• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1180
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации50
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы427
      • Показать ещё
      Формат10
      Издания168
      • Показать ещё
      Компании1171
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели19
      • Показать ещё
      Разное554
      • Показать ещё
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
25 июня, 13:00

How Democrats Gerrymandered Their Way to Victory in Maryland

New documents show how when given the opportunity, the Democratic Party was as ruthless as their GOP counterparts in trying to redistrict their rivals out of existence.

22 июня, 17:54

Wall Street Journal Reporters Demand Action On Newsroom Diversity

The Wall Street Journal’s staff is about as diverse as the business world the paper covers: It’s essentially run by white men. A few star women have risen and departed over the years. And people of color are essentially missing from the top ranks. The situation is growing increasingly intolerable for Journal staffers, who say journalism at the paper that media mogul Rupert Murdoch owns is suffering from the overwhelming homogeneity of the newsroom. Earlier this month, a half-dozen female reporters at the outlet emailed Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker and his deputy Matt Murray on behalf of nearly 200 staffers, expressing their growing frustration. The email, obtained by HuffPost, pointedly notes that the leadership hasn’t meaningfully addressed two related issues: the significant pay gap between men and women, and the lack of racial diversity. “Until our leadership reflects a more diverse population ― the population we are trying to attract as new subscribers ― we may not be producing the best journalism possible,” the email reads. The revelations about turmoil inside the Journal come as the paper is reeling from an ethics scandal. On Wednesday, the paper fired a prominent foreign affairs reporter for ethical violations that The Associated Press uncovered. "Diversity is such an issue at the Journal, I’ve heard people call it White Castle,” says one reporter. The June email landed in Baker’s inbox just days before the Journal reporters’ union issued a detailed report on pay at the paper. The report concluded that women in the union make less than men across the board, even accounting for experience, location and job title. Female reporters earn an average of 91 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. The disparity widens when you consider all the women in the union ― including non-managerial staff in sales, tech and other areas. They make 87 percent of what men earn. The timing of the email was coincidental, the Journal insiders told HuffPost, but the report has created a greater sense of urgency inside the newsroom. (Full disclosure: This reporter was an editor at the Journal from 2006-2011.) The note (which you can read in full below) comes just a few months after the departure of the paper’s highest-ranking female editorial leader: Rebecca Blumenstein, who left to take a leadership position at The New York Times. That was a blow to the newsroom and particularly to women who viewed her as a champion and role model, Journal staffers told HuffPost.  The Journal reporters who spoke to HuffPost asked that their names not be published due to concern for how their superiors would consider their views. “People are scared,” said one female reporter who saw the most recent email. “There’s frustration and concern this isn’t being taken seriously.” A spokesman from the Journal did not respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment. Baker put off the reporters in an emailed response to their note. “I will take some time to respond in greater length seriatim to your various points, many of which have great validity,” he wrote back four days later. Baker has a well-known penchant for using 25-cent words. “Seriatim” means taking each point one by one. “For now, we are right in the final stages of nailing down the new newsroom leadership structure and I should be in position to make some announcements about this by early July,” he continued. In addition, staffers say that Baker hasn’t seemed sympathetic to concerns about diversity, despite taking some minor action on pay equity. “Diversity is such an issue at the Journal, I’ve heard people call it White Castle,” said the female reporter. “There’s frustration [they’re] not taking this seriously.” In the email, the reporters cited two recent stories that missed the mark precisely because of a lack of diversity: A page-one article about Target’s policy on bathrooms and transgender people in April quoted someone who linked transgender people and sexual predators. The story, which presumably went through the Journal’s rigorous editing process, failed to note that there is no evidence of such a connection. A May feature about how hard it is for college athletes to get jobs at Wall Street firms, failed to note initially the athletes were almost always men. “A (female) reporter brought the omission  to the attention of the Standards team. The fix required just two words, but meant a world of difference,” the reporters write in the email to Baker. Over the past year, the Journal has been often criticized for its coverage of the Trump administration and accused of going too easy on the president. Baker, a former conservative columnist, has personally caught a lot of flack for his remarks on Trump ― notably explaining his reluctance to label false statements from the president “lies.” In a memo to staff earlier this year, Baker asked reporters to avoid writing “Muslim-majority countries” when referring to the countries initially included under Trump’s travel ban. “Would be less loaded to say ‘seven countries the US has designated as being states that pose significant or elevated risks of terrorism,’” Baker wrote in the email, according to a BuzzFeed report. The lack of diversity needs to be tackled head-on if the Journal really wants to do great work, said one nonwhite male staffer who saw the email and signed an earlier, similar note to Baker in March. “The situation has been allowed to fester,” he said. The newsroom is not overtly racist, this staffer hastened to add, saying he has no personal beef here. None of the reporters or editors HuffPost spoke to believe this is a situation involving conscious racism or sexism. Still, the editors in charge are clearly hiring and promoting people they feel comfortable with ― other white guys. “If all the leadership positions are white men, we are missing important perspective on events of the day because we’re seeing it through one lens, whether people intend it or not,” the nonwhite staffer said. Of the 12 deputy managing editors at the top who serve under Baker and his deputy Murray, eight are white men and four are women. Two of the women work on operational issues, meaning they don’t directly handle coverage. Both of the editors who oversee the Journal’s notoriously conservative opinion page are white men. The Wall Street Journal is hardly the only newsroom in America that’s dominated by white men or that underpays women, but what’s unique here seems to be its leaders’ apparent unwillingness to grapple with the issue, and the direct way the paper’s staff and union are confronting it. The executive editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, who is African-American, acknowledged the paper’s own diversity issues in a piece the Times published last year. The article, by the paper’s former public editor, noted that of the 20 or so reporters who covered the Trump campaign, only two were black and none were Latino or Asian. “That’s less diversity than you’ll find in Donald Trump’s cabinet thus far,” Liz Spayd wrote. She criticized the Times for not doing more about mixing it up. “We’re not diverse enough,” Baquet said at the time. “But I think they’d say I have a commitment to it and that it’s gotten better in the past year.” He added that his effort to diversify the Times had been “intense and persistent.” Eighty percent of the Journal’s staff is white, according to a 2016 survey conducted by the American Society of News Editors. The New York Times is 78 percent white. The Washington Post is at 69 percent. At all three outlets, women journalists write fewer than half of the A-section stories, according to a separate report. (HuffPost’s union has not yet done a salary review, but plans to perform one sometime next year. HuffPost management has not yet released official diversity numbers.) The June email to Baker and Murray followed up on a longer March email, signed by 197 reporters and other staffers, who pleaded with Baker and Murray to consider a more intentional strategy when it comes to diversity. That email laid out specific suggestion for management. Some points were strikingly similar to those recommended recently by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who conducted a thorough internal review of ride-hailing firm Uber’s internal culture. For example, the writers asked the Journal editors to consider implementing the so-called Rooney rule, which calls for at least one minority member and one woman to be considered for every job opening. The reporters also asked that more effort be made to hire women into leadership roles, that a thorough salary review be undertaken and shared with staff and that managers get more training on how to assess reporters’ career paths ― an effort to dispel the notion, for example, that women who are mothers wouldn’t want to take on breaking news roles. Baker responded just a few hours later that day. ”I appreciate the seriousness of all these issues and I look forward to discussing them with you,” he wrote. He said many of the issues raised were “under consideration” and that he and the editors are “committed to fostering and developing a highly successful and welcoming workplace that provides the best possible opportunities for all of our journalists, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.”  After the email flurry, Baker met with a few women at the company, but in the June follow-up, the authors make it clear that not much has happened since. On pay, after a widely publicized report from the reporters’ union last year, Dow Jones did take action, hiring an outside consulting firm to analyze salaries. The result: The company says only 3 percent of salaries required adjustments and that those were made. In his email in March to the reporters, Baker writes about the salary review. “The adjustments for the impacted group, which included both men and women and spanned multiple ethnicities, have been completed,” he writes. In an follow-up exchange, the women ask Baker for more transparency on the salary analysis. “I’m eager to be as transparent as possible,” Baker states. “Though I am sure you’ll understand that when it comes to individual salaries, we have to handle sensitively.” To be clear, the writers weren’t looking to learn their colleagues’ salaries, but to get a better sense of how such an analysis was conducted. Comparing pay is a tricky thing, and even systemic discrepancies can be explained away by a consulting firm paid by an employer that may not be interested in, essentially, giving half its workforce a raise.  The company hasn’t shared the particulars of that research with staff or the union, says Tim Martell, the executive director of IAPE, the news guild that represents the Journal’s reporters. “They told us 31 employees received a salary adjustment, but haven’t given us methodology or data. We only have their word,” he says. The union report released this month, on the other hand, offers an extremely detailed look at pay, releasing average salary information for workers by age and location. The union has also offered to review the salaries of its members and give them a report on where they stand in the organization. Martell says he’s received hundreds of requests ― mostly from women ― and so far has produced about 88 reports that give reporters a sense of where their pay stands relative to the median salary of someone working in the same location with a similar job title and level of experience. Several Journal reporters told HuffPost they weren’t surprised about the pay gap at the paper. “I always heard about women getting paid significantly less than men, but I didn’t think about it on a personal level until it happened to me,” said a former Wall Street Journal staffer who left the paper in 2015. After four years at the Journal, this staffer learned that a man sitting next to her, with the same level of experience and job title, was making $30,000 more a year than she was. He’d been hired relatively recently. When she raised the issue with her boss, she was told that because her male colleague was an “external hire,”  they had to pay more to poach him. “They were trying to convince him to join,” she explained. The female staffer got a 2 percent raise. “That didn’t come close to closing the gap,” she said. “I was very angry.” Her colleague ended up getting promoted and landing a new title a few weeks after she complained. Read the emails in full below. Email sent Friday, June 9, on behalf of nearly 200 WSJ reporters: Dear Gerry and Matt, You closed the meeting with three of us in April by encouraging us to hold you accountable on issues of diversity in the WSJ newsroom. It’s now mid-June, and on behalf of the nearly 200 colleagues who signed our initial letter, we wanted to check in regarding that conversation and what steps The Journal leadership has taken to address the problems discussed. Specifically, you and Matt said at that meeting that you would undertake a review of bylines, including video and WSJ conferences, to evaluate whether women are underrepresented. Our original letter pointed out that just one Saturday Review cover essay was authored by a woman over the prior six months. Little has changed: nine of the past 11 were by men.   We are also eager for an update regarding the intention you expressed in April to gather additional data from HR on the pay gap analysis, particularly on the compensation concerns within the newsroom. As we expressed in the letter and our follow-up meeting, we aren’t satisfied by what the company has shared thus far in terms of how it calculates appropriate pay ranges, how wide those ranges are and how many in the newsroom specifically were flagged as having pay inequities. Without breaking out newsroom results from the overall company numbers, we are left concerned that pay inequities do still plague this division. Finally, we are curious about the masthead changes you said were imminent. Until our leadership reflects a more diverse population ― the population we are trying to attract as new subscribers ― we may not be producing the best journalism possible. That became apparent in this story from the Quants series recently, in which references to the overwhelmingly male pipeline from the athletic pitch to Wall Street were never explicitly acknowledged as such until a (female) reporter brought the omission to the attention of the Standards team. The fix required just two words, but meant a world of difference. Same for the leder on Target’s response to North Carolina’s bathroom law, which characterized trans individuals as sexual predators in a quote from the American Family Association but initially offered no rebuttal. At least seven reporters and editors met to discuss the incident with Neal Lipschutz, expressing concern about how The Journal covered trans people and members of other minority groups and encouraging―at the very least―the adoption of a policy in which we seek out comment from those groups being accused of such offenses. Outspoken individuals helped spur changes in those incidents, but as a newsroom going forward, we must still do better. We look forward to hearing more from you as this fiscal year closes out. Best, Response from Baker on June 13: Thank you for this. As we told you back in April, we do indeed take these issues seriously and I certainly am grateful to you for holding me accountable. If you don’t mind, I will take some time to respond in greater length seriatim to your various points, many of which have great validity.  For now, we are right in the final stages of nailing down the new newsroom leadership structure and I should be in position to make some announcements about this by early July.  You’ll get a chance then to observe how we address the leadership issues you raised, as well as some of your other concerns.  I will respond to you at greater length by then and I’d be delighted to then meet and talk further. Gerry Gerard Baker Editor in Chief The Wall Street Journal Earlier email from March 28 signed by 197 staffers: Dear Gerry and Matt, We are concerned about the role of women and people of color in The Wall Street Journal’s newsroom, and would like to discuss diversity initiatives with you. Our highest ranking female role model left the company earlier this year. There are currently four women and eight men listed as deputy managing editors, and both editorial page editors are men. Nearly all the people at high levels at the paper deciding what we cover and how are white men. More than a year after IAPE released data showing that union-represented women reporters here make 90 cents for every $1 their male counterparts earn, and that black and Hispanic women earn the least among all union-represented employees, we feel that the underlying issues regarding pay equity have not been adequately addressed. We were troubled most recently by a report issued last week by the Women’s Media Center showing that 34.3% of WSJ’s A-section bylines from September through November were from women, down from 39.2% the prior year. Women comprise 49% of our union-represented reporters, writers and senior writers, according to IAPE data. During the same period, 42.5% of bylines at the Washington Post came from women and the New York Times saw an increase in female bylines to 39% from 32.3% the prior year. We recognize that there are potential flaws with an external study that only counted bylines in a single section over a three-month period. But in the absence of other data from the company, this study suggests a problem with female representation among A-section bylines. There are troubling signs in other parts of the paper as well. For example, over the past six months, the high-profile Saturday Review cover piece was written by a woman just once. And following the most recent round of layoffs and buyouts, just 18% of our union-represented writers, editors, visual journalists and reporters are people of color. Diversity in the newsroom is good for business and good for our coverage. We would like to see the Journal undertake a more comprehensive, intentional and transparent approach to improving it. We know that this is a topic being discussed as part of the broader WSJ 2020 project, and we stand ready to work with you to ensure that we have a strong pipeline of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and those from a diverse set of socioeconomic backgrounds, ready for promotion when the opportunity next arises. This will also help ensure that prospective new hires feel they could flourish here. We are eager to see efforts similar to those launched at ProPublica be created in our own newsroom. Among those programs, we suggest: ―A Rooney rule ensuring that women and minorities are considered in the slate of candidates for all leadership positions. ―A significant effort made to hire a woman in a masthead-level position overseeing news gathering and involved in setting the coverage agenda, with consideration for women who are also racial and ethnic minorities. Many of the women in leadership positions have the word “deputy” in their title, including the deputy U.S. News and Money & Investing editors. ―Manager training to address and dispel assumptions about what individuals want their career paths to look like. For example, parents of young children may be eager to do a stint abroad or a breaking-news beat. And we have typically had few women on beats such as economics and sports, despite interest among women in covering those beats. ―Greater flexibility for parents that still offers them the opportunity to move up the newsroom ladder. ―A review of how well we do in quoting women as expert sources, rather than just men, especially in economics and markets stories, along with a concerted effort by managers and reporters to diversify our source pools. ―A detailed report of salaries among reporters, editors and other newsroom roles, broken down by section or group (US News, our global regions, M&I, Life & Arts, etc.), by gender and by race/ethnicity, shared with staff. We would welcome the opportunity to meet, brainstorm other ideas and agree to specific next steps to ensure that all journalists in this newsroom are treated fairly and paid equitably. Sincerely, And Baker’s response the same day in March:  Thank you for the note addressed to Matt Murray and me. First, let me assure you that Matt and I - and all the editorial leadership - take your concerns seriously. I look forward to having a full discussion about the issues you raise in a spirit of constructive cooperation. We are absolutely committed to fostering and developing a highly successful and welcoming workplace that provides the best possible opportunities for all of our journalists, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation. As you note, the people stream of the WSJ 2020 process is reviewing these and other issues. Some of the proposals in your note are already under consideration in that work, led by Christine Glancey. She’ll be taking part in a Storylab session on Thursday, which I encourage you to attend to learn more about these efforts and share your ideas. While we realize that there are many elements that contribute to the creation and maintenance of a properly diverse workforce, I do want to take a moment to address the issue of pay equity you raise. In particular I wish to highlight the comprehensive internal and external reviews of our compensation practices that were done in response to the IAPE report mentioned in your letter. The internal review was led by our People team, and the external review was overseen by Willis Towers Watson. The final analysis of both exercises showed that fewer than 3% of Dow Jones employees needed pay adjustments. The adjustments for the impacted group, which included both men and women and spanned multiple ethnicities, have been completed. In order to track our continued progress, we are already midway through new internal and external reviews for 2017. Again, I appreciate the seriousness of all these issues and I look forward to discussing them with you. Sincerely, Gerry Clarification: A reference in this article to a page-one article about Target has been amended to reflect that the article was subject to an editorial process. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 июня, 03:00

