←back to thread

198 points 101carl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.238s | source
Show context
johan_larson ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
tyingq ◴[] No.14609880[source]
Perhaps it should be actually illegal, like criminally punishible, but it is not.

It is a tort, civil violation, etc...but nobody is going to jail.

replies(3): >>14609982 #>>14610243 #>>14612553 #
stale2002 ◴[] No.14610243[source]
From the civil rights act of 1964:

"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/

If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.

Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.

replies(3): >>14610460 #>>14611378 #>>14611445 #
1. tyingq ◴[] No.14611378[source]
I think I should have been more clear. I really wasn't trying to nitpick.

Just thought some people might be surprised that the retaliation was not criminal, and at best results in injunctions, fines, civil liability, etc.

Because I didn't word it better, I find myself in the odd position of arguing with people who probably share my high level opinion on the matter.