Yeah I understand, but having a stake in a company doesn't give you the right to act as an advisor to the board or management. You're aren't a worker or a consultant and you're not on the board. If they have an issue with the board then then there are manoeuvres that they can take.
You can give your opinion, you can't install yourself as a worker with your own personal goals of changing a company's culture. Again, if you have a problem with how the company is being run then you can take action.
> you can't install yourself as a worker with your own personal goals of changing a company's culture
From their letter:
> As early investors in Uber, starting in 2010, we have tried for years to work behind the scenes to exert a constructive influence on company culture.
They invested on the pretense of Uber being a company that enacts positive social change. That is one of their measures of return on investment (not just money). That premise has been violated.
It is within the investors' rights to do whatever is in their power to try and steer the ship towards their original goal: positive social change.
I don't see what installing people has to do with it. I don't even know what you're arguing. They gave Uber money. Uber isn't doing what they said they would with the money. They are mad at Uber. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.
It's not a strawman if you grant that only people installed as workers get to have influence. As the rest of the people in this thread have pointed out, that premise is false.
They verbatim say they want to work behind the scenes in the company to change the culture. That's not advising or just "having influence". It's simple...they do not have a right to do this as investors unless it was part of their terms.
That's ridiculously. They certainly have a right to do that. Sure, it depends on management etc.'s willingness to listen and take the advice, but they absolutely have the right.
No they do not have that right. They have the right to if management is willing as you say, which they aren't, in this case. They do also have the right to play their part in replacing the board, and they do have the right to try and pursue board membership. But they aren't entitled to work within the company to change its culture simply because they're an investor. Companies could not accept investment if this was a right extended to investors.
This, and this is one such maneuver. Hell, it's just an open letter! I don't understand all the fuss over it. There are much more damaging maneuvers that are available, like lawsuits.
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I do think that it's more likely to have a negative than positive effect, in that it risks the proliferation of the negative press surrounding the company at the moment.
