The real question is: did senior people in HR have to walk? If they did, you can feel reasonably confident their replacements won't repeat their behaviours. I'll remind everyone that we're talking about an HR department that repeatedly lied to its employees and did their damndest to shield bad people. If that isn't fixed, you can be guaranteed it'll happen again, whether or not another Fowler decides to do the world a solid and go public.
You bring an important point which raises another point- who enabled/let HR do this? And what happened to them? HR doesn't exist in isolation and I've known big firms' HRs to be trigger happy as long as they can justify it.
Right. This is the core problem. Most people who wind up in HR are rule-followers who are acutely aware of the legal risks associated with harassment culture.
As many have pointed out: we already know the answer to that question. However, bringing down a founder if the paper trail doesn't lead back to them directly is extremely hard (and I'm only adding that qualification because of GitHub) so he's untouchable. And the culture undoubtedly reflects his desires. However, if senior people in HR know that _doing what the CEO wanted won't save them from being fired for cause_, it'll concentrate minds quite effectively.
HR is a business function, and the business is run by executives, so unless the HR function is run day to day by the CEO then HR needs to be enabled by someone. The HR function in a company the size of Uber is a deliberate structure that is guided by business goals set by the executive team, the executive team gives the HR function the authority within the framework (policy, implicit and explicit direction) provided.
If the story is true that HR dissembled and protected staff who were blatantly breaking the law then it is very reasonable to ask "who enabled HR?"
I think the parent was saying that there's no point in really asking this question because the answer is that it obviously came from senior leadership, clearly including but probably not exclusively limited to the CEO.
This isn't the sort of stuff that I could single handedly prove in a court of law, but frankly none of this comes as much of a surprise. Anyone who's come within shouting distance of that company knows how it operates : heavy on kool-aid & low on self-restraint - an MO that comes straight from the very top.
I read it (correctly or not) as saying: "Travis started and runs the company, and his respect for women is well known and public. Of _course_ the people working in HR know this, and were quite likely selected/employed by him or one of his trusted douche-bros..."
Is it _not_ as obvious to everyone else as it seems to be to me?
It is beside the point whether it's obvious or not; clearly it is not obvious enough. You treat it as if it's some purely academic pursuit, not of interest to anybody. No, the question should be repeated incessantly until the right people go to jail.
Go to jail? I think that is a little bit harsh considering the crimes committed. When will America stop being so damn protestant when it comes to punishment?
I read that question as implying: "it is HR's job to ensure the company does not get successfully sued over personnel-related matters; since company metrics apparently indicated the harassers were businesswise quite valuable, why did you expect HR to accomplish their objective by ousting the (valuable) harassers instead of running interference for the harassers?"
