has proven itself a remarkable failure 50 years later. For all the "reverse" racist laws and policies [nytimes.com], for all the self-flagellation of the Whites [wnd.com], the dissatisfaction among Blacks is still remarkably high [go.com] — indeed higher now after the first Black President, than it was before [chicagotribune.com].

            Should have left it to the market-forces.

            Your conclusion does not follow from your observations, mostly because your observations are very shallow. Also, you are engaging in a blindingly blatant false equivalency. I won't attempt to address all of the problems in your statement, but I'll pick just one: the fact that black dissatisfaction appears to be higher after the first black president was elected. Note that I'm not claiming to offer an authoritativ

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by mi ( 197448 )

              I did not make that claim.

              You certainly implied it, when you claimed that "any evenhanded analysis" agreed with you.

              If you have reference to good analysis that finds otherwise, cite it.

              For someone, who offers no citations of his own, it is a tad too rich to demand that of others.

              Your conclusion does not follow from your observations, mostly because your observations are very shallow. Also, you are engaging in a blindingly blatant false equivalency.

              Whatever.

              The system didn't suddenly become fair and evenhand

              • For someone, who offers no citations of his own, it is a tad too rich to demand that of others.

                I did, actually. I mentioned an on-topic book, which is very much about economic/racial incentives in the post-reconstruction south. You really should read it.

                Life itself is neither fair nor evenhanded.

                We don't have to leave things the way we find them, and the inability to reach perfection is no reason not to strive for improvement.

                The point was, the government's intervention in the fates of minorities did not achieve its results. It was and remains a failure.

                I must have missed where blacks are still slaves (chattel or debt peons), or still segregated.

                I'm comparing what we have today with what we would have had, had we simply let the market forces sort things out.

                No, you're comparing what we have today with where you fantasize we might have been... in spite of the fact that the market m

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mi ( 197448 )

                  markets optimize for the desires of the customers with the money, not for overall social good

                  There is no difference between the two. If somebody wants to dine in a Whites-only restaurant, it is — should be — up to the owner, whether he wants the business of the racists or that of the Blacks (and those joining them in a boycott).

                  Merely rolling back the laws would not have affected the intent of the southern states to suppress and oppress blacks.

                  How do you know?

                  There were many others which also ha

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It is out business if they are breaking the law. Don't you have employment laws covering hostile workplaces and sexual harassment?

      • So it's ok for them to discriminate as an employer, but not for me to discriminate as a consumer?

        Hypocrisy is just, super trendy lately.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close