Uber vice president resigns after sexual misconduct allegations

Cameron Poetzscher steps down less than a month after <em>WSJ</em> report.

Read the whole story

 

[mltdwn]

To add to that. He this was an affair, meaning his wife was at home while this was going on.

Well, this part doesn't really matter -- I'm not aware of any employer but a church which considers infidelity to be an employment concern.

I could be wrong! I don't plan on cheating on anybody, so I've never looked into it.

If it comes to light that is actually a dishonorable discharge from the military. I actually know a lot of people when I was in that got kicked out due to infidelity. Basically if it comes up in a divorce hearing you are kicked out for conduct unbecoming.

And actually it goes all the way to 'If you have an affair' period. If you are a member of the military, single, but it comes to light you slept with a married woman or man you often times are kicked out. Look up Lt Kelly Flynn some time.

 

[Nilt]

Everybody questioning why an affair is a firing offense needs to realize a couple critical things. First, executives at this level typically have morals clauses in their contracts. So while it may not be a firing offense for lower level employees, it quite often is for executives. Then there's the typical contract clause that execs must avoid any appearance of problematic behavior. I'd be shocked if these weren't in the Uber executive contracts. They're bog standard.

Uber is a shitty company but I'd imagine their attorneys actually take basic requirements such as this seriously. Not doing so when they're all but boilerplate would leave the attorney open to a complaint with the bar.

 

[Matthew J.]

Uber's in the news again. Gee. Wow. Time to put another quarter in the pot.

 

[KGFish]

I am sincerely curious what actually constitutes "our often-depressingly puritanical culture"? I see our culture as one which continually pushes the boundaries of propriety and norms. Of all our great exports...American Culture is reviled and derided and yet secretly coveted, a conundrum for certain.

My go-to example of over-zealous American puritanism is that it is controversial to include instruction on contraceptive use as part of sex ed. Because the mindset among many is that we can just teach high schoolers to never have sex.

This mindset is wrong-headed and bad.

This is completely different.

It is a very bad idea to start relationships with people you work with. If you must, one or both should get another job. It has nothing to do with puritanism and everything to do with having a workplace conducive to work. Obviously you can't stop people and a lot of workplaces will not fire you if it's discreet but sometimes people need to be reminded to think carefully before they take the plunge.

Can someone explain how this works?

If you're interested in asking a coworker (not a management/subordinate relationship) out on a date, are you expected to first change employers? That seems like a pretty big life change to make just to ask a pretty girl out for coffee.

Step 1:
You don't ask a co-worker out on date.

Step 2:
No, you really don't.

.
.
.
.

Step 137:
You've been doing a whole lot of work together, had a chance to shoot the shit after work/between work, start to invite each other to general social meetings, and you both find that you both still want to hang out some more in private.... sure, ask her out for coffee. Then have a very frank discussion on that first date whether you can date and work, and more importantly, break up and work.

Then ask her out on a date.

Or do you wait until she accepts the invitation to coffee, and then change jobs?

There's a lot of simplification in this discussion. I see no reason why the very defensible policy of "Managers shouldn't date subordinates" should be extended to "coworkers shouldn't date each other". Anecdotally, at the Fortune 50 company where I worked until recently, a very large percentage of married couples met each other at work and got married. It's perfectly natural and reasonable.

Of course if the relationship doesn't work out, it's important to be adult about that situation and don't bring personal life into the office. Failure to effectively manage that situation should certainly be cause for dismissal.

And that's the entire point of "don't date in the office." The odds of your employment hanging on whether the break-up is cordial are enormous. Do you want to take that risk? Because that's something you actually have little control over. You don't just break up because it's not quite working out, but also because you find out the other person is a complete cluster fuck.

Then, you're suddenly staring at sharing an office with someone who may actually be a danger to your safety.

So sure, if you're absolutely certain the other person is The One, go pursue them. Switching jobs to keep The One is a small price to pay. But don't just ask the cute engineer out for a movie date because you're single and don't have a life outside work.

 

[Nachowarrior]

when are we going to start seeing the cases of women rape headlined? i mean, i know it happens. There are women that specifically target 'virgin' boys. I knew of a few of them back when i was younger. Guaranteed lay, if you wanted, but also... date rape. Actually, the only case of 'statutory rape' i knew of when i was in school (locally), was a female teacher and a student, even though they wern't that different in age.

oh god, here come the downvotes...