Why The FBI Usually Doesn't Label Attacks By Non-Muslims Terrorism

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Just hours after the FBI announced that last week’s politically motivated attack on members of Congress at a baseball practice was not an act of terrorism, federal investigators informed the public on Wednesday that the stabbing of a police officer at an airport in Flint, Michigan, potentially was. Police said Amor Ftouhi, 50, attacked Lt. Jeff Neville of Bishop International Airport’s Department of Public Safety on Wednesday morning. Ftouhi, a Quebec resident who entered the U.S. on June 16, yelled “Allahu Akbar” before stabbing Neville, authorities said. He also “exclaimed something similar” to ”You have killed people in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we are all going to die,” according to an incident report. The FBI’s announcement in the Flint investigation followed revelations earlier Wednesday that the bureau had found no connection to terrorism in last week’s shooting in Northern Virginia, during which James T. Hodgkinson opened fire on GOP lawmakers and staffers practicing for a charity baseball game. Hodgkinson, who was killed in a shootout with police, appeared politically motivated and regularly voiced strong sentiments against President Donald Trump on Facebook. Both incidents would meet the textbook definition of terrorism: the “unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” The FBI’s own definition of domestic terrorism says an act must meet three characteristics: It must appear intended 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, 3) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. But there’s no generic federal terrorism law that can be used in all acts that would meet the textbook definition. And when the FBI calls something terrorism, the organization is usually referring to a specific connection with a designated foreign terrorist organization. Under federal law, it is much easier to deploy terrorism-related charges against individuals inspired by radical Islam, because even elements like retweets can be considered material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. does not label domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations, as banning Americans from supporting U.S.-based organizations would raise First Amendment issues. There are certain acts of terrorism that are illegal under federal law regardless of motivation. That includes airplane hijacking, the use of particular explosives and weapons, and assassinating a government official. But stabbings and shootings aren’t included. Take the prosecution of Dylann Roof, who was sentenced to death this year for the shooting deaths of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in June 2015. Roof was found guilty on 33 counts, including hate crimes, but he was not charged with terrorism. Shortly after the Charleston attack, in July 2015, HuffPost pressed former FBI Director James Comey on the hesitancy to label the Charleston shooting as terrorism. Comey acknowledged the attack might fit the “colloquial” definition of the word, but said he operated only in the legal framework, because of the nature of his job. “The only world I live in is when you bring charges against someone, and charge them with something under a particular provision that is a terrorism statute,” Comey said. “So that’s the framework through which I look at it.” When Roof was indicted, Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch described hate crimes as the “original domestic terrorism.” She said the lack of terrorism charges against Roof didn’t mean the feds were taking the case any less seriously. Lynch’s predecessor, however, said it’s time for the nation of reconsider what it labels as terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder said Charleston should serve as a ”wake-up call″ on domestic terrorism. People like Roof, he explained, can become radicalized on U.S. soil without the aid or influence of a foreign terror network. “We have a young man who apparently becomes radicalized as the result of an incident and becomes more radicalized as a result of what he sees on the Internet, through the use of his computer, then goes and does something, that by his own words apparently is a political-violent act,” Holder told HuffPost. “With a different set of circumstances, and if you had dialed in religion there, Islam, that would be called an act of terror. It seems to me that, again on the basis of the information that has been released, that’s what we have here. An act of terror.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июня, 18:26

Here Are Some Of The People Who Could Replace Travis Kalanick As Uber CEO

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Embattled Uber founder Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO on Tuesday after five investors reportedly requested he step down. The task of finding a replacement to lead the ride-hailing giant begins now.  “I love Uber more than anything in the world and at this difficult moment in my personal life I have accepted the investors request to step aside so that Uber can go back to building rather than be distracted with another fight,” Kalanick said in a statement to The New York Times. His departure was a long time coming. An onslaught of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations have placed Kalanick’s leadership tactics in doubt. A group of senior executives have been running the show since Kalanick announced an indefinite leave of absence last week. But their plates are full, since Uber also needs to fill the roles of chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief marketing officer and senior vice president of engineering. Here are some of the people who have been floated as potential replacements for Kalanick: Garrett Camp He’s Uber’s co-founder and current chairman. His longstanding connection to the company would make him a pretty obvious choice. “In a highly competitive market it is easy to become obsessed with growth, instead of taking the time to ensure you’re on the right path,” he wrote Tuesday in a Medium post. “Over the years we have neglected parts of our culture as we have focused on growth. But what matters now is that we know what needs to be changed.” Ryan Graves Graves was the ride-sharing app’s first CEO. Once known as the company’s “Mr. Nice Guy,” he led Uber through its first few years of success and then took a back seat when Kalanick took the reins.  But there are also reports that Graves, too, may be asked to step down. He might be affected by Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s investigation of Uber, since he was the head of human resources when Susan Fowler, the woman who blogged about sexual harassment at the company, was employed there. Arianna Huffington Although only a board member since last year, HuffPost’s former editor-in-chief has taken on an outsize role in navigating the company through its myriad crises in the last few months, all the while becoming one of Kalanick’s closest confidantes. In February, she spearheaded Holder’s investigation of workplace practices. It also certainly doesn’t hurt to have a woman acting as the public face of a company plagued with allegations of misogyny.  Bill Gurley Gurley is an Uber board member and partner at venture capital firm Benchmark ― one of the five investors who pushed for Kalanick’s resignation. He tweeted his appreciation for Kalanick’s accomplishments late on Tuesday and was one of the former CEO’s most trusted advisers. But he’s also been known as one of the primary actors working to clean the company up, and called for Holder’s investigation of Uber.  Jeff Holden Holden has been in charge of products since 2014 and is behind some of the company’s forward-looking initiatives, like UberPool and self-driving cars. Flying taxis are next on his agenda, he said earlier this year. The CEO role isn’t Uber’s only vacancy. Take a look at how much the company’s top leadership has crumbled in the last six months:  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июня, 18:06

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick's Leave Of Absence

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick's Leave Of Absence

21 июня, 17:04

Uber's Kalanick Out as CEO

This morning's report that Travis Kalanick will be leaving permanently the company he co-founded came as something of a shock.

21 июня, 08:48

Uber Founder Travis Kalanick Resigns As CEO

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The wheels finally fell off. Travis Kalanick is stepping down from his post as CEO of Uber, effective immediately.  Kalanick’s exit came after a shareholder revolt reportedly made it untenable for him to stay at the company he founded in 2009. Investors called for the change in leadership in a letter that was delivered to Kalanick in Chicago and obtained by Times reporter Mike Isaac. The news was first reported by the New York Times and later confirmed by TechCrunch.  “I love Uber more than anything in the world and at this difficult moment in my personal life I have accepted the investors request to step aside so that Uber can go back to building rather than be distracted with another fight,” Kalanick said in a statement to the Times. He will remain on Uber’s board of directors. In a statement to TechCrunch, the board called Kalanick’s decision “a sign of his devotion and love for Uber.” The embattled former CEO built the ride-hailing company from a scrappy startup into a taxi-killing behemoth valued at nearly $70 billion. But as today’s news demonstrates, valuation only gets you so far. Uber suffered several turbulent months in early 2017. The rise of #DeleteUber in response to the company appearing to break a taxi picket line in early February drove more than 200,000 people to delete the Uber App from their phone in protest, and was only quelled once Kalanick announced he’d resign from President Donald Trump’s economic advisory council. That movement regained steam, however, as lurid claims of a toxic work culture surfaced, courtesy of a tell-all blog by a former employee. Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler penned the blog in late February, recalling her experiences with rampant sexual harassment at the company, including being solicited for sex by male superiors and stonewalled by HR for reporting their conduct. Two of Uber’s earliest investors, Mitch and Freada Kapor, spoke out at the time and urged the company to switch gears. “Uber’s outsize success in terms of growth of market share, revenues and valuation are impressive, but can never excuse a culture plagued by disrespect, exclusionary cliques, lack of diversity, and tolerance for bullying and harassment of every form,” the two wrote. “Uber has had countless opportunities to do the right thing,” they added. “We feel we have hit a dead end.” Kalanick pledged to clean up the company culture in response. He asked former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to lead an inquiry, and got former Huffington Post editor-in-chief (and Uber board member) Arianna Huffington to pitch in. Uber has had countless opportunities to do the right thing. We feel we have hit a dead end. Yet another crisis developed soon after: Waymo, a Google-founded competitor, sued Uber, claiming the company had stolen technology essential to the development of its self-driving cars. Uber competitor Lyft continued to pick up steam all the while. Amid mounting evidence of deep-rooted problems at the company, however, a video of Kalanick angrily telling off an Uber driver may have hit his personal standing the hardest. The video shows Kalanick discussing the company’s fare structure with Uber “black car” driver Fawzi Kamel at the end of a ride. Kamel, who purchased a nicer car to drive for the upscale “black” service, tells Kalanick he “lost $97,000 because of you. I’m bankrupt because of you.” In response, Kalanick fires back, “You know what? Some people don’t like to take responsibility for their own shit.” “They blame everything in their life on somebody else,” he adds, edging out of the back seat. “Good luck,” he adds, sarcastically, then slams the door.   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июня, 04:38

