It seems like this employee was in a no-win situation. If he engaged in the non-work-related conversation the co-worker was trying to initiate, he would have been fired. If he ignored the co-worker, they would have found a reason to fire him. Instead, he responded saying he was advised to keep communication to just work topics... and he was fired. The company was clearly planning on firing him for any possible reason.
His first mistake was complaining to HR about another employee griefing him. HR is always going to consider the initial complainer as "the problem."
> His first mistake was complaining to HR about another employee griefing him. HR is always going to consider the initial complainer as "the problem."
I can say this definitely isn't always true. In the companies I've worked at HR has always been extremely reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But corporate culture probably matters here, and I've never worked at a place like Uber.
That said, I would be curious to actual know the correspondence that was sent between the two. I can also say being a manager who has had to deal with a situation between two employees (more than once), they often both claim to be the one being harassed -- and usually even a little bit of digging reveals really clearly who the aggressor is.
The phrasing "HR isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect the company" applies more here.
My experience is also that HR is very reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But the thing is that when you have a legit harassment claim, the law is there to protect you. You could make things very expensive for the company in court, and so protecting the company does mean protecting you and treating you respectfully and cooperatively.
If HR investigates and finds you don't have a legit case and that in fact you may have been the instigator, then protecting the company probably means getting rid of you. Your judgment and account of the facts is questionable in that case, and you're a liability from the other side.
I don't know exactly what happened in this case, but in the harassment case I've had to handle as a manager, the (male) employee said that the (female) victim had initiated everything and had this weird fascination with him, while the paper trail that everybody could see clearly showed that he was both the instigator and the one behaving improperly. Projection is strong in cases like these. So it's entirely possible we're not getting the full story from this anonymous blog post.
People have this mistaken belief than HR is for them when they are there 100% for the employer. The only people who are there for you in these situations is the union (if you have one).
I also think HR has this same mistaken belief about themselves. There are things they're aware they know that the employee(s) don't so they have some sense in which they're part of a misdirection, but anything that seems "a little unethical, but those are the rules" they kinda attribute to "I'm just doing my job and so it's not unethical". The job can of course be to do unethical things.
Depends on the company, but HR (and some other functions) can be relatively low power and it frequently seems that the low power person is facilitating groups that are above them, which leads to them serving as a pillow for the higher powered person to abuse the medium powered one and let the low powered absorb the blame/blows. It's unfair in a certain way, but realistically I think the low powered one refusing (in spite of them having the most to lose) is kinda the main way to keep things from getting worse and so things get worse. They can refuse or they can not take the job or they can somehow not pass the high powered person's problem on to the medium powered one, but they're disincentivized. I can empathize with the situation and expect them to take the deal that enables the high powered ones to take advantage of others while still assigning blame for not fixing the little part they could fix. Fwiw, it's also true of most middle managers and PMs, though they might not technically be the lowest powered one in the triangle. If they don't stand up for the thing they say is ethical, then I think it's straightforward that they're a/the problem.
this cliche is so often repeated that i'm now questioning whether this is even true.
unions are counterproductive many times - they serve the interests (only temporarily) for the incumbents while failing to or ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company or industry declining.
That's not true at all. I don't like HR departments, and I think they're the scum of the corporate world, especially the latest batch of HR geniuses to slither out of whatever business school swamp spawns them.
But their job is to protect the company. If you report behavior that presents a liability for the company, HR will take it seriously. I know people who've been fired through these processes.
What you shouldn't do is report frivolous complaints. A lot of people misunderstand HR the same way they misunderstand the legal system in America. They use it in place of having a grown-up conversation. Like judges, HR people will have little patience with matters that could've been resolved by putting on your big boy or big girl pants.
> I was fired for following HR’s own verbal instructions.
This is why, even when there are verbal instructions, politely request that they give you something in writing; you know, for your reference, just in case you forget ;-)
The advice to seek legal representation is still probably your best course of action. If you're clearly in the right and have a paper trail showing it, you have a chance. Of course, the first thing your lawyer will advise you to do is take down the Medium post.
Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends.
It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.
To be honest, if they paid me a 6 digit salary, I'd be happy to "answer an email" on a Saturday, it isn't exactly doing an 8+ hour shift at the weekend.
This isn't off topic in as much as clearly it reveals how disconnected from reality that CEO is:
"Khosrowshahi says: Just work hard, and success will follow. "
...is hilarious for a company like Uber, where the whole point of the business model is to optimize away drivers income so much that they will always be on the edge of something very much else than success, no matter how hard they work!
Uber is a failure here in this part of Scandinavia. They were made redundant by our lowmakers and try to run some kind of cab business in accordance with our laws.
Your argument is a fabrication, and also is in bad faith. The user did not say that they could not get an attorney, and it would also be altogether wrong to assume it.
