71–80 of 382 posts
She did however mention that one bonus passed through, arguing it was too vague to be given because of the spread sheet. Hm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people insist on using that medium for blogging? It would be better to tweet, "Guys, I updated my blog with a story about this thing (link)".
I had no idea this was a trend. How could anyone ever think this is a good idea? You'd think the editors at wired would be able to copy and paste, surely that's easier than embedding 45 tweets.
Google is a company that wants to have access to all the information in the world. But if somebody rightfully publishes some information that is sensitive to Google, look what happens...
If you generalize, say X is a Y that wants to have all information int the world. But if somebody ... look what happens... . you'll find several solutions for Y='company' and many more for other Y in {'Secret Service', 'Tax Collection Agency', ...}
Earlier quoted context omitted.
girl create spreadsheet > insert title, gender, salary > send to everyone > captain obvious comes along to find fluctuating salaries based on things > employees like it, bosses hate it > people send her boss bonus forms > boss rejects them (probably because it should be a bonus based on job performance, not shit-stirring) > make it sound edgy > people stop talking to her > claim sjw for pay equality
> probably because it should be a bonus based on job performance, not shit-stirring the entire crux of the article edit: word
I find that crux is one of those words that's replaced with an incorrect near-homophone often - like mute instead of moot.
Although, bonus points for using crutch instead of crust - that's usually the replacement.
ive just discovered HN has an awful neoliberal bias, and is full of cunty fucking capitalist money obsessed techs. its a real shame you have this ignorance amongst supposedly intelligent people. as a result i wont be using it again, and i suggest you look at articles about politically sensitive subjects and watch them being removed from the front page double quick time. the comment strategy makes sure that no alterna…
ah.. oops, wrong post i guess
ive just discovered HN has an awful neoliberal bias, and is full of cunty fucking capitalist money obsessed techs. its a real shame you have this ignorance amongst supposedly intelligent people. as a result i wont be using it again, and i suggest you look at articles about politically sensitive subjects and watch them being removed from the front page double quick time. the comment strategy makes sure that no alterna…
OK, that's me. I like to eat and have shelter and some nice stuff too.
Just curious, what charitable organization built your computer and its parts? I bet it was built by capitalist swine.
Was stringing together a couple dozen tweets really the best format to share a story like this? There is a lot that's left out. Once she vaguely mentions that another employee who was "involved" was still getting all of his peer bonuses (which may or may not have been PB's for his "involvement", we don't know), the whole thing just crumbled into a victim story for me. OF COURSE the MALE coworker can do WHATEVER HE WA…
Are you sure you're not being an Angry Jack[0] and using that as an easy excuse to reject the story firsthand?
> Also, generally shit will hit the fan if you tell anyone to fuck off, especially if they're your manager. Again, we don't know that she told her manager to fuck off for being racist
Were do you see her telling her manager to fuck off at all? She's the one who didn't try to blame her manager, it's that white male co-worker who wanted to do that, and she declined. You are literally accusing her of doing the opposite of what she did.
I can't tell from context whether she was supporting or stopping "blogger porn" and/or "real names."
Google is a company that wants to have access to all the information in the world. But if somebody rightfully publishes some information that is sensitive to Google, look what happens...
In the reddit comment thread for this u/dickbutt_md had a lengthy comment that seemed to call into question some of the details of this story. His facts weren't first hand, but then again, sometimes a little distance can help with objectivity. In any event, I tend to take comments from possibly-disgruntled former employees with a pinch of salt.
On average everyone thinks they're above average
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Reference...)
Two people of equal value and skill will both think they're better than the other person, and thus deserve higher compensation. How do you reconcile that with salary transparency? Seems like you'll be making more people unhappy.
Would wages turn into status goods, where both of those people continuously ask for raises because in their view they're underpaid, and eventually get denied, which will probably offend them and cause them to leave?
Secondly, does this actually solve any problems that simple backchannels between employees don't? People already talk about salary at lunch breaks or over coffee; the advantage is that those are private conversations between friends, rather than your salary being broadcasted to everyone for them to judge. What problem does this actually solve?