В Америке давно проблемы с коррупцией

Решительная кампания против коррупции составит половину политической платформы Демократической партии на выборы в 2018 (вторая половина — против Trumpcare и за медицинское обслуживание для всех). Но демократы должны также признать, что коррупция выходит далеко за пределы деятельности Трампа. Он — лишь олицетворение общей тенденции среди элиты обеих политических партий. Чтобы сделать действительно сильную кампанию против коррупции, демократы должны не только ударить по антирекорду Трампа, но и признать, что их достижения тоже далеки от идеала.

21 июня, 00:45

The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: A Faceossoff in Georgia

Georgians head to the polls to vote in a special election between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel.

21 июня, 00:10

I’LL TAKE ERIC HOLDER FOR $500, ALEX: “Who Holds the DEA Accountable When Its Missions Cost Lives?” …

I’LL TAKE ERIC HOLDER FOR $500, ALEX: “Who Holds the DEA Accountable When Its Missions Cost Lives?” Soros-funded ProPublica reports that the DEA (like the ATF) may be responsible for dozens of deaths in the Mexican drug wars: Against the wishes of the lead agent on the case — whose informant specifically warned of the […]

21 июня, 00:08

Congress, America, Innocence, War, Peace, Your Cat At Stake In GA-6

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! Senate Republicans want to hold a preemptive vote to raise the debt ceiling, though destroying the global economy sure would be a way to avoid a sophomore slump after taking everyone’s health care away. The Georgia 6th special election reminded us that unlike the dating pool and most self-respecting co-op boards, journalists should be allowed into public events. And a Republican congressman introduced legislation to allow lawmakers to carry guns wherever they go. The bill would also require lawmakers to certify that they are Good Guys. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Tuesday, June 20th, 2017: GEORGIA-6 A SQUEAKER - It’s finally over, as are the Daily Kos articles your parents forward you with a note about how they contributed. Ariel Edwards-Levy: “Earlier surveys gave Democrat Jon Ossoff, who was backed by record levels of fundraising, a slight edge over Republican Karen Handel, whom he led by 2 to 3 points in most surveys. Ossoff led by 7 points in both a WXIA-TV poll conducted by SurveyUSA in May and an Atlanta Journal-Constitution survey from Abt SRBI in early June.  A subsequent SurveyUSA poll, however, found the race tied, as did a second poll conducted for WSB-TV. One survey, from the GOP-affiliated Trafalgar Group, gave the edge to Handel, although it remains the only recent poll to do so. Given the margin of error inherent in any survey ― not to mention the added difficulty of predicting who will turn out to vote in an off-year House runoff ― and the race looks about as close as it can get.” [HuffPost] What tonight’s results might mean: “The special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District is already one of the most hotly contested and absurdly expensive contests in congressional history. Now, those hoping to put off Obamacare’s demise are gearing up to use a potential win by the Democratic nominee, Jon Ossoff, as a means of spooking recalcitrant Republicans into inaction. ‘It could at least give them pause that there will be a bigger backlash than they even thought and that they should rethink this huge bill,’ is how one top health care reform advocate put it.” [HuffPost’s Sam Stein] Today’s unused HuffPost Hill headlines: “Sean Spicer Not Fat, Just Full Of Chewing Gum” ”‘At Least Someone Called Sean Spicer Fat’ Thought Zero Dying Uninsured Americans” “Already Beleaguered Nation Forced To Think About Sean Spicer’s Body” SENATE GOP HOPES TO GET DEBT CEILING OUT OF THE WAY - It’s not as much fun to play chicken with the global economy when you control the government. Burgess Everett and Rachel Bade:  “Senate Republicans are planning for a July vote to raise the debt ceiling, according to senators and aides. Though the Treasury Department has said that Congress can likely wait until September to avoid default, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his lieutenants are increasingly disposed to clearing the Senate’s plate as much as possible before heading home for August recess. That would also likely mean decoupling the debt ceiling from a potential government shutdown fight in September. It’s not clear what exactly such a bill would look like, but members of both parties are interested in a broad spending deal that would avoid the blunt budget cuts of sequestration. A clean debt ceiling increase may be a problem for a GOP majority filled with fiscal conservatives.” [Politico] Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) introduced legislation that would let lawmakers carry guns everywhere. MONEY FOR OMB, NONE FOR THEE - Matt Fuller and Arthur Delaney: “While President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney propose deep cuts to the social safety net ― as well as thousands of fewer jobs at agencies like the Department of State and the Environmental Protection Agency ― Mulvaney is asking Congress to increase one aspect the federal bureaucracy: his own office. When Mulvaney goes before a House appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday, he will be asking for modest increases to the OMB budget and the office’s full-time employees. He wants to boost the OMB budget 8.4 percent, from $95 million to $103 million, and add 30 employees to the staff of about 465. Mulvaney’s spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment. Democrats, however, were happy to point out the apparent hypocrisy. ′With 30 additional people, hopefully the OMB will have enough employees to double-check its math and realize the extreme harm the Trump Administration’s budget will inflict upon millions of Americans,′ Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), an Appropriations Committee member and Trump budget hater, told HuffPost in an emailed statement.” [HuffPost] DELANEY DOWNER - For politicians across the spectrum, shuttered factories are a symbol of America’s diminished economic greatness. But even good manufacturing jobs come with a downside that politicians overlook in their effort to valorize them: long, terrible hours…. [T.J. Bray, a Carrier worker for the past 15 years, explained the downside of 60- and 70-hour weeks:] “You miss out on so much stuff in your life because you’re freakin’ in a factory all week, and then you get one day off and on that one day off all you want to do is sleep and rest,” he said. “I don’t want to spend my life ― six, seven days a week ― in a factory and next thing I know, my kids are going to be grown up and I missed out on everything because I was too busy making money.” [HuffPost] DOUBLE DOWNER - Your trusty HuffPost Hill correspondent was the ONLY reporter at a presser on the plight of working people whose jobs have random crappy schedules. Rosa DeLauro and Elizabeth Warren have legislation addressing the problem of unfair scheduling. Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill WHITE HOUSE LESS TRANSPARENT, VERY HOSTILE - Rosie Gray: “Over the course of the Trump administration, the White House’s daily press briefings have been pared progressively further back; they are now shorter, less frequent, and routinely held off-camera...But instead of canceling them entirely, the White House has appeared to embrace a different strategy: simply downgrading them bit by bit, from ‘briefings’ to ‘gaggles,’ and from on-camera to off-camera. Guidance for the briefings have begun to include a note that audio from them cannot be used. Additionally, though Trump has held short press conferences when foreign leaders visit, he has not held a full press conference since February… Neither Spicer nor deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders responded to queries about the changes to the briefings. Asked why the briefings are now routinely held off-camera, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in a text message ‘Sean got fatter,’ and did not respond to a follow-up.” [Atlantic] SEAN SPICER REAPPEARS! IS TOTALLY UNHELPFUL - Spicer repeatedly told reporters that he hasn’t “touched base” with the president, which is language typically used to describe texting someone to see how their tinder date went. Hayley Miller: “White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s first on-camera press briefing in over a week was full of non-answers and promises to ‘touch base’ with President Donald Trump at a later date. When asked Tuesday if Trump believed Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, as the U.S. intelligence community determined in January, Spicer said he wasn’t sure. ‘I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing,’ Spicer said. ‘Obviously, we’ve been dealing with a lot of other issues today. I’d be glad to touch base.’ It’s been six months since the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency released a joint report outlining the Kremlin’s efforts to tip the election in favor of Trump. Spicer acknowledged that he’s personally seen the reports, but he apparently hasn’t been able to gauge where Trump stands on the issue. ‘I have not sat down and asked him about a specific reaction to it,’ Spicer said. ‘So I’d be glad to touch base and get back to you.’” [HuffPost] ERIC HOLDER FOR PRESIDENT: BECAUSE AFP NEEDS TO RAISE EVEN MORE MONEY - Hooray, four more years of talking about Fast and Furious!  Andrew Romano: “More than two years after leaving the Obama administration, former Attorney General Eric Holder is reentering the political fray. His goal: to lead the legal resistance to Donald Trump’s agenda — and perhaps even run against the president in 2020. Seized by a sense of urgency to oppose Trump and restore what he regards as America’s best self, Holder is mulling a White House bid of his own, according to three sources who have spoken to him and are familiar with his thinking. ‘Up to now, I have been more behind-the-scenes,’ Holder told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview about his plans. ’But that’s about to change. I have a certain status as the former attorney general. A certain familiarity as the first African-American attorney general. There’s a justified perception that I’m close to President Obama. So I want to use whatever skills I have, whatever notoriety I have, to be effective in opposing things that are, at the end of the day, just bad for the country.’” [Yahoo News] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here are dogs unloading groceries. SO MUCH FOR THAT POST-SHOOTING SENSE OF TOGETHERNESS - Mary Papenfuss: “The hotly contested special election for a Georgia congressional seat took on the added drama of a media war Monday as both campaigns reportedly barred news operations unfriendly to their cause. The conservative Washington Free Beacon said its reporter was escorted out of a campaign event Monday night before Democrat Jon Ossoff was scheduled to speak on the eve of the election. And a reporter from liberal ThinkProgress said she was barred from events by Republican Karen Handel.” [HuffPost] COMFORT FOOD - What life is like in Barrow, Alaska, America’s most northern large town. - Robot sumo wrestling feels like a metaphor for Twitter arguments. - How to deal with politics-induced stress, aside from reading HuffPost Hill, of course. TWITTERAMA China: look, we tried.DJT: I know! China: it just has not worked out. DJT: no, but I greatly approaciate it China: np. Anytime— Farhad Manjoo (@fmanjoo) June 20, 2017 “Sean Got Fatter” = my least-favorite Puff Daddy record— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) June 20, 2017 Not sure how I feel about White House briefing questions that seem to boil down to “hey want to say something bad about refugees? Or Obama?"— Elise Foley (@elisefoley) June 20, 2017 Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected])  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
20 июня, 00:00

