Under the new president Hazelbaker, Uber has reduced its HR division by 23%.

      Uber is reducing 23% of its People and Places division following the promotion of Jill Hazelbaker to president. The company asserts that this restructuring is not linked to artificial intelligence, despite hiring slowdowns in other areas due to AI implementation.

      Just three weeks into her new role as president and chief corporate affairs officer, Hazelbaker is making cuts. On Wednesday, Uber announced the elimination of 23% of positions in its People and Places division, which handles human resources, recruitment, workplace facilities, and culture. According to CNBC, these cuts, which predominantly impact senior roles, account for less than 1% of Uber's global workforce of 34,000 corporate employees. The company’s roughly 10 million drivers are classified separately as independent contractors.

      A spokesperson for Uber told Bloomberg that the layoffs are not connected to AI, a point the company is eager to emphasize, especially as the tech sector lays off thousands under the guise of AI-driven efficiency.

      Hazelbaker, who had been responsible for marketing, communications, and public policy, was promoted on May 11 following the departure of chief people officer Nikki Krishnamurthy. Her new responsibilities include safety operations and oversight of the People and Places division, as confirmed by an SEC filing. In a memo to impacted teams on Wednesday, Hazelbaker stated, "As we've grown, aspects of the organization have become overly complex and fragmented, with overlapping duties, unclear ownership, and teams operating too distanced from the businesses and partners they assist."

      CEO Dara Khosrowshahi supported this decision in a separate internal memo, noting that the changes are essential to enhance the effectiveness of the People team and to tap into the significant potential ahead.

      Uber’s claim that these layoffs are unrelated to AI is significant, especially as the company is actively navigating the impact of AI on its labor force. Last month, it was reported by Fortune that Uber exhausted its entire 2026 AI coding budget in just four months by encouraging engineers to adopt AI tools. Nearly 95% of the company's engineers reportedly utilize AI tools every month, with around 70% of code produced by those systems.

      In response to the rise of AI usage within the company, Uber announced a slowdown in hiring. Currently, it still has over 800 job openings, as noted by Bloomberg, including roles focused on commercializing robotaxi collaborations with companies like Rivian, Wayve, and Nuro. The distinction Uber makes—viewing HR layoffs as structural while engineering hiring reflects AI’s influence—is becoming a familiar narrative in the industry. Recently, Chinese courts ruled that replacing a worker with AI does not constitute legal grounds for dismissal, highlighting the ongoing tension between corporate restructuring narratives and the underlying motivations behind them.

      Additionally, changes are impacting Uber’s HR team beyond layoffs. Employees in the People and Places division who had previously been granted remote work permissions are now being instructed to comply with the company's mandate to work in the office three days a week, which was implemented in June 2025. This policy faced considerable internal backlash when first announced, with employees voicing their concerns on internal forums. In response, Khosrowshahi bluntly stated that workers who favored remote work would “have to make a choice.”

      This is not Uber’s first round of cuts to its People team. In 2023, the company targeted its recruiting team and its online grocery subsidiary, Cornershop. The current round of layoffs follows the same logic of reducing support functions while continuing investment in technology that may eventually decrease the required workforce.

      Uber’s shares fell 0.6% to $71.21 in Wednesday morning trading, having recovered from earlier losses. The market appears to recognize that cutting HR does not equate to diminishing business operations, even if those affected might feel differently.