Uber cuts 23% of HR division under new president Hazelbaker



TL;DR

Uber is cutting 23% of its People and Places division under newly promoted president Jill Hazelbaker. The company says the restructuring is unrelated to AI, even as it slows hiring elsewhere due to internal AI adoption.

Three weeks into her expanded role as president and chief corporate affairs officer, Jill Hazelbaker is already cutting. Uber announced on Wednesday that it is eliminating 23% of positions in its People and Places division, the unit responsible for human resources, recruitment, workplace facilities, and culture.

The cuts, many targeting senior roles, represent less than 1% of Uber’s 34,000 corporate employees worldwide, according to CNBC. The company’s approximately 10 million drivers are classified separately as independent contractors.

A spokesperson told Bloomberg the reductions are unrelated to artificial intelligence, a distinction Uber appears keen to draw as the broader tech industry sheds tens of thousands of jobs in the name of AI-driven efficiency.

Hazelbaker’s mandate

Hazelbaker, who previously oversaw marketing, communications, and public policy, was promoted on 11 May after chief people officer Nikki Krishnamurthy departed. The new role added safety operations and the People and Places organisation to her remit, an SEC filing confirmed.

“As we’ve grown, parts of the organisation have become too complex and fragmented, with overlapping responsibilities, unclear ownership, and teams operating too far from the businesses and partners they support,” Hazelbaker wrote in a memo to affected teams on Wednesday.

CEO Dara Khosrowshahi backed the move in a separate internal memo. “These changes are necessary to maximise the effectiveness of the People team and the enormous potential ahead of us,” he wrote.

The AI question

Uber’s insistence that these cuts are not about AI is worth noting precisely because the company is, in fact, grappling with how AI reshapes its workforce. Last month, Fortune reported that Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI coding budget in just four months after incentivising engineers to adopt AI tools. Nearly 95% of the company’s engineers reportedly use AI tools monthly, and close to 70% of committed code is generated by those systems.

Uber said last month that it would slow hiring as a direct result of internal AI adoption. It is still advertising more than 800 open roles, according to Bloomberg, including positions focused on commercialising robotaxi partnerships with companies such as Rivian, Wayve, and Nuro.

The distinction Uber draws, that HR cuts are structural while engineering hiring reflects AI’s impact, is becoming a common refrain across the industry. Chinese courts recently ruled that replacing a worker with AI is not legal grounds for dismissal, a decision that underscores the growing tension between corporate restructuring narratives and the reality of what is driving them.

Return to office, too

The layoffs are not the only change hitting Uber’s HR staff. Employees in the People and Places division who had previously been approved to work remotely are now being told to comply with the company’s three-day-a-week office mandate, which went into effect in June 2025.

That policy triggered significant internal backlash when it was announced, with employees criticising the move on internal forums. Khosrowshahi’s response at the time was blunt: workers who valued remote arrangements would “have to make a choice.”

A pattern, not an anomaly

Uber’s People team is not being cut for the first time. In 2023, the company targeted its recruiting team and online grocery subsidiary Cornershop. The current round follows the same logic: trim the functions that support the workforce, while continuing to invest in the technology that may eventually reduce how much workforce is needed.

Uber’s shares were down 0.6% to $71.21 in Wednesday morning trading after paring earlier losses. The market, it seems, has seen this story enough times to know that cutting HR is not the same as cutting the business, even if the people being cut might reasonably feel otherwise.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


“It was severely downgraded,” Gilbert confirms. “I never would have found it if I was just looking through Google results.” (I tried the same prompt in Gemini earlier this month, and after an initial denial, the tool also gave me Eiger’s number.)

After this experience, Eiger, Gilbert, and another UW PhD student, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, decided to test ChatGPT to see what it would surface about a professor. 

At first, OpenAI’s guardrails kicked in, and ChatGPT responded that the information was unavailable. But in the same response, the chatbot suggested, “if you want to go deeper, I can still try a more ‘investigative-style’ approach.” Their inquiry just had to help “narrow things down,” ChatGPT said, by providing “a neighborhood guess” for where the professor might live, or “a possible co-owner name” for the professor’s home. ChatGPT continued: “That’s usually the only way to surface newer or intentionally less-visible property records.” 

The students provided this information, leading ChatGPT to produce the professor’s home address, home purchase price, and spouse’s name from city property records. 

(Taya Christianson, an OpenAI representative, said she was not able to comment on what happened in this case without seeing screenshots or knowing which model the students had tested, even after we pointed out that many users may not know which model they were using in the ChatGPT interface. She also declined to comment generally about the exposure of PII by the chatbot, instead providing links to documents describing how OpenAI handles privacy, including filtering out PII, and other tools.) 

This reveals one of the fundamental problems with chatbots, says DeleteMe’s Shavell. AI companies “can build in guardrails, but [their chatbots] are also designed to be effective and to answer customer questions.”

The exposure issue is not limited to Gemini or ChatGPT. Last year, Futurism found that if you prompted xAI’s chatbot Grok with “[name] address,” in almost all cases, it provided not only residential addresses but also often the person’s phone numbers, work addresses, and addresses for people with similar-sounding names. (xAI did not respond to a request for comment.) 

No clear answers

There aren’t straightforward solutions to this problem—there’s no easy way to either verify whether someone’s personal information is in a given model’s training set or to compel the models to remove PII. 



Source link