←back to thread

Bill Gurley Is Leaving Uber’s Board

(www.nytimes.com)
198 points 101carl | 4 comments | 22 Jun 17 00:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.596s | source
Show context
johan_larson ◴[22 Jun 17 01:32 UTC] No.14609498[source]▶
I remain flabbergasted by all of this upheaval at Uber. What's happening is the sort of housecleaning I would expect if the company had to file for bankruptcy or got caught flat out bribing judges or something. But really, what triggered all this was acting like jerks.

It seems to me, what should have happened (a long time ago) was that they got shut down for systematically breaking the law, or encouraging others to do so. That would have made sense.

But instead they are getting flayed alive by not much more than bad press for being jerks. Makes no goddamn sense.

replies(23): >>14609514 #>>14609557 #>>14609559 #>>14609591 #>>14609615 #>>14609628 #>>14609681 #>>14609683 #>>14609754 #>>14609773 #>>14609906 #>>14609910 #>>14609913 #>>14609985 #>>14610088 #>>14610181 #>>14610211 #>>14610357 #>>14610400 #>>14610983 #>>14612054 #>>14612964 #>>14614659 #
stale2002 ◴[22 Jun 17 02:39 UTC] No.14609754[source]▶
Sexual harassment and retaliation against employees for reporting it is not "just being jerks".

It is illegal.

replies(3): >>14609872 #>>14609880 #>>14610189 #
1. 013a ◴[22 Jun 17 04:50 UTC] No.14610189[source]▶
No it is not. The word "illegal" gets thrown around way too much; it has a very specific definition in law, and nothing you described is illegal.
replies(3): >>14610220 #>>14610235 #>>14610239 #
2. guelo ◴[22 Jun 17 04:59 UTC] No.14610220[source]▶
Huh? Sexual harassment and retaliation are both illegal under the Civil Rights Act.
3. ◴[22 Jun 17 05:08 UTC] No.14610235[source]▶
4. stale2002 ◴[22 Jun 17 05:10 UTC] No.14610239[source]▶
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."

http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/

Words are defined by how people use them, and this fits the common usage of the word illegal.

Nobody cares what pedantic definition a lawyer would use to describe this, because nobody made lawyers the language police.