Eric Holder Joins Anti-Trump Resistance, Mulls 2020 Bid

Andrew Romano, YahooNow is the time to be heard, former Attorney General Eric Holder said in an exclusive interview with Yahoo News.

Выбор редакции
15 июня, 13:03

How The Uber Scandal Is Pushing Customers Into Difficult Decisions

A report issued by former attorney general Eric Holder found that the ride sharing company Uber has systematically discriminated against and mistreated women employees. Does that mean loyal Uber customers will switch to Lyft? Probably not.. Cartoon by Ted Rall.

14 июня, 19:26

Actually It’s Men Who Can’t Stop Talking

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The old stereotype is that men are strong and silent. And women? Well, those gals just can’t quit gabbing! They allegedly talk too much.  Any woman who works in an office setting knows intuitively how wrong that notion is. Men vastly outnumber us in the higher ranks in nearly every industry in the business world and, of course, in the political realm. And those men talk. A lot. Yet the stereotype persists. And on Tuesday it was given new life at ― where else? ― Uber, the multibillion-dollar ride-hailing company currently struggling to demonstrate that it is not a cesspool of sexual harassment and discrimination. At a staff meeting, after Uber board member Arianna Huffington mentioned that having one woman on the board leads to more joining the group, her 74-year-old male colleague jumped in with a terrible joke. “Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking,” said David Bonderman, a board member, who is also a partner at the private equity firm TPG Capital. (Huffington founded HuffPost but is no longer affiliated with the publication.) Lordy.  The term “mansplain” didn’t catch on for no good reason. A raft of studies have found that men talk more than women, particularly in public professional settings, where those with more power often feel more comfortable holding the floor. Men are also more likely to interrupt when a woman is speaking. As Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) found this week when she was cut-off in a hearing. So not only was Bonderman’s off-the-cuff remark offensive ― employees were quick to lodge complaints afterwards with Uber’s human resource department ― it was also totally off-base.   At the meeting, Uber’s leaders were reviewing a plan to reform the company’s culture, one that has so-far been rife with harassment and discrimination toward women. Last week, Uber fired 20 people due to various workplace issues included sexual harassment and bullying. Also on Tuesday, Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick announced he was taking a leave of absence in light of mounting criticism of his leadership. Yet Bonderman’s joke, in another way, was sort of perfect. It illustrates Uber’s problems with women. The belief that women talk too much is rooted in the understanding that women should be silent.  And that notion helps fuel exactly the kinds of problems faced by Uber ― where women’s complaints about sexual discrimination went ignored.  The belief that women talk too much is rooted in the understanding that women should be silent. “The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence,” is how well-known feminist Dale Spender, explained the reasoning in her book Man Made Language written decades ago. “Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.”  Of course, the reason Uber’s in so much trouble these days is because one woman refused to be silenced. Susan Fowler, a former engineer at the company, rocked Uber to its core in February when she published a blog post detailing how she was treated by the company.  After being propositioned by her boss on her first day at work, Fowler was effectively silenced. Her complaints, and those of other women at the company, went ignored. The post led to Uber bringing in two outside law firms to examine her complaints and its workplace culture. Former Attorney General Eric Holder worked for months with other lawyers at his D.C. law firm, interviewing current and former workers and examining stacks of documents, to come up with a plan to reform the culture. (Recommendations include: less alcohol at work events, bosses shouldn’t date subordinates, the HR department should be better and more organized and responsive.) Things already seem to have changed, at least a little bit. Less than 24 hours after Bonderman made his dumb joke, he apologized and actually resigned. “I appreciate David doing the right thing for Uber at this time of critical cultural changes at the company,” Huffington said in a statement. It’s worth noting that despite what Huffington said at that staff meeting on Tuesday, having one woman in the boardroom is not typically an effective path to gender parity. Studies have found that when just a single woman is included in an all-male team of directors, she’s often treated as a token ― who represents an entire gender. Women who were the only female director at their company said they were often ignored in meetings and decision-making discussions, according to one widely cited survey of female board members. Huffington was the sole woman on Uber’s board until ― in the face of massive criticism ― the company brought in another woman director, Wan Ling Martello, last week. That makes two women and four men at the top of the organization. Maybe together those women will be able to get a word in. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 июня, 19:26

Actually It’s Men Who Can’t Stop Talking

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The old stereotype is that men are strong and silent. And women? Well, those gals just can’t quit gabbing! They allegedly talk too much.  Any woman who works in an office setting knows intuitively how wrong that notion is. Men vastly outnumber us in the higher ranks in nearly every industry in the business world and, of course, in the political realm. And those men talk. A lot. Yet the stereotype persists. And on Tuesday it was given new life at ― where else? ― Uber, the multibillion-dollar ride-hailing company currently struggling to demonstrate that it is not a cesspool of sexual harassment and discrimination. At a staff meeting, after Uber board member Arianna Huffington mentioned that having one woman on the board leads to more joining the group, her 74-year-old male colleague jumped in with a terrible joke. “Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking,” said David Bonderman, a board member, who is also a partner at the private equity firm TPG Capital. (Huffington founded HuffPost but is no longer affiliated with the publication.) Lordy.  The term “mansplain” didn’t catch on for no good reason. A raft of studies have found that men talk more than women, particularly in public professional settings, where those with more power often feel more comfortable holding the floor. Men are also more likely to interrupt when a woman is speaking. As Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) found this week when she was cut-off in a hearing. So not only was Bonderman’s off-the-cuff remark offensive ― employees were quick to lodge complaints afterwards with Uber’s human resource department ― it was also totally off-base.   At the meeting, Uber’s leaders were reviewing a plan to reform the company’s culture, one that has so-far been rife with harassment and discrimination toward women. Last week, Uber fired 20 people due to various workplace issues included sexual harassment and bullying. Also on Tuesday, Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick announced he was taking a leave of absence in light of mounting criticism of his leadership. Yet Bonderman’s joke, in another way, was sort of perfect. It illustrates Uber’s problems with women. The belief that women talk too much is rooted in the understanding that women should be silent.  And that notion helps fuel exactly the kinds of problems faced by Uber ― where women’s complaints about sexual discrimination went ignored.  The belief that women talk too much is rooted in the understanding that women should be silent. “The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence,” is how well-known feminist Dale Spender, explained the reasoning in her book Man Made Language written decades ago. “Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.”  Of course, the reason Uber’s in so much trouble these days is because one woman refused to be silenced. Susan Fowler, a former engineer at the company, rocked Uber to its core in February when she published a blog post detailing how she was treated by the company.  After being propositioned by her boss on her first day at work, Fowler was effectively silenced. Her complaints, and those of other women at the company, went ignored. The post led to Uber bringing in two outside law firms to examine her complaints and its workplace culture. Former Attorney General Eric Holder worked for months with other lawyers at his D.C. law firm, interviewing current and former workers and examining stacks of documents, to come up with a plan to reform the culture. (Recommendations include: less alcohol at work events, bosses shouldn’t date subordinates, the HR department should be better and more organized and responsive.) Things already seem to have changed, at least a little bit. Less than 24 hours after Bonderman made his dumb joke, he apologized and actually resigned. “I appreciate David doing the right thing for Uber at this time of critical cultural changes at the company,” Huffington said in a statement. It’s worth noting that despite what Huffington said at that staff meeting on Tuesday, having one woman in the boardroom is not typically an effective path to gender parity. Studies have found that when just a single woman is included in an all-male team of directors, she’s often treated as a token ― who represents an entire gender. Women who were the only female director at their company said they were often ignored in meetings and decision-making discussions, according to one widely cited survey of female board members. Huffington was the sole woman on Uber’s board until ― in the face of massive criticism ― the company brought in another woman director, Wan Ling Martello, last week. That makes two women and four men at the top of the organization. Maybe together those women will be able to get a word in. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 июня, 19:09

The Uber Pattern Continues With a Sexist Comment at a Board Meeting

Less than 24 hours after unveiling policies meant to combat sexism, David Bonderman resigns over remarks about women.

14 июня, 10:33

Основатель Uber оставит компанию на неопределенный срок

Основатель и гендиректор такси-сервиса Uber Трэвис Каланик сообщил сотрудникам компании, что уходит в отпуск на неопределенный срок. Иллюстративное фото Megaobzor.com В сообщении, которое цитирует Bloomberg, Каланик объясняет, что последние события, включая смерть его матери, заставили его задуматься и пересмотреть свое отношение к некоторым вещам. Теперь он хочет сфокусироваться на работе на себя и создании "команды руководителей мирового уровня". Ранее совет директоров компании ознакомился с докладом бывшего генпрокурора США Эрика Холдера, рекомендовавшего ограничить роль Каланика. За последние месяцы компания пострадала от серии скандалов, включая обвинения в жесткой корпоративной культуре и судебное разбирательство с компанией Alphabet, обвинившей Uber в краже технологии для автомобилей на автономном управлении. В феврале этого года бывшая сотрудница Uber Сьюзан Фаулер рассказала о сексуальных домогательствах и проявлениях сексизма в компании. После этого были инициированы два расследования, в рамках которых 6 июня были уволены 20 сотрудников Uber, включая нескольких руководителей. Кроме того, зимой в центре скандала оказался и сам Каланик. В сети появился видеоролик, на котором глава Uber ругается с одним из водителей из-за падающих тарифов на перевозки. Публикация видео вынудила Каланика заявить о том, что ему нужна помощь с руководством компанией. В Uber по всему миру работают более 12 тысяч человек. Собственные данные компании свидетельствуют о том, что около 36% сотрудников Uber - женщины.

14 июня, 09:52

Глава Uber Каланик отойдет от дел на неопределенный срок

Создатель и гендиректор такси-сервиса Uber Трэвис Каланик сообщил сотрудникам компании, что уходит в отпуск на неопределенный срок.

14 июня, 03:39

Embattled Uber CEO Kalanick to take leave of absence

UBER said Tuesday its chief executive Travis Kalanick would take an indefinite leave of absence as it unveiled steps aimed at restoring confidence in the scandal-plagued ridesharing giant. The pioneering

13 июня, 23:07

The Uber Report Is a Very Basic Guide to Diversity and Inclusion

An investigation shows that the company still lacks some relatively basic policies when it comes to hiring and retention.

27 мая 2013, 11:26

Простым языком об организованной преступности финансового бизнеса. Тема: ставки Libor

Организованная преступность финансового бизнесаПора перестать смеяться над любителями теорий заговоров. Может быть, за нитки за кулисами дергают не ротшильды с рокфеллерами, а наемные менеджеры, но суть от этого не меняетсяМеждународная финансовая система, ставшая сегодня основой современной корпоративной свободнорыночной экономики - это мошенничество в особо крупных размерах.Странные порядки царили в советских СМИ. Интересные вещи появлялись в самых неожиданных местах. Журналы «Наука и жизнь» и «Знание сила» писали про политическую философию, рассказы Кафки появлялись где-нибудь в «Сибирских огнях», репродукция Пикассо впервые в СССР была опубликована в сатирическом «Крокодиле», а о Роллинг стоунз впервые написали не в музыкальном обозрении, а в детском журнале «Ровесник».В Америке все скоро будет, как в СССР эпохи застоя. Уже сейчас расследованиями финансовых спекуляций занимаются не солидные «Уолл-стрит джорнал» или «Файненшиал таймс», а журнал «Роллинг стоунз». Финансовый корреспондент журнала Мэтт Тайби практически единственный в мейнстриме, кто пишет о разрегулированном и дисфункциональном американском и мировом финансовом рынке и о том, насколько этот рынок мошеннический.Почему, как в СССР? А потому, что все меньше и меньше реальных хозяев, а делами заправляет цех наемных менеджеров, заинтересованный лишь в высокой зарплате и жирном пакете бенефитов в конце года. Именно менеджеры и финансовые спекулянты, да еще их адвокаты составляют тот 1%, который присваивает себе львиную долю национального богатства Америки. Как заметил ветеран американской журналистики Хедрик Смит, распределение богатства в Америке аналогично тому, что было в Египте в эпоху фараонов. Однако, в отличие от Египта, собственность здесь обезличена, а богатство рассредоточено и перемешано в различных банковских и финансовых продуктах, которые давно уже никто не способен контролировать.На встречу с Мэттом Тайби я шел с большим интересом. Его последняя статья «Все – мошенничество. Крупнейшая финансовая афера фиксирования цен в истории» рассказывает о манипулировании на рынке свопов. Комиссия по торговле товарными фьючерсами недавно начала следствие по делу брокерской фирмы ICAP и 15 банковских учреждений Уолл Стрит. Комиссия расследует их сговор с целью манипуляции скоростью публикации индекса ISDAfix.О ФИНАНСАХ ПРОСТО И ИНТЕРЕСНОЕсли продолжать писать о финансах в том же псевдопрофессиональном духе, зараженном корпоративным новоязом, то даже самые преданные мои читатели скоро потеряют интерес. Потому объясню просто. Что бы вы сказали, если бы результаты скачек объявлялись публике через несколько дней после того, как скачки состоялись? А в это время «умным людям» внутри системы разрешалось делать ставки? Собственно, так и происходит со скоростной электронной торговлей. Комбинаторы внутри системы получают возможность видеть и прогнозировать результаты торгов в конце дня, и на этом основании делают свои ставки, покупают и продают до того, как остальные игроки узнают, что там происходит. Покупают и продают не на свои деньги, а на деньги клиентов, против интересов которых они часто играют. ISDAfix – один из многих индексов, существующих на финансовых рынках. Он служит для определения курса в финансовых сделках. Libor – другой такой индекс, с помощью которого определяют курс практических всех банковских сделок с переменным курсом. Фокус здесь в том, что эти индексы составляются на основе оценочных данных, которые финансовые компании предоставляют добровольно и имеют возможность их поправлять.Самое простое объяснение свопа. Скажем вы – город или компания – заняли деньги под переменный курс и хотите иметь стабильность займа с фиксированным процентом. Тогда  фиксированный процент вы платите банку, а уже он разбирается с переменными процентными ставками. Это выходит дороже, но освобождает от хлопот. Своп – это многошаговая операция,  в ходе которой активы переходят из рук в руки, одновременно продаются и покупаются на заранее договоренных условиях.Сговор был в том, чтобы лишить широкую публику возможности своевременно узнавать об этих условиях. Банки докладывают о своих курсах добровольно, а это прямое приглашение не говорить всей правды.Большинство американского среднего класса слишком озабочено своими растущими долгами,  невозможностью сводить концы с концами, необходимостью выкладываться на двух-трех работах. Лишь мельком они могут услышать о скачках индекса Доу Джонс на Уолл Стрит. В конце дня им по телевизору расскажут, как шутка хакеров о взрыве в Белом Доме завалила на несколько минут финансовые рынки. Уровень торгов  потом восстановится. Вот только самого главного - кто нагрел на этом руки - СМИ не расскажут.Только недавно без лишнего шума закончилось судебной сделкой расследование аферы, в которой мошенники сманипулировали индексом Libor на пятьсот триллионов долларов. Штрафы заплатят, как водится, не виновники, а вкладчики компаний и налогоплательщики. Да еще законодатели дадут проворовавшимся банкирам налоговые скидки.Так случилось в рождественскую ночь, когда для компании, оштрафованной на $750 миллионов за уголовные нарушения, конгрессмены тихонько протащили закон об освобождении от налогов на $500 миллионов. ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛИ РАЗРЕШАЮТ ПОДОБНОЕ?– Раньше это работало или, по крайней мере, ничего не всплывало на поверхность, – говорит Тайби. – Теперь же выясняется, что котировки подправлялись довольно долгое время. Это очень легко сделать. Достаточно одному биржевому маклеру и одному из сотрудников рейтингового агентства вступить в сделку и позвонить по нескольким номерам. И это без преувеличения затрагивает интересы миллиардов людей.На манипуляциях поймали три банка, которые уже заключили судебные сделки, еще четыре - под следствием, но предполагается, что все 16 «первоклассных» банков, определенных в маркетмейкеры индекса, занимались манипуляциями. Тайби говорит, что по его данным, следствие ведется против 15-ти из них:Если там было мошенничество, то во всех 16-ти банках должны были знать о нем? – В деле есть множество косвенных улик, подтверждающих, что руководство знало о мошенничестве, – говорит Тойби. – В деле фигурирует переписка между Bank of England и гендиректором одного из крупнейших в Великобритании и мире финансовых конгломератов – Barklays в разгар глобального финансового обвала 2008 года о том, чтобы установить индекс ниже, чем он был на самом деле.Индекс Libor, по сути, измеряет, как банки доверяют друг другу, и поэтому является показателем благосостояния финансовой системы в целом. Если индекс низкий, банки доверяют и занимают друг другу деньги. Если индекс высокий – значит, банковская система нестабильна.Котировки межбанковского обмена устанавливаются ежедневно, и, вероятно, можно было создать независимую организацию для мониторинга и предотвращения мошенничества?– Да, если бы использовали реальные данные. Однако сегодня никто не обязан подавать реальные цифры о том, сколько денег они заняли вчера и по какому курсу. Предоставляют лишь свои предположения о том, какая котировка будет. Там довольно сложный процесс подсчета, охватывающий разные периоды времени и 16 основных мировых валют.Новый сговор, который расследует Комиссия, влияет на затраты по обслуживанию займов во всем мире и процентные свопы стоимостью в $379.000.000.000.000  – триста семьдесят девять триллионов долларов. Для сравнения – валовой национальный продукт США составляет около 15 триллионов, а совокупное национальное богатство США – 57.4 триллиона (на 2011 г). Эта мошенническая схема затрагивает любого, кто платит по ипотечной ссуде, по ссуде на машину, расплачивается кредитной карточкой. От этого зависит сама цена денег, обменные курсы валют во всем мире. Речь идет о небольшом подразделении внутри ICAP, – говорит Тайби. –  Около 20 человек, которые, по сути, определяли курсы свопов во всем мире. Хотя фирма зарегистрирована в Лондоне, действовали они из Джерси-сити, потому американские регуляторы смогли расследовать их деятельность.По сути же, транснациональные банковские корпорации действуют в сумеречной зоне, с неопределенными юрисдикциями. В афере Lidor все началось с японского биржевика, вступившего в сговор с сотрудником Lidor, тоже находившимся в Японии. Национальные границы не всегда позволяют эффективно расследовать новые виды корпоративной преступности.Это совершенно новый вид преступлений. Нет надобности красть у людей деньги и имущество. Вместо воровства манипулируют стоимостью имущества, которое имеется у людей, манипулируют процентными ставками, которые мы платим.НОВЫЙ ЭТАП МЕЖБАНКОВСКИХ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙЧто же здесь нового, если Уолл-стрит и банки всегда отличались "творческими" и "новаторскими" подходами к поиску путей, как делать деньги? – Здесь нечто совершенно новое. Во время финансового коллапса 2008 вскрылся огромный объем системной коррупции в финансовых корпорациях, систематической обман в ипотечном бизнесе, укорененные аферы в аудите, мошеннические схемы в банках и компаниях, как в Лэмон Брозерс.