Uber president quits, says company's values inconsistent with his own leadership style Uber's president Jeff Jones has joined the #deleteuber movement because he's come to realise the company's values aren't compatible with his own. Jones told Recode he “...joined Uber because of its Mission, and the challenge to build global capabilities that would help the company mature and thrive long-term.” “It is now …
A marketing bod with a conscience?
I doubt it. Whilst the known extent of the problems has progressively come out, the battle against its own drivers and against regulators has been an ongoing war, and it looks to me that Jones only joined in September 2016.
I'm afraid I think that the man has worked out that things are going to get worse not better, that he'll be in the hot seat, and the only way to minimise the stain on his CV is to publicly turn against his own company For a regular employee at Uber, yes, you can leave as a matter of principle. But as "president" of Uber, he is the only one who cannot say "it was their fault".
He was earning almost $8m at Target, I'd assume Uber were offering a lot more, what his decision is saying is that he isn't up to the task of fixing the company. Great appointment, guys!
In fact that's one of the key skills that a top Marketing person has to have to ensure they become a top Marketing person.
Turning round a really tough marketing pitch is very good for the CV.
Hanging on will the company crashes and burns is not.
It's funny but BBC puts a slightly different stance on the article. They seem to imply that the reason he's leaving is that HE wanted the COO Position and after being told he wasnt going to be considered for it, he decided to leave.
I dont know if that implication makes sense or not (I'm not aware of the board structure at Über - is President above or below COO?), but it certainly changes the viewpoint as to whether his jumping ship is based on his prinicples or not...
To all the self employed drivers for Uber and Lyft and all the white van men who do the deliveries for our on line economy.
These should be the test cases for disguised employment which generate most of the supposed benefits of the gig economy.
This leads me to an uncomfortable conclusion.
UK Mail have been widely berated recently for charging a driver for his replacement when he was injured at work.
This looks (with my contractor hat on) to be a correct application of a contract to supply a service and the self employed driver seems to have accepted the requirement to supply a service by substitution in the event of sickness.
So kudos to UK Mail for clearly demonstrating how a self employment contract should function.
This ignores issues like paying enough to allow a substitution agreement to be workable, and also if the agreement strongly warned that the contractor should carry personal as well as public liability insurance to cover this kind of eventuality.
Lyft recently bought themselves out of this issue in the States. For the time being. A proper shake out in this area should make the ground rules for IT contracting much more clear and also hopefully reduce the exploitation of those on low wage gigs.
He is in charge. The company is toxic. That's his fault.
Claiming 'conscience' is a joke. Typical narcissist psychopath exec behaviour. It's someone else's fault if it goes bad, and they get a bonus, and when it goes well it's down to them, and get a bonus.
He's trying to wipe clean his dirty slate clean before his next multi-million dollar pay check.
To play a kind of semi reverse devil's advocate, executive with huge ego (as they all have) takes job thinking "no problem, I can fix this place. all it needs is my amazing management skills", especially if their estimation of how much fixing needs to be done (after all man is a marketing specialist) is rather less than the rest of ours would be.
Then the true horror of the situation becomes apparent, and in particular the realisation that the organisation culture is so deep rooted as to be unfixable (the huge ego exec knows anything he can't fix no-one else can). So what are the choices? Especially if you see the whole sorry mess imploding? Just got to get out of there quick so that there will be another multi-million dollar pay check somewhere else.
This post has been deleted by its author
All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets. I go all over. I take people to the Bronx, Brooklyn, I take 'em to Harlem. I don't care. Don't make no difference to me. It does to some. Some won't even take spooks. Don't make no difference to me.
Travis Bickle - Taxi Driver
So, wait. Let me get this straight. People want to drive other people around using their own cars. Both parties contact Uber to help them set up the deal. Noone is forcing anyone to do anything. The drivers are driving out of their own free will, because it benefits them. The customers are hiring the drivers out of their own free will, because it benefits them. Both parties decide to get Uber involved out of their own free will, because it benefits them.
Why should this be something the government has any say in whatsoever?
And why would simple self-defence against a government that erroneously thinks it does be considered a bad thing?
Most countries in which Uber operates have laws to regulate their markets, they are not anarchic. Whether people agree with their local law enforcement and consider their actions to always be in the right is another matter. Vice versa the actions of some companies may be lawful but not necessarily moral.
Uhm, it's my car. It should be pretty obvious that any law that restricts people's ability to voluntarily ride with me is illegitimate and immoral.
At the same time, noone is forcing anyone to ride with Uber, or Patrick Star's Private Express either. Then they would in fact be violating very legitimate laws against coercion and robbery.
If someone only wants to ride with people that are licensed by a specific authority, pledged to follow certain rules, etc, then of course they are free to do so. They just aren't free to force others to do the same.
And don't be fooled into thinking any of the legal action against Uber has anything to do with "protecting public safety" or similar bollocks. It's just crony capitalism in action, on behalf of taxi drivers who don't like new competition.
Here's the thing.
In pretty much all countries this (ongoing) process is called "running a taxi firm."
Taxi firms are regulated.
BTW that "business pattern" you've described fits quite a lot of "personal service" businesses.
So.... since the
"Why should this be something the government has any say in whatsoever?"
Phrase has been dropped, I'm going to assume that you
a) do not pay any taxes, ever.
b) have never relied on any public service, like say, roads, police, ambulances, electricity.
c) do not have a valid drivers licence.
d) have never used the water coming out of your taps, or put a bag of garbage out at the curb.
I mean "Why should this be something the government has any say in whatsoever?""
excuse me while I shrug.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