Not really. It only says that they don’t have enough to make a case where the cost of litigation will be more than what it’s worth. I’ve talked to labor lawyers before and attorneys usually won’t take the case and advise you not to pursue it unless it’s relatively straightforward to win.
Arbitration agreements have largely backed off in the last couple of years, because the main benefit (avoiding class action lawsuits) has been eroded. Activists discovered that you can cause serious economic damage to company simply by mass-filing arbitration claims, and some case law poked holes in just how "binding" the agreements were (and if someone can appeal their arbitration case, it defeats the whole point).
why would you contact Uber's legal team to ask if you could file a lawsuit against them? do you think they would have any reason not to convince you to drop the matter?
I wasn't asking if I could file a lawsuit. I sent Uber Legal a pro se demand letter indicating that I would be following up with further legal action unless a settlement could be agreed upon.
Readit News
His first mistake was complaining to HR about another employee griefing him. HR is always going to consider the initial complainer as "the problem."
I can say this definitely isn't always true. In the companies I've worked at HR has always been extremely reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But corporate culture probably matters here, and I've never worked at a place like Uber.
That said, I would be curious to actual know the correspondence that was sent between the two. I can also say being a manager who has had to deal with a situation between two employees (more than once), they often both claim to be the one being harassed -- and usually even a little bit of digging reveals really clearly who the aggressor is.
My experience is also that HR is very reasonable and cooperative with harassment claims. But the thing is that when you have a legit harassment claim, the law is there to protect you. You could make things very expensive for the company in court, and so protecting the company does mean protecting you and treating you respectfully and cooperatively.
If HR investigates and finds you don't have a legit case and that in fact you may have been the instigator, then protecting the company probably means getting rid of you. Your judgment and account of the facts is questionable in that case, and you're a liability from the other side.
I don't know exactly what happened in this case, but in the harassment case I've had to handle as a manager, the (male) employee said that the (female) victim had initiated everything and had this weird fascination with him, while the paper trail that everybody could see clearly showed that he was both the instigator and the one behaving improperly. Projection is strong in cases like these. So it's entirely possible we're not getting the full story from this anonymous blog post.
Depends on the company, but HR (and some other functions) can be relatively low power and it frequently seems that the low power person is facilitating groups that are above them, which leads to them serving as a pillow for the higher powered person to abuse the medium powered one and let the low powered absorb the blame/blows. It's unfair in a certain way, but realistically I think the low powered one refusing (in spite of them having the most to lose) is kinda the main way to keep things from getting worse and so things get worse. They can refuse or they can not take the job or they can somehow not pass the high powered person's problem on to the medium powered one, but they're disincentivized. I can empathize with the situation and expect them to take the deal that enables the high powered ones to take advantage of others while still assigning blame for not fixing the little part they could fix. Fwiw, it's also true of most middle managers and PMs, though they might not technically be the lowest powered one in the triangle. If they don't stand up for the thing they say is ethical, then I think it's straightforward that they're a/the problem.
unions are counterproductive many times - they serve the interests (only temporarily) for the incumbents while failing to or ignoring the larger consequences like the whole company or industry declining.
i wonder if the HR cliche is similar.
But their job is to protect the company. If you report behavior that presents a liability for the company, HR will take it seriously. I know people who've been fired through these processes.
What you shouldn't do is report frivolous complaints. A lot of people misunderstand HR the same way they misunderstand the legal system in America. They use it in place of having a grown-up conversation. Like judges, HR people will have little patience with matters that could've been resolved by putting on your big boy or big girl pants.
This is why, even when there are verbal instructions, politely request that they give you something in writing; you know, for your reference, just in case you forget ;-)
Dead Comment
Did anybody read the linked fortune article about Uber ceo expecting people to work on weekends.
It has that paid PR post and satirical piece vibes at the same time. With words like "unparalleled work ethic" working on weekends, wisdom and the part about checking emails right after waking up at 5 in the morning, I was expecting it to wrap up with a hint of obvious sarcasm but sadly it never came.
This kind of behaviour incentivises a kind of pick-me, I’m suffering the most for the shareholders type of behaviour.
How many Saturday emails really make a difference? The whole thing is a ruse.
And the fact this shithead is spouting his nonsense on Steven Bartlett’s asinine podcast surprises me not.
"Khosrowshahi says: Just work hard, and success will follow. "
...is hilarious for a company like Uber, where the whole point of the business model is to optimize away drivers income so much that they will always be on the edge of something very much else than success, no matter how hard they work!
I know someone suing their landlord and he had to find a lawyer 3 hours away because all the local lawyers work with this property management company.
What lawyer wants to have their pay limited thusly?
You can hire your own lawyer for the proceedings but no jackpot payouts in arbitration.
This shift happened 2022 ish.