The Fall of Travis Kalanick Was a Lot Weirder and Darker Than You Thought
A year ago, before the investor lawsuits and the federal investigations, before the mass resignations, and before the connotation of the word "Uber" shifted from "world's most valuable startup" to "world's most dysfunctional," Uber's executives sat around a hotel conference room table in San Francisco, trying to convince their chief executive officer, Travis Kalanick, that the company had a major problem: him.
[...] [A] top executive excused herself to answer a phone call. A minute later, she reappeared and asked Kalanick to step into the hallway. Another executive joined them. They hunched over a laptop to watch a video that had just been posted online by Bloomberg News: grainy, black-and-white dashcam footage of Kalanick in the back seat of an UberBlack on Super Bowl weekend, heatedly arguing over fares with a driver named Fawzi Kamel. "Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit!" Kalanick can be heard yelling at Kamel. "They blame everything in their life on somebody else!"
As the clip ended, the three stood in stunned silence. Kalanick seemed to understand that his behavior required some form of contrition. According to a person who was there, he literally got down on his hands and knees and began squirming on the floor. "This is bad," he muttered. "I'm terrible." Then, contrition period over, he got up, called a board member, demanded a new PR strategy, and embarked on a yearlong starring role as the villain who gets his comeuppance in the most gripping startup drama since the dot-com bubble. It's a story that, until now, has never been fully told.
The article discusses a number of Uber and Kalanick scandals/events, including:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday January 19 2018, @08:42PM (4 children)
This is the first I've heard of it, and may I say it's both hilarious and absolutely should be legal.
1) Uber has no responsibility to help law enforcement in an undercover operation targeting them, do they? This is like the 5th Amendment applied to business. If it was an above-the-board investigation then yes, they'd have to comply with law enforcement requests and whatnot.
2) I assume Uber can reserve the right to refuse its business to anyone.
3) The only way I can see this being illegal is depending on how they go about identifying who to ignore. But if it's just scraping publicly-available websites that sounds fine.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @10:24PM (1 child)
Which is why it should not be allowed to compete with services that must pick up "all" fares. Examples:
http://www.taxirights.gov.bc.ca/drivers.html [gov.bc.ca]
http://taxi.vic.gov.au/drivers/taxi-drivers/driver-rights-and-responsibilities [vic.gov.au]
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_54.pdf [nyc.gov] section 54-20
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @10:31PM
Not to mention (having just thought of it) that refusing services because the person is a regulator.... I'd construe that as an attempt to avoid regulation and therefore a form of obstruction of justice.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:28PM (1 child)
My question is, since police are most closely associated with the color blue, why wasn't this called "blueballing"?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday January 20 2018, @01:54AM
Because, occasionally, some people *did*, happily, get all the way to their destination.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex