This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/21/the-guardian-view-on-uber-after-kalanick-only-window-dressing
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Uber after Kalanick: only window dressing? | The Guardian view on Uber after Kalanick: only window dressing? |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Wed 21 Jun 2017 18.47 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 21.27 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| The resignation of Uber’s chief executive Travis Kalanick is a victory for everyone who cares about the way businesses are run, about the duty of corporations to obey the law and of employers to respect and treat fairly their employees. It is a win against the Silicon Valley cult of the genius-founder. It is a triumph for years of brave and determined investigation by a group of journalists who never stopped exposing the ride-hiring platform’s corporate culture even in the face of a $1m counteroffensive from Uber. And it is vindication for the Uber software engineer, Susan Fowler, who precipitated the final crisis when she described her experience of sexual harassment, a claim that provoked more than 200 other similar complaints. It is a belated exercise of power by the Uber board and investors. It will end a particularly nasty iteration of runaway executive authority. It is even a small step in the fight against the gig economy. But it is not the end either of a feeble form of corporate governance, nor of the employment model on which Uber and many other tech businesses depend. | The resignation of Uber’s chief executive Travis Kalanick is a victory for everyone who cares about the way businesses are run, about the duty of corporations to obey the law and of employers to respect and treat fairly their employees. It is a win against the Silicon Valley cult of the genius-founder. It is a triumph for years of brave and determined investigation by a group of journalists who never stopped exposing the ride-hiring platform’s corporate culture even in the face of a $1m counteroffensive from Uber. And it is vindication for the Uber software engineer, Susan Fowler, who precipitated the final crisis when she described her experience of sexual harassment, a claim that provoked more than 200 other similar complaints. It is a belated exercise of power by the Uber board and investors. It will end a particularly nasty iteration of runaway executive authority. It is even a small step in the fight against the gig economy. But it is not the end either of a feeble form of corporate governance, nor of the employment model on which Uber and many other tech businesses depend. |
| Mr Kalanick embodied the extreme autocracy – sometimes referred to as the asshole strategy – that sometimes appears to be the hallmark of tech businesses, a culture of sharp elbows, “toe-stepping” and, in Uber’s case, what it called “principled confrontation” with regulators. It broke Apple’s privacy rules by writing its own code. Its so-called self-employed drivers are offered car-leasing arrangements that tie them into onerous obligations; their complaints are poorly handled and many end up earning less than the minimum wage. Although the chief executive’s personal behaviour finally energised an investors’ revolt and forced his decision to turn a leave of absence into resignation, it is not axiomatic that the company’s unbridled appetite for the fight has been dulled in any way. Renaming the war room the peace room, as Uber has, doesn’t cut it. The best that can be said is that the influence of Mr Kalanick’s behaviour as a model endorsed by success has been weakened. | Mr Kalanick embodied the extreme autocracy – sometimes referred to as the asshole strategy – that sometimes appears to be the hallmark of tech businesses, a culture of sharp elbows, “toe-stepping” and, in Uber’s case, what it called “principled confrontation” with regulators. It broke Apple’s privacy rules by writing its own code. Its so-called self-employed drivers are offered car-leasing arrangements that tie them into onerous obligations; their complaints are poorly handled and many end up earning less than the minimum wage. Although the chief executive’s personal behaviour finally energised an investors’ revolt and forced his decision to turn a leave of absence into resignation, it is not axiomatic that the company’s unbridled appetite for the fight has been dulled in any way. Renaming the war room the peace room, as Uber has, doesn’t cut it. The best that can be said is that the influence of Mr Kalanick’s behaviour as a model endorsed by success has been weakened. |
| It does nothing to change two hard facts: first, that Uber assumes that in the medium term, its huge investment in self-driving cars will make drivers redundant altogether; second, that tech giants in the US like Apple and Facebook as well as Uber are funded by investors so hungry for a piece of the action, they are prepared to take an economic risk without economic control. One consequence of an abdication of boardroom power is that whistleblowers and courageous journalism become the cornerstones of accountability, and ultimately behavioural change must rely on customers foregoing the benefit of the cut-price ride. | It does nothing to change two hard facts: first, that Uber assumes that in the medium term, its huge investment in self-driving cars will make drivers redundant altogether; second, that tech giants in the US like Apple and Facebook as well as Uber are funded by investors so hungry for a piece of the action, they are prepared to take an economic risk without economic control. One consequence of an abdication of boardroom power is that whistleblowers and courageous journalism become the cornerstones of accountability, and ultimately behavioural change must rely on customers foregoing the benefit of the cut-price ride. |
| One early win for consumer pressure was the success of a #deleteUber campaign in protest at the company’s top-level backing for President Trump. Then, after Susan Fowler’s allegations unleashed a flood of similar horror stories, the former attorney general Eric Holder was asked to report on corporate culture. His findings, published earlier this month, made it almost impossible for the chief executive to stay, although he will remain on the board. That suggests it may have been concern about plans for the company to go public later this year as much as a desire for genuine reform. Uber now lacks an entire top level of management. As one joker had it, it’s a self-driving company. | One early win for consumer pressure was the success of a #deleteUber campaign in protest at the company’s top-level backing for President Trump. Then, after Susan Fowler’s allegations unleashed a flood of similar horror stories, the former attorney general Eric Holder was asked to report on corporate culture. His findings, published earlier this month, made it almost impossible for the chief executive to stay, although he will remain on the board. That suggests it may have been concern about plans for the company to go public later this year as much as a desire for genuine reform. Uber now lacks an entire top level of management. As one joker had it, it’s a self-driving company. |
| Uber | |
| Opinion | |
| Travis Kalanick | |
| Apple | |
| Computing | |
| Social networking | |
| editorials | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |