Yahoo ex-employee sues, alleging performance review manipulation, gender bias(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Yahoo ex-employee sues, alleging performance review manipulation, gender bias
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-yahoo-lawsuit-20160202-story.html
148 comments
I've heard rumors that management have set quotas and/or increased monetary incentives for recruiting women at some of the big companies. I have no evidence though.
I've also heard of review manipulation to "rebalance" the buckets if the numbers appear to demonstrate bias.
Anyway, Marissa is certifiably idiotic for adopting the GE/Microsoft stack rank system.
I've also heard of review manipulation to "rebalance" the buckets if the numbers appear to demonstrate bias.
Anyway, Marissa is certifiably idiotic for adopting the GE/Microsoft stack rank system.
There are companies with a form of quotas. I won't say which, but they exist. I've known places that require a certain number of resumes from women and minorities (a separate number for each) that must be received and considered for every job opening.
Google's defense is probably algorithmic.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain you can't blame an algorithm for your hiring practices being discriminatory. Ultimately humans decide to use an algorithm or not.
I don't know if it could be blamed on an algorithm. Some of the companies (MS was one) even hosted parties for the female members of IEEE and ACM. Took them out to their campus, free meals, mock interviews, free swag, networking events. But they where female only events.
[deleted]
Even if it's algorithmic someone manually wrote it and would have set a preference to the female gender.
then the court would have to actually look at the obfuscated code to prove the point.
Interestingly, Google, and the other companies, may be seeking out females in an effort to compensate for under representation among their ranks of current employees.
I've heard that African-Americans can't be racist because that's a position of abusing power or something. Is it also said that it is a contradiction in terms to discriminate against men?
The analagous position (not that i endorse either) would be that discrimination against men isn't sexism because men are in the dominant position, not that it is impossible to discriminate against men.
So apparently he had been given a promotion and took a leave of absence to participate in a prestigious fellowship and was fired for having a low performance review? What metrics were they going by for the performance review if he wasn't even working at the time?
I have a feeling this lawsuit will actually go somewhere.
I have a feeling this lawsuit will actually go somewhere.
Part of that is right out of the Microsoft playbook. Promote you right before the review cycle. Give you a bad review by comparing you to all your peers in your new level. They had a limited number of promotions and good scores to give out. This way they didn't have to give a promotion and high score to the same person.
mm yes sounds fishy a bit like women on maternity leave getting a bad appraisal.
and allowing only women to appeal sounds like an automatic win on sex discrimination grounds.
Sounds like HR had a quota to fill and took the easy route and screwed up.
and allowing only women to appeal sounds like an automatic win on sex discrimination grounds.
Sounds like HR had a quota to fill and took the easy route and screwed up.
well there are more than a few companies which sponsor a women's only executive leadership training system/etc. There are all sorts of ways for people in the right positions to drive the company where they want it to go and drive out those they don't want and have it all covered up nice and neat
[deleted]
>So apparently he had been given a promotion and took a leave of absence to participate in a prestigious fellowship...
That doesn't mean he was competent.
That doesn't mean he was competent.
I honestly don't see what you're getting at.
Obviously he was competent enough to get a promotion by whatever metric they were using.
Obviously he was competent enough to get a promotion by whatever metric they were using.
I perfectly see where he is getting at, having witnessed how "promotions" go at yahoo myself :P
How do "promotions" go at yahoo?
It's a rather clubby environment where social climbing is key.
And those people aren't getting let go
I've seen and heard of people getting promoted to get them out of somebody's hair. That may involve a in-organization horizontal or vertical promotion, or a glowing reference for another job. Promotion for incompetence is a thing.
I'm not saying this was the case, but don't assume just because he was promoted or because they gave him a leave of absence (!!) that it must mean he was great.
I'm not saying this was the case, but don't assume just because he was promoted or because they gave him a leave of absence (!!) that it must mean he was great.
If working at Yahoo is really so Kafkaesque that getting a promotion is meaningless in determining how you're doing and the value you're providing the company, then they deserve to lose the lawsuit.
I suppose it would explain some other things about how Yahoo's been doing recently.
I suppose it would explain some other things about how Yahoo's been doing recently.
Not judging the merit of the complaints, but trying to "cure" gender imbalances by adding another imbalance will create strong non-linearities, that will attract people that like to exploit these non-linearities instead of attracting true talent.
For every individual, every probability is always 50/50 - either something happens, or not. If an individual, a man, is affected negatively by a pro-women policy, he won't forget it for a lifetime. Because he is not a statistic, he is a person that has only one life to live.
Personally, if I were affected by this, or a colleague were, I'd find another job immediately, and watch the ship sinking from a safe distance.
For every individual, every probability is always 50/50 - either something happens, or not. If an individual, a man, is affected negatively by a pro-women policy, he won't forget it for a lifetime. Because he is not a statistic, he is a person that has only one life to live.
Personally, if I were affected by this, or a colleague were, I'd find another job immediately, and watch the ship sinking from a safe distance.
Affirmative action is discrimination, and has strong negative effects on local economies.
Consider a firm which operates at equilibrium (where peak profit is achieved), with a ratio of 80% male, 20% female. Artificially capping the number of males allowed in the corporation, or artificially increasing the number of females pushes the corporation out of equilibrium thus reducing profits in the long term.
On the flip side of the coin, if the firm discriminates (equilibrium 50% male, 50% female but it chooses 80/20) - the economy punishes the firm by reducing its potential profits.
Companies should be hiring on skill, and culture fit. Not to fill a quota or someone's agenda.
It's true that there is a gap within genders in tech - but the answer isn't reducing another equally skilled person's chances of getting the job - this is bad for everyone (except the person who got the job). Instead, we need to look at the root cause and try to learn why the gap is so obvious. Fix the issue at the source, rather than using affirmative action as a bandaid. Maybe it even turns out not to be an issue. Who knows.
Consider a firm which operates at equilibrium (where peak profit is achieved), with a ratio of 80% male, 20% female. Artificially capping the number of males allowed in the corporation, or artificially increasing the number of females pushes the corporation out of equilibrium thus reducing profits in the long term.
On the flip side of the coin, if the firm discriminates (equilibrium 50% male, 50% female but it chooses 80/20) - the economy punishes the firm by reducing its potential profits.
Companies should be hiring on skill, and culture fit. Not to fill a quota or someone's agenda.
It's true that there is a gap within genders in tech - but the answer isn't reducing another equally skilled person's chances of getting the job - this is bad for everyone (except the person who got the job). Instead, we need to look at the root cause and try to learn why the gap is so obvious. Fix the issue at the source, rather than using affirmative action as a bandaid. Maybe it even turns out not to be an issue. Who knows.
> Companies should be hiring on skill, and culture fit. Not to fill a quota or someone's agenda.
As opposed as I am to discrimination (including "reverse" discrimination), i have to point out that you're missing part of the picture.
Companies are optimising for profit, and there are many things that influence it. Including, for example, the media - and unfortunately, in the current (pro-female, anti-male) media climate, it pays off to be seen as pro-women - such companies simply get a better media exposure and extra praise! In other words, if the whole country supports discrimination, it might be in the best interest of a company to go along with it.
In general, I don't think we, as a society, should expect companies to influence the culture (in a positive way) - it would have to be the other way around.
As opposed as I am to discrimination (including "reverse" discrimination), i have to point out that you're missing part of the picture.
Companies are optimising for profit, and there are many things that influence it. Including, for example, the media - and unfortunately, in the current (pro-female, anti-male) media climate, it pays off to be seen as pro-women - such companies simply get a better media exposure and extra praise! In other words, if the whole country supports discrimination, it might be in the best interest of a company to go along with it.
In general, I don't think we, as a society, should expect companies to influence the culture (in a positive way) - it would have to be the other way around.
Yep. You're touching here on one of the common bridges from libertarianism to neoreaction. Libertarianism is based on a handful of simple principles that work -- in theory. Neoreaction takes a step back and looks at the practical issues surrounding implementation of libertarianism (e.g. profit being derived from culture as you mention here), and of the results of libertarianism, and thus all the philosophical deductions and political necessities that result from those considerations.
(new account because I would like to remain employed)
(new account because I would like to remain employed)
> You're touching here on one of the common bridges from libertarianism to neoreaction
Actually, my reasoning is coming from an entirely different point of view. My basic assumption is that people follow incentives. Markets (i.e. libertarianism) are very good at providing certain kinds of incentives (basically, they encourage competition and drive the world toward greater and greater efficiency), but there are also well-known examples of market failures: monopoly, duopoly, cartels; externalities (pollution, resource exhaustion); barriers to entry and wasteful competition (main example being infrastructure - do we really need 2 companies digging through the whole city to establish 2 sets of separate, but otherwise identical phone lines?); agency problem; tragedy of the commons and free-rider problem (i.e. who pays for the fire department). In this case, I believe that government regulation is required and welcome; it has to be carefully enacted and continuously evaluated to make sure it results in increase of competition in the markets (otherwise we get e.g. copyright, which significantly hurts competition). I don't think neoreaction is a good example here; I believe that parts of EU, allegedly Denmark in particular (with their "flexicurity" style labor markets) are particularly good examples.
Actually, my reasoning is coming from an entirely different point of view. My basic assumption is that people follow incentives. Markets (i.e. libertarianism) are very good at providing certain kinds of incentives (basically, they encourage competition and drive the world toward greater and greater efficiency), but there are also well-known examples of market failures: monopoly, duopoly, cartels; externalities (pollution, resource exhaustion); barriers to entry and wasteful competition (main example being infrastructure - do we really need 2 companies digging through the whole city to establish 2 sets of separate, but otherwise identical phone lines?); agency problem; tragedy of the commons and free-rider problem (i.e. who pays for the fire department). In this case, I believe that government regulation is required and welcome; it has to be carefully enacted and continuously evaluated to make sure it results in increase of competition in the markets (otherwise we get e.g. copyright, which significantly hurts competition). I don't think neoreaction is a good example here; I believe that parts of EU, allegedly Denmark in particular (with their "flexicurity" style labor markets) are particularly good examples.
Libertarianism is flawed in many ways, yes, and its proponents do not consider its peripheral realities. To what you wrote I would add the observations that markets are created from the will of a central authority, and that the mob can become tyranny when not restrained by a more level-headed authority in whatever form.
These critiques (and more) are prominent in the neoreactionary literature on liberalism/libertarianism (but nowadays they have more important things to talk about). An interesting hypothesis of neoreaction is that liberal ideals, or even a libertarian world, will invariably lead to democratic socialism -- due to the power of the mob.
Personally, the foundation of my disillusionment with liberalism/libertarianism is the fact that people are so much more than economic units, and that collectivism trumps individualism. What's important is preservation of heritage, culture, tradition, creation of art in all its beautiful forms, and the maximization of humanity's potential.
I can't see liberalism/libertarianism getting us much further than working on advertising systems to push junk food, while NASA spends half its time making reports to get a few more handouts, and cultures worldwide are systemically destroyed in the name of economic growth.
These critiques (and more) are prominent in the neoreactionary literature on liberalism/libertarianism (but nowadays they have more important things to talk about). An interesting hypothesis of neoreaction is that liberal ideals, or even a libertarian world, will invariably lead to democratic socialism -- due to the power of the mob.
Personally, the foundation of my disillusionment with liberalism/libertarianism is the fact that people are so much more than economic units, and that collectivism trumps individualism. What's important is preservation of heritage, culture, tradition, creation of art in all its beautiful forms, and the maximization of humanity's potential.
I can't see liberalism/libertarianism getting us much further than working on advertising systems to push junk food, while NASA spends half its time making reports to get a few more handouts, and cultures worldwide are systemically destroyed in the name of economic growth.
That may seem to be true, that a company being pro-female brings it better media exposure, which is also something libertarians like to promote (i.e. let everyone hire/sell to whomever they want, discriminate however they want, and let the market decide who wins). But I have a feeling that despite repeated pro-female media coverage for Yahoo, saying that it discriminates* for women, that when someone decides to search they will just go with Google because it's easier or a habit.
* = just in terms of making a choice, not a negative meaning.
* = just in terms of making a choice, not a negative meaning.
it's not true that there's a gender gap in tech.
but since I've been in CA, I've only ever saw the token black guy in every office.
but since I've been in CA, I've only ever saw the token black guy in every office.
[deleted]
> Not judging the merit of the complaints, but...
And neither of us would be talking about this one specific company and one specific employee at that company who had one specific problem, and has chosen to accuse the company of discrimination.
This is how “linkbait” works: People are already heavily biased to believe something-or-other, and they charge in and read the post through the lens of whatever they want to believe, and to argue whatever they wanted to argue.
If we don’t actually judge this case and this post by the specific merits of a specific claim by a specific person about a specific circumstance in a specific company, we might as well just spin a wheel every morning, read off whatever hot-button topic comes up, and just start commenting.
This assumes your biases are as equally valid (or invalid) as epxs. Even if we work this assumption into the definition of 'bias', we only shift the argument to whether epx's assumptions are biases or not; Maybe some biases are borne of empiricism?
also I took the above quote to mean that epxs wasn't implying that those assertions were to be applied in this case. Nothing in the post implies epxs was referring to this specific example.
also I took the above quote to mean that epxs wasn't implying that those assertions were to be applied in this case. Nothing in the post implies epxs was referring to this specific example.
I don’t assume anything about validity. My point is that a diatribe about discrimination, or reverse discrimination, or sexism, or men’s rights, or pick-up artists, or about SJWs flooding HN, or anything else that is wholly and complete divorced from the post itself may or may not have some basis in the author’s experience, but it’s still a recipe for HN going down the tubes.
My past experience grounded in using HN since it was founded is that with certain hot-button topics (racism, sexism, IQ tests, codes of conduct, &c.) devolve very quickly into threads that are indistinguishable from one another, with people staking out entrenched positions and virtually cutting and pasting their comments from one discussion into another.
The only way to keep a high signal-to-noise ratio is to either kill all posts that touch on hot-button topics, or to be disciplined about staying on-topic about the post being discussed.
The degree to which my, yours, or anybody else’s knee-jerk reactions are based in reality or fantasy is orthogonal to the problem of hot-button topics producing “generic" discussions.
Summary: My opinion is that it’s bad for HN if discussions about posts devolve into generic discussions that are indistinguishable from each other.
My past experience grounded in using HN since it was founded is that with certain hot-button topics (racism, sexism, IQ tests, codes of conduct, &c.) devolve very quickly into threads that are indistinguishable from one another, with people staking out entrenched positions and virtually cutting and pasting their comments from one discussion into another.
The only way to keep a high signal-to-noise ratio is to either kill all posts that touch on hot-button topics, or to be disciplined about staying on-topic about the post being discussed.
The degree to which my, yours, or anybody else’s knee-jerk reactions are based in reality or fantasy is orthogonal to the problem of hot-button topics producing “generic" discussions.
Summary: My opinion is that it’s bad for HN if discussions about posts devolve into generic discussions that are indistinguishable from each other.
Where was the diatribe? You invoke some kind of slippery slope argument, but it seems you are ultimately railing against an opinion you disagree with. What does PUA have to do with sexual discrimination in the workplace?
A better way to keep a high signal-to-noise ratio is chasing off poor arguments - banning certain topics or tangents from the OP is clumsy moderation.
> The degree to which my, yours, or anybody else’s knee-jerk reactions
exp's post is "a knee jerk reaction", but you aren't judging it invalid? It certainly sounds like you are...
A better way to keep a high signal-to-noise ratio is chasing off poor arguments - banning certain topics or tangents from the OP is clumsy moderation.
> The degree to which my, yours, or anybody else’s knee-jerk reactions
exp's post is "a knee jerk reaction", but you aren't judging it invalid? It certainly sounds like you are...
Company sinks. Problem solved.
"It also alleges that women were treated better by managers in the media group. While men were immediately terminated after receiving low employee scores, women were allowed to appeal their ratings, the suit says."
Speaking from experience, statements like this are often cases where the actual story was more benign than the perception, and the statement here is the perception, not the actual story.
If this is true, then there's a huge problem, but I'm willing to believe (pending more information) that the policy isn't this blatantly sexist, and that the truth is somewhat more nuanced.
If this is true, then there's a huge problem, but I'm willing to believe (pending more information) that the policy isn't this blatantly sexist, and that the truth is somewhat more nuanced.
It's also a lawyer trying to make a prima facie complaint to avoid summary dismissal of a lawsuit. As long as there's a good-faith belief that this could be true, including such an allegation in the complaint will expand the plaintiff's pre-trial discovery breadth. That costs Yahoo more money to defend, increases the likelihood of uncovering a smoking gun and puts the plaintiff in a better settlement negotiation posture.
This is how lawsuits works. Employee has one valid complaint. Lawyer tacks on a dozen more complaints and hope the company settles.
Yeah, it's a pity that the system we put in place to make victims whole first asks us to say the worst about everybody involved, victim included. Not that I have a better idea, but I think there's a cruel irony to it.
It's the same in criminal law as well. You allegedly violated a law? Well here are four more that say the same thing in a slightly different way. Oh, you were within 100' of a school? Possibly longer jail time? It was a construction zone, too? Here's another three offenses that open you up to civil litigation as well.
Reminds me of the Microsoft quote someone here brought up yesterday, "I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're too damn disorganized to be as evil as you think we are."
Given Yahoo's track record it is much easier to believe this whole mess was due to ineptitude by management/hr, yet sexual discrimination is a much 'sexier' headline so they went with that.. and oh look all the "super smart" people on hacker news still "circle jerk" over it. It's almost like were not a superior community and are quite comparable to the rest of the internet..
Given Yahoo's track record it is much easier to believe this whole mess was due to ineptitude by management/hr, yet sexual discrimination is a much 'sexier' headline so they went with that.. and oh look all the "super smart" people on hacker news still "circle jerk" over it. It's almost like were not a superior community and are quite comparable to the rest of the internet..
When it comes to evil, Microsoft was as organized as Sheldon Cooper's desk drawers when I worked there. Disclaimer: that was well over a decade ago. Most product discussions (and therefore decisions), for example, were in terms of killing competition, not in terms of building a better product, and war rhetoric in general was quite prevalent.
I kind of understand it, it's easier to motivate people to work hard if they believe they're at war (as Joseph Goebbels once astutely pointed out), but my god, what a shitty way to build products.
I kind of understand it, it's easier to motivate people to work hard if they believe they're at war (as Joseph Goebbels once astutely pointed out), but my god, what a shitty way to build products.
> "I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're too damn disorganized to be as evil as you think we are."
That's actually hilarious. Our defense is... our ineptitude!
That's actually hilarious. Our defense is... our ineptitude!
Its hard to rectify gender bias without somebody crying foul.
i'd say there are 2 schools of thought here - one is zero-sum game and another is that you can't make somebody more free or equal by increasing oppression or inequality toward somebody else.
Rectifying inequality will always reduce the advantages of the privileged -- those advantages are the inequality. Whether they choose to pretend that they are now being oppressed or acknowledge that the status quo was unacceptable is up to them.
That's true in the sense that if A has 50 resource points and B has 40, A has an advantage that is lost when, in rectifying inequality, we redistribute the resource points to 45-45. What is being suggested here, however, is that perhaps it is possible to find 10 extra resource points in the budget and give them to B so that we finish with 50-50.
is that perhaps it is possible to find 10 extra resource points in the budget and give them to B so that we finish with 50-50.
The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
Continuing the analogy, if it was originally 60-40 men-women, and the allegation is correct that only women are allowed to appeal their results, that's more like tipping the balance 40-60, which is a negative outcome for men. Allowing both genders to appeal their results would be a more balanced 50-50.
if it was originally 60-40 men-women, and the allegation is correct that only women are allowed to appeal their results, that's more like tipping the balance 40-60
Is your assertion that every other aspect of these women's employment is equal to or greater than the corresponding aspect for the men?
Is your assertion that every other aspect of these women's employment is equal to or greater than the corresponding aspect for the men?
You don't fix inequality over there by adding "balancing" inequality over here.
Was that a 'yes', or a 'no'?
Name one single instance where systemic inequality was fixed at the root. I'll wait.
Gentiles didn't have be be discriminated against in order for Jewish students to start doing very well in Harvard a few generations ago. The distributions flipped pretty much as soon as entrenched barriers such as quotas were removed. The same was true for East Asian students in elite universities decades later.
Oppression of the Japanese after WW2.
Now name an instance where it was fixed by giving them much better treatment than everyone else.
Now name an instance where it was fixed by giving them much better treatment than everyone else.
The interned Japanese received 1.6 BILLION in reparations after WW2. Try again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
Affirmative action in the 90s. Millions of women and people of color were allowed to enter and advance in the workforce. The CEOs for McDonald and IBM crawled to the top after benefiting from minority leadership programs.
Slavery, gay marriage.
Is this a joke?
"Hey let's end slavery."
"No, I rather secede."
Civil war
"Hey let's end slavery."
"No, I rather secede."
Civil war
> The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
Has this been systematically tested in some way, or is it simply assumed?
(I think I've seen this happen, so I'm not arguing it doesn't occur, but I am asking what the basis is for assuming it's a primary driver of systemic discrimination. The words "very often" seem like they cross a threshold to generality.)
Has this been systematically tested in some way, or is it simply assumed?
(I think I've seen this happen, so I'm not arguing it doesn't occur, but I am asking what the basis is for assuming it's a primary driver of systemic discrimination. The words "very often" seem like they cross a threshold to generality.)
Loss of privilege is often perceived as oppression.
On the other hand, the creator of Dilbert just shrugged it off and started a new job each time his employer said they couldn't promote another white male.
On the other hand, the creator of Dilbert just shrugged it off and started a new job each time his employer said they couldn't promote another white male.
equality requires not a loss of privilege, but an equal distribution of privilege. This means hiring/firing should give an equal consideration to both genders.
A 50/50 m/f ratio is not a statistical "proof of equality".
A 50/50 m/f ratio is not a statistical "proof of equality".
Yeah, Rosa Parks shoulda shrugged it off and waited for another bus!
Seriously though, 'often' is just a weasel word if you don't specify the context. This might qualify as a mechanism for dismissing valid complaints...
Seriously though, 'often' is just a weasel word if you don't specify the context. This might qualify as a mechanism for dismissing valid complaints...
Are you comparing discrimination against black people in the 50s to what may have happened to a man? A lot of civil rights activists wanted affirmative action too.
Often is most of the time. People perceive relative changes as terrible. That's why they arrested Parks instead of agreeing with her.
Often is most of the time. People perceive relative changes as terrible. That's why they arrested Parks instead of agreeing with her.
Why? It's an analogy, the relevant parts match; There's no rule that says discrimination has to reach a certain level before it should be resisted . Stop derailing my point with irrelevancies.
"A lot of civil rights activist" - which ones and why? Maybe their reasoning is sensitive to their particular interest.
I understand what 'often' means, I don't agree with it as a generality. Even 'People perceive relative changes as terrible' isn't always true.
"A lot of civil rights activist" - which ones and why? Maybe their reasoning is sensitive to their particular interest.
I understand what 'often' means, I don't agree with it as a generality. Even 'People perceive relative changes as terrible' isn't always true.
[deleted]
That may have been what was happening in the OP?
Trying to do that creates strong non-linearities and the end result is unlikely to create a healthy equilibrium.
Err, why not let everyone appeal their rating?
(I understand, percentage wise, due to bias or whatever, it's likely a higher percent of things would be overturned for women, but it's not like the error rate for non-women was 0 anyway, so why not just make a process that nobody is going to complain about?)
(I understand, percentage wise, due to bias or whatever, it's likely a higher percent of things would be overturned for women, but it's not like the error rate for non-women was 0 anyway, so why not just make a process that nobody is going to complain about?)
In my reading, the description of the process running in this manner is an allegation, not an established fact. So it's not really clear that Yahoo has anything to answer for on this point.
Sure, i understand.
I meant my parent is complaining that clearly the women can appeal because of gender bias issues affecting them more heavily than men, as if that magically would make it okay.
Instead, the thing that seems "okay" on that point would be "let the men appeal too" (IE my parent is wrong no matter what!)
Instead, the thing that seems "okay" on that point would be "let the men appeal too" (IE my parent is wrong no matter what!)
What would be the result of that? You appeal and find, oh management really did make a mistake and is incompetent of it's primary purpose of evaluating employee performance correctly. AND, management did in fact discriminate and now has proven it for any and all future and current lawsuits. There is literally no reason for management to allow ratings appeals.
"What would be the result of that? "
(Let's ignore the obvious point - not everyone is malicious, some companies really do want to try to make sure people get correct ratings and get rid of discrimination, and aren't worried about the cost of lawsuits. These companies exist, i've worked at them)
Again, i think you missed the point (I guess i'll be more explicit when it's a touchy subject like this). If you read the allegation, women were allowed to appeal, men were not.
Someone tried to say that this was okay, because gender bias affects women more.
But it's not okay. It makes no sense. Either you believe some people are getting terminated wrongly, in which case both women and men should be able to appeal, or you don't, in which case nobody should get to appeal :)
(Let's ignore the obvious point - not everyone is malicious, some companies really do want to try to make sure people get correct ratings and get rid of discrimination, and aren't worried about the cost of lawsuits. These companies exist, i've worked at them)
Again, i think you missed the point (I guess i'll be more explicit when it's a touchy subject like this). If you read the allegation, women were allowed to appeal, men were not.
Someone tried to say that this was okay, because gender bias affects women more.
But it's not okay. It makes no sense. Either you believe some people are getting terminated wrongly, in which case both women and men should be able to appeal, or you don't, in which case nobody should get to appeal :)
Natural Justice is one - in the UK not having a proper appeal procedure and applying it is normally an automatic "unfair dismissal"
And if your a big company and take the piss in court you get the book thrown at you by the Triibuneral see Imarsat a few years ago.
And if your a big company and take the piss in court you get the book thrown at you by the Triibuneral see Imarsat a few years ago.
That's like saying there is no reason for a single party government to investigate claims of corruption.
Management is not a monolith.
Management is not a monolith.
You don't do it by running a discriminatory discipline regime.
[deleted]
This is a problem in business management. If you want to discriminate against an employee in a certain group, you just give them low scores in a performance review. That way you can claim they are a bad employee to justify laying them off or terminating them.
Even if they did nothing to get low scores.
It sort of avoids discrimination lawsuits if they can document that the employee got low scores.
But this is fishy because he was given low scores while on leave.
Something like that happened to me while I was on short-term disability and in a hospital and at home. They had employees sign papers that I was doing all sorts of things to give me low scores. The dates when they claimed I was at work doing those things, I was in a hospital or at home and not at work. When I returned from short-term disability I was put on probation and then fired. They tried to use the stuff against me to block unemployment benefits but the state saw the complaints were on the same dates that I missed work and sided with me considering the complaints were made up. I could have sued for discrimination but it was the best law firm in town, and they could have proven an undue hardship defense because they hired a software consultant for $100/hr to do my job because none of my coworkers could do it.
So I would like to see the manipulation of the low performance ratings to be investigated. You see the years prior I had gotten high scores and pay raises, then as soon as I got sick, low scores and complaints.
Even if they did nothing to get low scores.
It sort of avoids discrimination lawsuits if they can document that the employee got low scores.
But this is fishy because he was given low scores while on leave.
Something like that happened to me while I was on short-term disability and in a hospital and at home. They had employees sign papers that I was doing all sorts of things to give me low scores. The dates when they claimed I was at work doing those things, I was in a hospital or at home and not at work. When I returned from short-term disability I was put on probation and then fired. They tried to use the stuff against me to block unemployment benefits but the state saw the complaints were on the same dates that I missed work and sided with me considering the complaints were made up. I could have sued for discrimination but it was the best law firm in town, and they could have proven an undue hardship defense because they hired a software consultant for $100/hr to do my job because none of my coworkers could do it.
So I would like to see the manipulation of the low performance ratings to be investigated. You see the years prior I had gotten high scores and pay raises, then as soon as I got sick, low scores and complaints.
I'll be honest, I find this hard to believe. Any employment attorney would absolutely jump at the chance to take a contingency case where there was verifiable proof that a company and coworkers fabricated evidence in order to terminate someone to avoid paying benefits.
I focused more on getting another job than suing because I had a family and a mortgage to pay to keep the house.
In hindsight I should have sued but I let 180 days go by.
In hindsight I should have sued but I let 180 days go by.
When did this happen? If it was within the last 300 days then you should take your case to the EEOC. If the dates were made up then this can be a slam dunk. And the EEOC will sue on your behalf if it's a slam dunk.
It happened in 2001. Way too late to file now. I ended up on disability in 2003.
I would like to see more laws to help create a better work environment for everyone. We all spend most of our time at work -- yet, somehow, we seem to give up every right as a human being when we become employees.
I do think that "hire/fire at will" is acceptable - but we should have decent lives and a great social safety net at the same time. After all, we live in a time where incredible wealth is being created (it just seems to be hoarded by the 1%)
I do think that "hire/fire at will" is acceptable - but we should have decent lives and a great social safety net at the same time. After all, we live in a time where incredible wealth is being created (it just seems to be hoarded by the 1%)
"We all spend most of our time at work -- yet, somehow, we seem to give up every right as a human being when we become employees."
Workers in the IT industry probably have the cushiest jobs in the world. You make way above minimum wage, you aren't risking your life, and your job can be done from the comfort of a heated or cooled office environment.
I'm not sure what rights you think you are giving away as an employee. Employee/Employer relationships are usually legally bound by a contract. You are free to change the contract or question it before you work there.
If you choose not to do this or don't want to take the time and effort into finding another job, it's no fault but your own.
I think what's missing is education. Most people are so complacent, they don't want to read anything they sign and then act surprised when it contains something undesirable.
I've crossed out and questioned plenty of employee contracts. Most businesses will work with you on this.
I also don't know what more laws you want. As a business, you have to be so careful as to not step on someone's toes or offend them or you will find yourself in a lawsuit.
Employees have nearly all the power in today's society (especially with hashtag warriors starting digital riots against companies that do any little thing they don't like), and somehow you think you need more? It just doesn't make any sense to me beyond pure greed and entitlement.
"After all, we live in a time where incredible wealth is being created (it just seems to be hoarded by the 1%)"
Worldwide, you are in the top 1% if you are making more than ~$30,000/year.
I know the current narrative is to punish the 1% for 'hoarding' money and somehow screwing you out of your earnings, but it's just not happening.
Workers in the IT industry probably have the cushiest jobs in the world. You make way above minimum wage, you aren't risking your life, and your job can be done from the comfort of a heated or cooled office environment.
I'm not sure what rights you think you are giving away as an employee. Employee/Employer relationships are usually legally bound by a contract. You are free to change the contract or question it before you work there.
If you choose not to do this or don't want to take the time and effort into finding another job, it's no fault but your own.
I think what's missing is education. Most people are so complacent, they don't want to read anything they sign and then act surprised when it contains something undesirable.
I've crossed out and questioned plenty of employee contracts. Most businesses will work with you on this.
I also don't know what more laws you want. As a business, you have to be so careful as to not step on someone's toes or offend them or you will find yourself in a lawsuit.
Employees have nearly all the power in today's society (especially with hashtag warriors starting digital riots against companies that do any little thing they don't like), and somehow you think you need more? It just doesn't make any sense to me beyond pure greed and entitlement.
"After all, we live in a time where incredible wealth is being created (it just seems to be hoarded by the 1%)"
Worldwide, you are in the top 1% if you are making more than ~$30,000/year.
I know the current narrative is to punish the 1% for 'hoarding' money and somehow screwing you out of your earnings, but it's just not happening.
"IT industry probably have the cushiest jobs"
This isn't selfishly just about me, this is about what makes sense for our society.
"Employee/Employer relationships are usually legally bound by a contract"
There is a long history of contract terms being set by the more powerful party - and it is almost always workers who need the job and have less power.
"it's no fault but your own"
This completely ignores that opportunities are defined by our society - and the US has very low economic mobility.
"what's missing is education"
For over a decade education has not provided an improved salary in spite of much improved GDP. The perception of better salary has been shown to be lowered salary for the rest of society (excluding the 1% of course.)
"what more laws you want"
We could start by emulating other countries. Denmark workers join Unions which are funded through government. Flexcurity offsets "at will employment" with a great social safety net and free education. Corporatism creates "interest groups" which can be involved with decision-making for employers and industries. Some countries require employees on the board. Some countries only purchase from companies with transparent finances (no offshores). And these are just some techniques proven to work, there are many others which may be a good idea.
This isn't selfishly just about me, this is about what makes sense for our society.
"Employee/Employer relationships are usually legally bound by a contract"
There is a long history of contract terms being set by the more powerful party - and it is almost always workers who need the job and have less power.
"it's no fault but your own"
This completely ignores that opportunities are defined by our society - and the US has very low economic mobility.
"what's missing is education"
For over a decade education has not provided an improved salary in spite of much improved GDP. The perception of better salary has been shown to be lowered salary for the rest of society (excluding the 1% of course.)
"what more laws you want"
We could start by emulating other countries. Denmark workers join Unions which are funded through government. Flexcurity offsets "at will employment" with a great social safety net and free education. Corporatism creates "interest groups" which can be involved with decision-making for employers and industries. Some countries require employees on the board. Some countries only purchase from companies with transparent finances (no offshores). And these are just some techniques proven to work, there are many others which may be a good idea.
> I've crossed out and questioned plenty of employee contracts. Most businesses will work with you on this.
I've given two weeks notice at one job, only to arrive at $new_job and discover that their $parent_company requires you to fill out a digital contract, with no room for appending it. One was smart enough to even make it so that the signature box only accepted an exact match on your name.
The contract they wanted me to sign involved committing perjury on federal forms... but HR promised they would "make a note in my file" about my concern, and still expected me to digitally sign everything.
Now that I'm a seasoned professional who can count on getting work elsewhere, and has some savings, I can just refuse and quit / let them fire me. As someone new coming in to the industry, though, my options were "go along with this" or "desperately hope I could line up a new job before I got evicted" (old job had already filled my position)
Still a hell of a lot better than working retail or call center, but it's definitely not always as simple as "just negotiate a better contract"
I've given two weeks notice at one job, only to arrive at $new_job and discover that their $parent_company requires you to fill out a digital contract, with no room for appending it. One was smart enough to even make it so that the signature box only accepted an exact match on your name.
The contract they wanted me to sign involved committing perjury on federal forms... but HR promised they would "make a note in my file" about my concern, and still expected me to digitally sign everything.
Now that I'm a seasoned professional who can count on getting work elsewhere, and has some savings, I can just refuse and quit / let them fire me. As someone new coming in to the industry, though, my options were "go along with this" or "desperately hope I could line up a new job before I got evicted" (old job had already filled my position)
Still a hell of a lot better than working retail or call center, but it's definitely not always as simple as "just negotiate a better contract"
It's worth nothing - Even if the jobs are cushy now, there's no reason this will always be the case. If things change, we might need the protections we negotiate into normality while things were good.
You think we'll have more wealth if only we made things more equal. But that's not true, because we, software engineers (assuming you're one), are in the 1%. Making a better work environment for most people by making things more equal will likely make a worse work environment for software engineers.
Yes, it's a worthy goal, but don't pursue it for the sake of a better work environment for yourself. Be prepared to lose a lot of good things in life. It's only when you're willing to sacrifice your own living standard for the sake of a better environment for most people, you can sincerely tell yourself, you're different to the 0.01%. It's the mindset "We can make our lives better by taking things from some other people not related to us" that's dangerous.
Yes, it's a worthy goal, but don't pursue it for the sake of a better work environment for yourself. Be prepared to lose a lot of good things in life. It's only when you're willing to sacrifice your own living standard for the sake of a better environment for most people, you can sincerely tell yourself, you're different to the 0.01%. It's the mindset "We can make our lives better by taking things from some other people not related to us" that's dangerous.
Human society, culture advances when zero sum scenarios are replaced with win/win variants.
Where's the joy in having material wealth if I have to step over the homeless while going about my daily business? Or require additional security measures to feel safe?
I very much advocate a more equitable society for very selfish reasons. I want to be left alone.
The math and logic of reciprocal altruism directly challenges the zealotry of Freedom Markets(tm). But it's just a different kind of selfishness.
Where's the joy in having material wealth if I have to step over the homeless while going about my daily business? Or require additional security measures to feel safe?
I very much advocate a more equitable society for very selfish reasons. I want to be left alone.
The math and logic of reciprocal altruism directly challenges the zealotry of Freedom Markets(tm). But it's just a different kind of selfishness.
Yes, I agree. It's important not to chase for an "more equitable society" thinking you can work less, have better stuff, have a better working environment. You're trading extrinsic benefits for intrinsic benefits. Be prepared to be a lot more poorer, as you see the people who are poorest get a little less poor.
Very few software engineers are in the top 1% of U.S. earners. That is over $400,000 annual income.
And, I would add, I've been around several multi-billionaires. They have already transferred the wealth to themselves, and the "income" numbers will show them receiving relatively small incomes. They use offshores to do their transactions (and avoid taxes on the income). So, really, the IRS numbers vastly mislead us about who the 1% are and how much they really have. (I read one study that estimated the total US offshore hidden money to be about 30 trillion. And when you consider that the rich are spread throughout the world, you have to wonder just how much money they have really hidden away for themselves.)
Not true.
In 2014, the 99th percentile of personal income was was $240k, and the 99th percentile of household income was $330k.
http://i.imgur.com/cCmRisG.png source http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-yo...
$250k is a realistic number for the upper tier of software engineers to make in Silicon Valley. If you work for one of the big companies, your stock options will get you pretty close to that. If you're a manager, bonuses and incentive pay will also bridge the gap. If you're an independent consultant and you're not making at least this much, you're really missing the boat.
Are you a senior software engineer, or middle management or higher? Is you partner also? Then it's _highly_ likely that your household is a 1% household
More importantly, the IRS considers any group of people who live together to be a household. I know of many people here in SF who have two, three, four roommates, each making six figures in tech. Essentially all of those households are 1% households.
As an aside, I've pointed this out to several people I know. Without fail, they always have reasons why they don't count. "Oh cost of living is too high". "Oh, I have to pay back student loans, my disposable income isn't this". "Oh, sure I make this much but look at my taxes".
In reality, describing "the 1%" is not a useful description. For one, many of the 1% are people living middle class lives in high cost-of-living areas. On the one hand, it is true that in dollar terms these people are, literally, in the 1%. But they don't live the lifestyles that people think of when they say 1%. And if you think about it, that makes sense. By definition, one in every 100 Americans are in the 1%. That's three million people.
We don't have any chance of solving economic disparity problems when our intuitions are so wildly off base from our rhetoric and our actions. Wish more people would think these things through
In 2014, the 99th percentile of personal income was was $240k, and the 99th percentile of household income was $330k.
http://i.imgur.com/cCmRisG.png source http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-yo...
$250k is a realistic number for the upper tier of software engineers to make in Silicon Valley. If you work for one of the big companies, your stock options will get you pretty close to that. If you're a manager, bonuses and incentive pay will also bridge the gap. If you're an independent consultant and you're not making at least this much, you're really missing the boat.
Are you a senior software engineer, or middle management or higher? Is you partner also? Then it's _highly_ likely that your household is a 1% household
More importantly, the IRS considers any group of people who live together to be a household. I know of many people here in SF who have two, three, four roommates, each making six figures in tech. Essentially all of those households are 1% households.
As an aside, I've pointed this out to several people I know. Without fail, they always have reasons why they don't count. "Oh cost of living is too high". "Oh, I have to pay back student loans, my disposable income isn't this". "Oh, sure I make this much but look at my taxes".
In reality, describing "the 1%" is not a useful description. For one, many of the 1% are people living middle class lives in high cost-of-living areas. On the one hand, it is true that in dollar terms these people are, literally, in the 1%. But they don't live the lifestyles that people think of when they say 1%. And if you think about it, that makes sense. By definition, one in every 100 Americans are in the 1%. That's three million people.
We don't have any chance of solving economic disparity problems when our intuitions are so wildly off base from our rhetoric and our actions. Wish more people would think these things through
I'm going to push back on this yet again. My thesis is not that no software engineers are members of the "1%", it is that generalizations that apply to "the upper tier of software engineers in Silicon Valley" who work for big companies are not reasonable generalizations to make about all software engineers who read Hacker News, which is the subject of this thread.
I think you'd be surprised.
Per tax data from 1979-2005, out of the top professions in the 1%, computer/math/technical/engineering (non-finance) are the #5 group by population, representing 5% to 6% of the total (lawyers are #4 at around 8%). It's fair to say there are likely in fact lots of software engineers in the top 1%.
There are also likely to be far more software engineers in a summed five to ten year measurement, than in any given year. The top 1% has a fairly high turn-over rate, in which a large percentage of the top 1% do not stay in that category year after year after year. Good software engineers have far more stable earning power over time than many of the people that make up the high earners (CEOs that get one-off bonus pay or options; sales workers with a big year, such as in real-estate; one-off dividends from owning part of a business; gains from a business sale). If you measured a high earning software engineer across five years, they'd come out a lot higher than any given year would otherwise indicate.
Per tax data from 1979-2005, out of the top professions in the 1%, computer/math/technical/engineering (non-finance) are the #5 group by population, representing 5% to 6% of the total (lawyers are #4 at around 8%). It's fair to say there are likely in fact lots of software engineers in the top 1%.
There are also likely to be far more software engineers in a summed five to ten year measurement, than in any given year. The top 1% has a fairly high turn-over rate, in which a large percentage of the top 1% do not stay in that category year after year after year. Good software engineers have far more stable earning power over time than many of the people that make up the high earners (CEOs that get one-off bonus pay or options; sales workers with a big year, such as in real-estate; one-off dividends from owning part of a business; gains from a business sale). If you measured a high earning software engineer across five years, they'd come out a lot higher than any given year would otherwise indicate.
My point was to refute the myth that "we, software engineers (assuming you're one), are in the 1%" which is patently untrue as a generalization. Five percent of the top 1% of earners in the US is a very small number of people compared to the number of software engineers in the country.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics[1], an income of $149,000 would put you in the top 10% of the software engineering profession. The medium annual wage for software engineers at all levels is around $100k. That's definitely better than many professions, but it doesn't even begin to approach the level of inequality we're talking about when we talk about the 1%.