"WOMEN DON'T RAPE, THEY ARE PERFECT IN EVERY WAY"

right? disagree with me go for it, show just how crazy and irrational you are. lol

 

[Lcartz54]

I don't agree that firing someone for a mutually agreed upon relationship should be the norm. This is a quite common relationship and almost anyone could think of plenty of examples of such relationships that have gone on to become stable and loving marriages. Most of the companies I've worked at have stipulated that such relationships are permitted, provided that:

a) the relationship is disclosed to HR
b) both parties consent
c) either the subordinate employee or boss is reassigned or relocated so that one doesn't have a direct supervisory role over the other

I do find the idea that such relationships are somehow *inherently* abusive to be patently ridiculous. In the vast majority of cases like this that I've seen, the relationships were mutually agreed upon by both parties (usually enthusiastically so). Yes, there are certainly cases where a boss might pressure an employee into a relationship, and those should be dealt with harshly of course. But most such relationships are mutual.

I also think it's dangerous when a company starts dictating the personal lives of their employees, unless it's something that is having a direct effect on their work. This has the potential to lead to some very dark places. How would you feel if an employer demanded that you and other employees adhere to the CEO's religious values in your non-work personal time, for example? Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone intruding into peoples' bedrooms without a damned good reason, be it a government or private company.

 

[Nachowarrior]

"...alleged to have made sexual remarks about his female colleagues and also had a consensual affair..."

let me just examine this for a second...

"alleged" so they have no decisive proof and has not been actually found guilty.

"consensual affair" so, someone agreed to fuck him, and probably enjoyed it.

i'm not sure why he is jobless based on these statements.

 

[Nachowarrior]

I don't agree that firing someone for a mutually agreed upon relationship should be the norm. This is a quite common relationship and almost anyone could think of plenty of examples of such relationships that have gone on to become stable and loving marriages. Most of the companies I've worked at have stipulated that such relationships are permitted, provided that:

a) the relationship is disclosed to HR
b) both parties consent
c) either the subordinate employee or boss is reassigned or relocated so that one doesn't have a direct supervisory role over the other

I do find the idea that such relationships are somehow *inherently* abusive to be patently ridiculous. In the vast majority of cases like this that I've seen, the relationships were mutually agreed upon by both parties (usually enthusiastically so). Yes, there are certainly cases where a boss might pressure an employee into a relationship, and those should be dealt with harshly of course. But most such relationships are mutual.

I also think it's dangerous when a company starts dictating the personal lives of their employees, unless it's something that is having a direct effect on their work. This has the potential to lead to some very dark places. How would you feel if an employer demanded that you and other employees adhere to the CEO's religious values in your non-work personal time, for example? Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone intruding into peoples' bedrooms without a damned good reason, be it a government or private company.

i'm just going to touch one thing here... and one thing only. TLDR the rest.

Personal relationships, are none of the fucking business of a company, or anyone else not involved in that relationship. it's called freedom, and you want to make it so i have to fill out a fucking 40 page form and disclose any 'feelings' i might have, just to have a coffee with ANYONE that works at said company... that's fucking retarded. literally, that idea, is fucking retarded. "rules" like that, literally retard human society.

 

[Oldmanalex]

You see, he is learning. His profile used to say. "On the bitch".

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

I dunno, it’s almost starting to look like Uber is a shitty company filled with assholes...

sure if we believe the media who is attacking a company who threatens a huge portion of their advertisers

kind of like when the media told us Hillary had a 98% chance of winning, or that Dewey defeated Truman, or that Richard Jewell was the Atlanta Olympics bomber.

You people are slaves to media gods, and this site is one of the worst, their fucking board member changed peoples political posts he didnt like.

 

[DarthSlack]

I don't agree that firing someone for a mutually agreed upon relationship should be the norm. This is a quite common relationship and almost anyone could think of plenty of examples of such relationships that have gone on to become stable and loving marriages. Most of the companies I've worked at have stipulated that such relationships are permitted, provided that:

a) the relationship is disclosed to HR
b) both parties consent
c) either the subordinate employee or boss is reassigned or relocated so that one doesn't have a direct supervisory role over the other

I do find the idea that such relationships are somehow *inherently* abusive to be patently ridiculous. In the vast majority of cases like this that I've seen, the relationships were mutually agreed upon by both parties (usually enthusiastically so). Yes, there are certainly cases where a boss might pressure an employee into a relationship, and those should be dealt with harshly of course. But most such relationships are mutual.