Однако раньше мы никогда не сталкивались со случаями коррупции и мошенничества, включавшие сговор между банками. Последние аферы свидетельствуют о том, что корпоративная преступность вступила в новый этап межбанковских международных преступлений. На сцену выходит глобальная институцианализированная организованная преступность, способная безнаказанно подавить конкуренцию и манипулировать международными финансовыми рынками в невиданных ранее масштабах.Речь не идет о группе злоумышленников, ловящих рыбку в мутной воде рынка производных финансовых продуктов - деривативов. Определенные деятели зарабатывают миллиарды потому, что делают бизнес по-блатному, имеют нечестные преимущества. Мощные силы лоббируют политическую систему, и не допускают сделать рынок деривативов и свопов более прозрачным и понятным. Они имеют своих людей в Конгрессе. Они помогли Обаме избраться, а он расставил нужных людей в своей администрации. Громко разрекламированная финансовая реформа Обамы, известная еще как Додд-Френк Акт была без зубов, содержала множество лазеек и исключений, позволявший обойти закон. Даже те скромные меры обеспечения прозрачности рынка, которые содержит закон, администрация Обамы за полтора года так и не провела в жизнь.Разве банки не конкурируют между собой? Разве незримая рука свободного рынка не способна упорядочить рынок? А как же базисные мифы капитализма, которые американцы (а теперь и все остальные) впитывают чуть ли не с молоком матери? Предвидя возмущенные возгласы моих читателей-свободнорыночных энтузиастов "где вы видели свободный рынок", скажу, то, что называет себя свободным рынком, таковым и является, другого - нет.С другой стороны мои читатели-либералы, свято верящие, что американское общество стоит на защите их прав и равных возможностей, возразят, мол, а как же антимонопольное законодательство? Что бы сказал борец с монополизацией Тедди Рузвельт?Я полагаю, что антимонопольное законодательство должно применяться к подобным сговорам, но оно не применяется, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Большие корпорации, контролирующие огромные сегменты рынка и национальных ресурсов, являются монополиями. Тем самым они становятся опасными для общества.Однако, когда появляются доказательства того, что они находятся в сговоре между собой для манипуляций курсами и котировками, это становится чрезвычайно опасным  для общества. Если мы ничего с этим не делаем радикально, то это ведет нас к эскалации.ЧЕМУ БАНКИРЫ НАУЧИЛИСЬ У МАФИИ?И все-таки, что же с конкуренцией. Неужели "Чейс" и "Сити банк" не конкурируют между собой? – Они ведут борьбу за клиентов. Они конкуренты на каком-то уровне, но есть целые сферы в финансовом бизнесе, когда они заодно, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Я проводил журналистское расследование по поводу манипуляций на аукционах государственных облигаций. Мало кто об  этом знает, но если город, штат или даже целая страна хочет мобилизовать средства, то по закону, они обязаны провести торги. Аукцион призван создать конкуренцию между финансовыми корпорациями, и тем самым снизить учетные ставки, которые общество платит. На деле банкиры поделили между собой рынок с целью не допустить конкуренции, мол, мы возьмем облигации этого города, вы – другого.Материал по расследованию торгов облигациями Тайби называется «Чему банкиры научились у мафии». Читателю на просторах бывшего СССР они живо напомнят мошеннические аукционы веселых времен приватизации 1990-х.В Америке власти все же уличили пять крупнейших финансовых корпораций Уолл-Стрит, да еще банковскую компанию «Дженерал Электрик» в махинациях на сумму в $3.7 млрд. Как водится, в тюрьму никто не сел. В Штатах элита выше этого и понятие личной ответственности здесь напрочь отсутствует. Никто не заплатил штрафа из собственного кармана. Откупились многомиллионными штрафами из денег держателей акций. Такие штрафы никого не отпугивают. Когда делаются десятки миллиардов, то многомиллионые штрафы – лишь производственные расходы.Да и не доходят штрафы до пострадавших. Когда американское министерство финансов в рамках судебной сделки оштрафовала банки за нарушения в сфере ипотеки, то пострадавшие получили компенсацию в размере $300 на душу, зато адвокаты банков положили в карман два миллиарда. Прокуратура предпочитает не связываться с финансистами. Уходящий министр юстиции Эрик Холдер заявил недавно, что эти компании слишком большие и не по силам прокуратуре.«Министерство юстиции не провело во время президентства Обамы никаких серьезных расследований ни одного из крупных финансовых учреждений», – говорил мне Уильям Блак, адъюнкт-профессор экономики и права в Университете Миссури, Канзас-Сити. В 1980-х годах он работал следователем в скандале S&L (saving&loans). За 4 года Холдер и его люди не только не завели ни одного дела против крупных банковских воротил, но и тщательно следили, чтобы на местах не появились такие дела. Когда генеральный прокурор Нью-Йорка Эрик Шнайдерман завел было уголовные дела за массовые нарушения законов банками при выселении людей из домов за долги, Холдер и его люди тут же надавили и заставили Шнейдермана подписать сделку с банками. При подготовки статьи, из офиса генерального прокурора штата сообщили, что взамен он добился, чтобы из сделки исключили пункт о предоставлении иммунитета банкирам от дальнейших расследований по ипотечным преступлениям.Обама привел Холдера из адвокатской фирмы «Ковингтон и партнеры», которая обслуживает и представляет худших финансовых нарушителей. Холдер зарабатывал там $2,5 млн. в год. Холдер привел с собой Ленни Брюэра, возглавлявшего в фирме отдел "белых воротничков" по защите финансовых уголовников. В юстиции Обамы, Брюэр возглавил отдел уголовного преследования и всячески заботился, чтобы его бывшие клиенты не стали его подследственными. В одном из интервью Брюер признался, что, прежде всего, его заботит, что финансовые фирмы могут пострадать, если их менеджеры окажутся на скамье подсудимых.Брюэра хорошо вознаградили, и после завершения работы в министерстве юстиции, он получил работу лоббиста с окладом $4 млн. в год. Еще два юриста из Ковингтон заняли при Холдере ключевые позиции в системе правосудия Обамы, а первый заместитель Холдера Джеймс Кол пришел из другой, не менее одиозной юридической фирмы Bryan Cave LLP.Не удивительно, что и расследование аферы Libor, по сути, закончилось пшиком.Первым обвиняемым, с кем заключили сделку, оказался Barclays. Они заплатили относительно небольшой штраф ($450 млн. способны ослепить человека с улицы, но это копейки по сравнению с суммами, которые они оборачивают). Мой друг в правоохранительных органах говорил тогда, что все ожидают, как обычно, что за легкое наказание они сдадут всех остальных и последуют обвинительные иски в уголовных преступлениях. Оказалось, что сделка с Barclays стала эталоном для всех остальных подобных сделок.    СМИ не уделяют большого внимания финансовым аферам. Когда я ехал на встречу с Мэттом Тайби, в поезде пролистал газеты. Первые полосы были заняты сообщениями о том, что Джейон Коллинз стал первым открытым геем в Высшей спортивной лиге, Анджелина Джоли в целях профилактики удалила себе грудь (в качестве рекламной кампании по защите многомиллиардного бизнеса корпорации, запатентовавшей на себя человеческие гены – прим. ред.) в городских джунглях Сиэттла нашлись три женщины, проведшие 10 лет в рабстве в подвале дома в тихом городском районе. Одна из рабынь сумела сбежать, когда ее хозяин отправился покушать в местный МакДональдс.Мэтт Тайби - один из немногих в Америке, кто берется распутать аферы и рассказать о них публике, а «Роллинг Стоунз магазин» - практически единственное издание мейстрима, готовое предоставить свои страницы для расследований на эту тему.Много лет назад я слушал выступление легендарного Бена Бредли, многолетнего главреда «Вашингтон пост», запустившего расследование «Уотергейтского дела» и опубликовавшего знаменитые «Бумаги Пентагона». В русскоязычном мире многие помнят блестящую роль Джейсона Робардса, сыгравшего Бредли в фильме «Вся президентская рать». Бредли тогда спросили, а почему бы ему не заняться финансовыми аферами. Как раз тогда в самом разгаре был кризис S&L, в котором прогорело больше четверти всех кредитно-сберегательных ассоциаций США. Бредли тогда усмехнулся и сказал, что у публики «glaze over» – глаза остекленеют от этих дел. Американская публика способна до остервенения спорить по поводу толкования конституции, гражданских, гендерных или религиозных прав, но совершенно не обучена реагировать, когда задевают ее реальные социальные или классовые интересы. Капиталистический реализм, в котором здесь выросли, не дает необходимого словаря, моделей и понятий.Михаил Дорфман

