251–260 of 397 posts
With all the hubbub surrounding Mayer/Yahoo, why hasn't the board or shareholders fired her?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTFY: the PERSON you go to lunch with...
FTFY, guy and dude are pretty much asexual references for a person you don't know who you had a personal interaction with, at least in California. "Who did you have lunch with? Oh, some dude." Try not to language police here. You're not bringing anything to the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was once put on a PIP for political reasons by a vengeful boss. That day, I applied to what ended up being my next job, and I put in my notice the day before the PIP was set to end. It was a very small startup. Oddly enough, that boss and I get along really well outside of work, and I'd still gladly go out for drinks with him or something, but I will never work for him again.
> vengeful boss > that boss and I get along really well outside of work hm.
Also, he gets irrationally angry when anyone calls out the terrible job done by his friend who he put in an architect position. One co-worker of mine at that company... he raised the issue and ended up being railroaded into quitting a couple of months later, and then I'd heard my boss slandering him behind his back a few times.
It's been almost two years since I quit, and I still have painful flashbacks to the way he would yell at people.
But he is fun to hang out with when there's no power differential involved and when he's wasted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the real rule when looking for new jobs is to avoid places where they hire first and do allocations later, as your picture of what the company is at interview time might be completely different than what you'll find on day one. Oh hey that's actually a whole lot of big corps ... most prominently Google, isn't it?
My interview experience with Google a couple years ago was godawful and horribly mismanaged. Just reinforced my conviction to never work for a large company.
This is buried in the very last line of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A formal review just covers the company's ass if you come back and claim that your firing was due to illegal discrimination. That is, afaik, 100% of the reason why PIPs even exist. They've decided they wan't fire you and now they need to assemble some compelling documentation that it's you, not them.
A much bigger reason is to demoralize you and convince you that you deserve to be fired, so you won't even think about a lawsuit. PIPs aren't really good documentation of bad performance; in fact, a badly-written PIP can actually backfire on the company because the wording is usually full of holes a good lawyer can drive a truck through. Basically instead of the company having proof you were a poor performer, you now…
I was once a fan of Mayer when she first took over Yahoo, until she led a crusade against remote workers. As a remote worker myself I can tell you this crusade sent ripples throughout the industry. A lot of tech companies (especially outside the bay area) want to emulate the cool kids like Yahoo, Google, and Apple, and even the company I work for started questioning its WFH policies. So no, I don't feel sorry for her…
>this crusade sent ripples throughout the industry Were there any other companies that followed yahoo's lead?
...except for developers who were already largely working between remote teams anyway and caused some fellow employees with family and health responsibilities but were still good developers to have trouble and eventually leave the company. Cutting out existing options and freedoms to employees does not in any way help the culture of a company. I don't work there any more but every developer was very upset that I talked to at the time.
Any company I work for in the future I want at least the ability to work remote. I personally enjoy being in and around coworkers, but there were a few times when I wanted to work remote for periods of time to help with family. Being in an office can help _certain types_ of work - but it doesn't help all types of work, and development is one that can be remote.
I have been told the feminism is truly about egalitarianism, I will patiently await the feminist outcry.
I'm not saying that Yahoo did something right or wrong (maybe qualified women started to flock to yahoo because of its female CEO? Who knows! I will let the justice system sort that one out). But I really dislike feminism constantly being watered down to mean anything other than "the advancement of women."
Like, women have a lot of issues across the globe. Women get acid thrown in their faces, get denied education, etc. etc. Feminism is about stopping all of that, NOT about egalitarianism. There's already a word for egalitarianism, why the need to make feminism mean that, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know someone at HP who suddenly had to go in to work. This put him in a situation where he had to pay thousands for day care and he threatened to leave until they finally let him work from home again.
So, an employee was doubling as a full time care giver for his children while remote working? That sounds like exactly the kind of practice that gives remote work policies a bad name in the first place. If I found out one of my employees was taking care of his kids while working at home, you better believe it would result in a conversation and a possible revocation of his use of the remote work policy.
Just reading this brought back memories of working at LinkedIn, and why I'll never again work for a company who has institutional performance review processes. That pretty much excludes all big tech companies and I'm perfectly fine with that. The cookie-cutter performance review process is impersonal and has absolutely nothing to do with helping people do their best work. In my case, I had a manager who simply didn't…