I also think it's dangerous when a company starts dictating the personal lives of their employees, unless it's something that is having a direct effect on their work. This has the potential to lead to some very dark places. How would you feel if an employer demanded that you and other employees adhere to the CEO's religious values in your non-work personal time, for example? Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone intruding into peoples' bedrooms without a damned good reason, be it a government or private company.

i'm just going to touch one thing here... and one thing only. TLDR the rest.

Personal relationships, are none of the fucking business of a company, or anyone else not involved in that relationship. it's called freedom, and you want to make it so i have to fill out a fucking 40 page form and disclose any 'feelings' i might have, just to have a coffee with ANYONE that works at said company... that's fucking retarded. literally, that idea, is fucking retarded. "rules" like that, literally retard human society.

And that's where you'd be completely and totally wrong, as usual.

If the relationship is non-consensual, it definitely becomes the company's fucking business because someone abused their authority.

If the relationship was consensual and goes sideways it frequently becomes the company's fucking business because people are fucking horrible at handling breakups like adults and bring their shit into the workplace.

If the relationship was consensual and works out then it frequently becomes the company's fucking business because committed relationships can cause a reporting problem.

Basically if a relationship has ANY IMPACT AT ALL on the workplace, yes, it becomes the company's fucking business.

And if you don't understand any of that at least have the common decency to either work for yourself or stay the fuck out of the workforce.

 

[Pierre B.]

The second question is tied to how personal relationships are structured, and can work. The first one is a total no, and therefore should never be tried. If it should be tried, someone needs to leave their position first.

"We obviously have feeling for each other. Please quit your job so we can see if we can live together."

That will work well.

Anecdotally, there have been multiple couples where I work, both of the "we met before hand" and "we formed while working here" and nothing bad happened. They're still together, have been for years. (Note: peers, not boss/employee.) I do think the doomsayers are exaggerating.

If the relationship was consensual and goes sideways it frequently becomes the company's fucking business because people are fucking horrible at handling breakups like adults and bring their shit into the workplace.

Handling problems between two workers *for whatever reason* is a company's business. That still doesn't give the company a say over who you can be with after working hours. I guess I can't do any activity with coworkers because those activity might cause bad blood? Why make relationship speical?

 

[KGFish]

The second question is tied to how personal relationships are structured, and can work. The first one is a total no, and therefore should never be tried. If it should be tried, someone needs to leave their position first.

"We obviously have feeling for each other. Please quit your job so we can see if we can live together."

That will work well.

Anecdotally, there have been multiple couples where I work, both of the "we met before hand" and "we formed while working here" and nothing bad happened. They're still together, have been for years. (Note: peers, not boss/employee.) I do think the doomsayers are exaggerating.

If the relationship was consensual and goes sideways it frequently becomes the company's fucking business because people are fucking horrible at handling breakups like adults and bring their shit into the workplace.

Handling problems between two workers *for whatever reason* is a company's business. That still doesn't give the company a say over who you can be with after working hours. I guess I can't do any activity with coworkers because those activity might cause bad blood? Why make relationship speical?

You should talk to your HR person and see what they can tell you off the record.

 

[s73v3r]

when are we going to start seeing the cases of women rape headlined? i mean, i know it happens. There are women that specifically target 'virgin' boys. I knew of a few of them back when i was younger. Guaranteed lay, if you wanted, but also... date rape. Actually, the only case of 'statutory rape' i knew of when i was in school (locally), was a female teacher and a student, even though they wern't that different in age.

oh god, here come the downvotes...

"WOMEN DON'T RAPE, THEY ARE PERFECT IN EVERY WAY"

right? disagree with me go for it, show just how crazy and irrational you are. lol

No, the downvotes are for your poor choice of whataboutism.

 

[s73v3r]

I don't agree that firing someone for a mutually agreed upon relationship should be the norm. This is a quite common relationship and almost anyone could think of plenty of examples of such relationships that have gone on to become stable and loving marriages. Most of the companies I've worked at have stipulated that such relationships are permitted, provided that:

a) the relationship is disclosed to HR
b) both parties consent
c) either the subordinate employee or boss is reassigned or relocated so that one doesn't have a direct supervisory role over the other

I do find the idea that such relationships are somehow *inherently* abusive to be patently ridiculous. In the vast majority of cases like this that I've seen, the relationships were mutually agreed upon by both parties (usually enthusiastically so). Yes, there are certainly cases where a boss might pressure an employee into a relationship, and those should be dealt with harshly of course. But most such relationships are mutual.