[1]: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
EDIT: This doesn't even take into account the fact that other related titles like Computer Programmer (which, despite being a less fashionable job description of late, is often the same as what a "software engineer" would be doing) have significantly lower medians and are broken out separately.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics[1], an income of $149,000 would put you in the top 10% of the software engineering profession. The medium annual wage for software engineers at all levels is around $100k. That's definitely better than many professions, but it doesn't even begin to approach the level of inequality we're talking about when we talk about the 1%.
[1]: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
EDIT: This doesn't even take into account the fact that other related titles like Computer Programmer (which, despite being a less fashionable job description of late, is often the same as what a "software engineer" would be doing) have significantly lower medians and are broken out separately.
I was thinking 1% of the whole world when I typed that sentence.[1] If we're talking about the U.S. I'll use the number 2, and my point will stand.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-ne...
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-ne...
The poverty line in the US (before benefits) is about 3-4 times the median income worldwide. The median income in the US is in the top 2% worldwide. Almost everyone with Internet access is in the top 10%.
I don't want to get too far into pedantic nonsense, but most of your time is not spent at work unless you are working far too much. Even at a full 40 hour work week, that's only 1/3 of your day for a part of the week. Even if you get 9 hours of sleep every night, it's still well under half your waking hours.
For most people, especially us privileged white collar technology workers, the ability exists to show up at work, punch a clock and get something done, then go home and do whatever we want.
For most people, especially us privileged white collar technology workers, the ability exists to show up at work, punch a clock and get something done, then go home and do whatever we want.
If you have a life and job like that, you should definitely hold on to it. It certainly doesn't sound like the past 15 years I've spent in Silicon Valley. With commute and flights and extra hours and company events, I'm confident that work is the biggest component of my life.
Anderson also says he may have been terminated because he reported that an employee tried to bribe him to reduce a co-worker's performance score. The lawsuit says that employee had a "personal relationship" with Anderson's manager, who later gave Anderson a low score.
This is the most believable line to me.
This is the most believable line to me.
It's obvious that many review systems aren't designed to help an employee, but rather provide management with justification to make staffing adjustments while providing CYA cover to all parties involved. Sounds like Yahoo's is really no different in that respect.
I have a non-scientific suspicion that performance reviews are going to become the next industry "thing" that prospective candidates evaluate before joining a company. On par with evaluation of benefits, comp structure, etc.
We're aiming to improve perf evaluation in my company, and I'll actively promote that with prospective candidates when we begin to see benefit. We want to identify and reward top performers, and provide support to the bottom to enable them to improve. (We're driving toward a culture that views under-achieving performance first as a failure of management.) We want this to be a strength, and something that our teams use throughout their time with us.
I have a non-scientific suspicion that performance reviews are going to become the next industry "thing" that prospective candidates evaluate before joining a company. On par with evaluation of benefits, comp structure, etc.
We're aiming to improve perf evaluation in my company, and I'll actively promote that with prospective candidates when we begin to see benefit. We want to identify and reward top performers, and provide support to the bottom to enable them to improve. (We're driving toward a culture that views under-achieving performance first as a failure of management.) We want this to be a strength, and something that our teams use throughout their time with us.
> I have a non-scientific suspicion that performance reviews are going to become the next industry "thing" that prospective candidates evaluate before joining a company.
It's not already? The performance review system is something I evaluate very critically before deciding whether to join a company. Use Microsoft-style stack ranking? I'll pass.
It's not already? The performance review system is something I evaluate very critically before deciding whether to join a company. Use Microsoft-style stack ranking? I'll pass.
Wow if that's true, this is not the way to reduce the gender gap.
I'm very happy that a lawsuit on male discrimination is happening. Being a male programmer, I have seen many females around me being more promoted than men, in my 3 companies. I cannot determine whether there is actually a discrimination happening, but I can tell that "statistics don't match my experience".
So a lawsuit is one way of determining the "truth, according to the law". And on the other hand, there starts to be gender equality if both genders sue equally often for discrimination. It's ironic, but it's positive.
So a lawsuit is one way of determining the "truth, according to the law". And on the other hand, there starts to be gender equality if both genders sue equally often for discrimination. It's ironic, but it's positive.
I've seen attempts to promote females to IT leadership positions, usually to high enough levels where they don't have to know code or have strong technical skills. It appears to be a way to balance out field dominated by male. Definitely not openly discussed issue, but it's hard to ignore numbers sometimes.
The gender bias HN people see — bias against men! You go into a tech workplace all you see is black/latina women... I started wearing makeup and dresses to job interviews. Tanning salon beforehand. The interviewers perk up and ask if I identify as a woman. I sob and admit I'm cismale — but I read everything on Hacker News so I'm probably very qualified! I'm entitled to your company employing me!!
They lower their heads and thank me for my time.
They lower their heads and thank me for my time.
Please don't do this here.
It could simply be, that your company recognizes talent wherever it finds it. And women flock there because they can succeed there. That would just make it, competition.
As society changes, there will be many apparent imbalances. To tell if something is wrong, we cannot just look at statistics. There must be a better test for 'inequality'.
As society changes, there will be many apparent imbalances. To tell if something is wrong, we cannot just look at statistics. There must be a better test for 'inequality'.
Because women are more talentful? If something irritates me, it's newspapers full of articles saying that women are better at work than men, women lecturing men on being being accordingly stupid, and no quality attributed to men about work or private life, apart from being stronger (yay, stronger, a great brain-dead prejudice).
I included your lecturing in my original comment, it's an humiliation that you could think I oversaw such aspects.
I included your lecturing in my original comment, it's an humiliation that you could think I oversaw such aspects.
This.
While I agree that generally in SV there is some misogyny, that doesn't mean any injustice against males should be seen as a red herring.
While I agree that generally in SV there is some misogyny, that doesn't mean any injustice against males should be seen as a red herring.
Nobody said that. Reading the comment again, we see it said "Women flock there because they can succeed there." There would then be many more talented women there than average.
Just as a note, as I know nothing about your or your situation, but reacting angrily will NOT help any impressions you are giving.
Frankly, when someone tells me they work in a tech place where women are successful, I'm jealous. So if you want to point out that there is some hostile bias at work and not just the lack of hostile environments that drive women away from so many places, you need to prove that. Coming across as a woman-hating man does not accomplish this (Again, I don't know you, I'm only saying the impression you are giving).
Frankly, when someone tells me they work in a tech place where women are successful, I'm jealous. So if you want to point out that there is some hostile bias at work and not just the lack of hostile environments that drive women away from so many places, you need to prove that. Coming across as a woman-hating man does not accomplish this (Again, I don't know you, I'm only saying the impression you are giving).
> Frankly, when someone tells me they work in a tech place where women are successful, I'm jealous.
I think the key there is "where women are successful *at mens expense" (feel free to swap the genders as well).
I think the key there is "where women are successful *at mens expense" (feel free to swap the genders as well).
Oh yes, I'm just saying when you are claiming that a normally (relatively) priviledged group is being discriminated against, you have a certain perceptional burden of proof, and being angry doesn't help make your case.
Well promotions are by definition zero sum. Promotion of any individual is at the expense of every other qualified individual who wanted the job.