07 мая 2013, 00:39

Без суда и следствия - в лучших традициях Линча

В прошедший понедельник американцам доходчиво разъяснили при каких обстоятельствах любого из них могут убить, причем не кровожадные террористы, а собственная, горячо любимая армия, полиция, спецслужбы…Выступая перед студентами и преподавателями Северо-Западного Университета, генеральный прокурор США Эрик Холдер разъяснил, что факт убийства американских граждан их правительством не стоит расценивать как нечто ужасное, а наоборот, как демонстрацию заботы правительства о безопасности американцев. Эрик ХолдерХолдер пояснил, что: «Когда речь идет о национальной безопасности, конституция гарантирует надлежащую правовую процедуру, а не судебный процесс.» Иными слвоами, любого американца теперь могут лишить жизни без суда и следствия, лишь при одном подозрении в намерении совершить противоправные действия (теракт).Так же Холдер подчеркнул: "Мы находимся в состоянии войны с врагом без гражданства, склонного кочевать от страны к стране… Ни Конгресс, ни наши Федеральные суды не ограничили границы применения нами силы…"До недавних лишь группа высших чиновников могла расценивать уровень угрозы для национальной безопасности и принимать решение по ликвидации лиц, от которых эта угроза исходит. Среди таких чиновников были равно как министр обороны Леон Панетта (ныне Чак Хэйгел) так и президент Барака Обама, который, непосредственно и давал окончательное утверждение на ликвидацию.Леон Панетта и Барак Обама еще в январе 2012 публично обсуждали идею ликвидации подозреваемых без суда и следствия.По словам генерального прокурора, это, с недавних пор, уже пережиток прошлого. «Конституция не требует от президента откладывать действия по предотвращению теракта до момента, когда полностью становится известно, что подозреваемый планирует его совершить. Такие действия приводят к нежелательному риску».По словам Холдера отныне решения, о ликвидации граждан являются исключительной прерогативой исполнительной власти, потому что только исполнительная власть обладает "опытом принятия подобных решений и полным доступ к имеющейся.Таким образом, в ближайшее время стоит ожидать появления списков неблагонадежных граждан США, за которыми будет организована слежка. И случайный клик на гиперссылке радикального исламистского сайта может в ту же секунду призвать фею калибра 5.56.