I also think it's dangerous when a company starts dictating the personal lives of their employees, unless it's something that is having a direct effect on their work. This has the potential to lead to some very dark places. How would you feel if an employer demanded that you and other employees adhere to the CEO's religious values in your non-work personal time, for example? Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone intruding into peoples' bedrooms without a damned good reason, be it a government or private company.

i'm just going to touch one thing here... and one thing only. TLDR the rest.

Personal relationships, are none of the fucking business of a company, or anyone else not involved in that relationship. it's called freedom, and you want to make it so i have to fill out a fucking 40 page form and disclose any 'feelings' i might have, just to have a coffee with ANYONE that works at said company... that's fucking retarded. literally, that idea, is fucking retarded. "rules" like that, literally retard human society.

Yeah, no. Given the extremely likely possibility that a subordinate feels compelled to go out with the manager or get fired/blacklisted/etc, it's not a case of "freedom".

 

[Sarty]

This comment thread is an excellent litmus test to determine who has ever understood the level of power their boss had over them, and who has ever understood that a boss and his or her subordinate are not equals and can never be equals.

Some people flunk this test. Sad.

 

[co-lee]

I dunno, it’s almost starting to look like Uber is a shitty company filled with assholes...

garble garble.

user name checks out ...

 

[co-lee]

This comment thread is an excellent litmus test to determine who has ever understood the level of power their boss had over them, and who has ever understood that a boss and his or her subordinate are not equals and can never be equals.

Some people flunk this test. Sad.

I think it's closer to showing us which people have no power in the workplace and fantasize about having power and abusing it ...

 

[mltdwn]

The second question is tied to how personal relationships are structured, and can work. The first one is a total no, and therefore should never be tried. If it should be tried, someone needs to leave their position first.

"We obviously have feeling for each other. Please quit your job so we can see if we can live together."

That will work well.

Anecdotally, there have been multiple couples where I work, both of the "we met before hand" and "we formed while working here" and nothing bad happened. They're still together, have been for years. (Note: peers, not boss/employee.) I do think the doomsayers are exaggerating.

If the relationship was consensual and goes sideways it frequently becomes the company's fucking business because people are fucking horrible at handling breakups like adults and bring their shit into the workplace.

Handling problems between two workers *for whatever reason* is a company's business. That still doesn't give the company a say over who you can be with after working hours. I guess I can't do any activity with coworkers because those activity might cause bad blood? Why make relationship speical?

The company has no say over who you can be with. They do however have a say over who they employ and last I checked dating, seeing, sleeping with a co-worker isn’t a protected class. Given most employment contracts, especially for officers and higher in a company, and the company standards of conduct for every employee usually specifically lists fratinization as a fireable offense it isn’t like anyone has a thing they can say.

Let me give you an example, I work for a bank. Every year in January/February all contractors and employees are handed a standards of conduft. Within said standards it quite plainly spells out any relationship between employees going beyond normal friendship in or out of work is a fireable offense. Everyone is expected to read and sign it. Now usually they won’t straight up fire you if you violate it right off the bat, instead HR will call you in and say ‘ok one of you has to choose to quit, you have 90 days to find a new job and leave’, if that doesn’t happen they terminate both. They also do not allow hiring of any relatives within the same region (I.e. if you have a direct family member that say works in New Mexico region,such as a sibling, and you apply for a job in that same region your resume is immediately removed from consideration). It is just the way it is.

 

[Lcartz54]

This comment thread is an excellent litmus test to determine who has ever understood the level of power their boss had over them, and who has ever understood that a boss and his or her subordinate are not equals and can never be equals.

Some people flunk this test. Sad.

So I guess Republicans were right to have impeached Bill Clinton after all.

And to think I opposed it at the time.

 

[david newall]

Full and free consent between employees at substantially different levels of an organization, especially between two employees who are directly above and below each other in a management chain, is impossible.

Nonsense. Of course it is possible.

 

[uberdonegoofed]

The big problem with infidelity is blackmail. It gives your competition a way to control and corrupt your key people.