You're assuming there is a fixed pie. What if the company is growing?
It's still zero sum for the current employees. Only the following scenarios are possible whether a company is growing or not:
Edit: Put a better way, it is zero sum because you and your coworkers cannot equally share in the benefits of a promotion.
1. Nobody gets the promotion
2. Somebody outside the company gets the promotion
3. Somebody inside the company who isn't me gets the promotion
4. I get the promotion
Edit: Put a better way, it is zero sum because you and your coworkers cannot equally share in the benefits of a promotion.
What newspapers are you reading?
I won't answer your question because you just need to google "Why women are better for management" and you'll find many articles; And many major newspaper ran stories about the advantage of being a woman and manager (at least for Marissa Mayer). Women are usually granted with qualities like being able to do two things at the same time (which is good for a management position), being talkative (good for management), having empathy when necessary (good for management), being more organized...
I honestly can't list out of my mind qualities which are generally attributed to men, apart from being sharks. Please upgrade my ego if you can list any ;)
I honestly can't list out of my mind qualities which are generally attributed to men, apart from being sharks. Please upgrade my ego if you can list any ;)
Your quickness to retaliate in anger, instead of correcting your mathematical oversight, undermines your reader's confidence in your ability to judge the merits of your coworkers.
I agree that many companies are discriminating against men in hiring and promotions, and that many managers are much more lenient toward women than men. I, too, am seeing contradictions of the statistics in many tech workplaces (e.g. 4:1 CS graduation rate, or 99:1 OSS contribution rate, but 2:1 and 1:1 employment rates).
I'm confident that the cause of this discrimination is companies' very rational fear of sex discrimination lawsuits (which only women can successfully wage), and the resulting public-relations shitstorm that results from that (but only when a woman has something to complain about). Anyone following the tech industry's news cycle over the past five years is familiar with this threat.
However, I object to your unease here at newspapers suggesting that there are differences between genders. There are obviously differences between genders -- biological and psychological.
The problem is that we have a culture that requires companies to take precautions (e.g. hiring less-abled women over better-abled men to meet lawyer-recommended quotas) to protect their interests; a culture that suppresses meaningful exploration of the differences between men and women (e.g. you're only allowed to mention possible advantages that women have) and how to handle that.
Our culture is mandating equality in all regards, at all costs, and its enforcers will stop at nothing until that's achieved. The reality is that, on average, certain demographics have innate advantages over others in a capitalist system. Gender can't go away, so the only way to achieve equality in the face of gender differences is to wage cultural-level discrimination against the advantaged.
Our culture needs to change; it's standing in the way of humanity reaching its greatest potential. I'm not sure how much further we can go while slitting our wrists at the altar of equality.
(new account because I would like to remain employed)
I'm confident that the cause of this discrimination is companies' very rational fear of sex discrimination lawsuits (which only women can successfully wage), and the resulting public-relations shitstorm that results from that (but only when a woman has something to complain about). Anyone following the tech industry's news cycle over the past five years is familiar with this threat.
However, I object to your unease here at newspapers suggesting that there are differences between genders. There are obviously differences between genders -- biological and psychological.
The problem is that we have a culture that requires companies to take precautions (e.g. hiring less-abled women over better-abled men to meet lawyer-recommended quotas) to protect their interests; a culture that suppresses meaningful exploration of the differences between men and women (e.g. you're only allowed to mention possible advantages that women have) and how to handle that.
Our culture is mandating equality in all regards, at all costs, and its enforcers will stop at nothing until that's achieved. The reality is that, on average, certain demographics have innate advantages over others in a capitalist system. Gender can't go away, so the only way to achieve equality in the face of gender differences is to wage cultural-level discrimination against the advantaged.
Our culture needs to change; it's standing in the way of humanity reaching its greatest potential. I'm not sure how much further we can go while slitting our wrists at the altar of equality.
(new account because I would like to remain employed)
I dislike anti-discrimination laws in general. I think a good compromise would be to limit to manual labor jobs and the like which the laws was originally designed for.
It would appear that Yahoo had forsaken the three D-s of firing: Document, Document, and Document some more. Employees fired for legitimate cause usually leave behind a trail of evidence wider than the New Jersey Turnpike. This documentation can take many forms, and is astonishingly easy to come by in today's increasingly data-driven workplace.
Yahoo's apparent inability to gather evidence is just another sign of a poorly run company. Who will miss them once they've gone for good?
Yahoo's apparent inability to gather evidence is just another sign of a poorly run company. Who will miss them once they've gone for good?
You're right about what HR should have done, but you're overplaying the significance towards Yahoo's current position.
Sounds like an awful place to work at.
The allegations sound very bad if true, but that's table stakes for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Given the timing, most likely this gets settled for a tidy sum.
Noteworthy dirth of comments in the normally chatty HN audience. Untouchable subject sadly.
Wrongful firing lawsuits are incredibly common across all industries. The merit of the case is impossible to figure out from a news article. People can speculate all they want, but really no one knows the facts other than those privy to the actual lawsuit.
Where is the vitriol people directed at Ellen Pao?
IIRC, vitriol started to be directed at Ellen Pao only once she was cross-examined in court, giving specific details, and her claims of discrimination suddenly seemed much weaker than what the media had been reporting before the trial.
I would expect exactly the same thing to happen here if the case ever goes to trial and Anderson's testimony in the courtroom doesn't support his initial claims as presented in the media.
I would expect exactly the same thing to happen here if the case ever goes to trial and Anderson's testimony in the courtroom doesn't support his initial claims as presented in the media.
> IIRC, vitriol started to be directed at Ellen Pao only once she was cross-examined in court
It certainly increased after the court case began, but certainly some, uh, strong opinions from the start:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4008796
It certainly increased after the court case began, but certainly some, uh, strong opinions from the start:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4008796
I read the first thread. People are under informed about discrimination cases. Ending an affair in the workplace is a common trigger for retaliation. Yet, someone argued that a woman was more likely to fabricate complaints after ending a relationship. Who is more likely to be vindictive? The manager or the employee? Most people acknowledge power tends to corrupt.
Though Pao did have a few things going against her. Husband wasn't a pillar of the community. The actual case, according to my employment lawyer friend, was weak.
Though Pao did have a few things going against her. Husband wasn't a pillar of the community. The actual case, according to my employment lawyer friend, was weak.
Well as far as we can tell, the guy suing Yahoo! hasn't lied or had an affair, and by all account is qualified for his job.
So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
So it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Plenty of HN stories attract few or zero comments. It's hardly 'noteworthy'. It's not uncommon to have someone complain in an article's comments that "I posted this X weeks ago and no-one noticed"
There's nothing to say about HR corruption really except "No shit." Anybody who has had a non-management job has been subject to this type of corruption by corporate HR departments for their entire working lives. The only thing remotely worth discussing is what kind of evidence the company slipped up on and how it plays out.
In many courts, similar cases like this have been laughed off. In today's world, in many established companies the gender bias (female given priority) is a real form of discrimination. At my University (a top 10), the average female graduates where picked off by Google, MS and the likes - the extremely hard working, talented and passionate grads (male) couldn't even get interviews at big G half the time.
It's an interesting world we live in, where discrimination is now being fought with discrimination.