Lawsuit: Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male workers

Post by coldpie » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #296

coldpie wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Set up a date over email for an initial phone screen with the recruiter. Left work early to make the appointment at home. Recruiter never called. Asked WTF, got an apology and another appointment for next week. Recruiter missed that one, too (really). Finally made a connection a few days later, got bizarre questions like "estimate 2^14 (or something) in decimal". Did poorly on that, so they forwarded me to anot…

Sounds pretty much like my experience with Google. I'm an embedded programmer with a EE degree, not a CS degree, and they hammered me with a bunch of algorithm questions like you said. I'm not even interested in (nor qualified for) heavy-CS type work; I thought maybe they'd want me for more low-level stuff or doing some kind of work with hardware, custom OS or driver development, etc. But as I said above, don't paint…

Post by traek » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #309

protomyth wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not really about the review process, but about making one of the biggest mistakes you can make: After you know your manager doesn't like you, you didn't do everything in your power to either switch teams or change companies. The biggest career advice you can take: it never gets better, there is no good fight, and you should flee to save yourself. I expect the parent post [edit: iamleppert] was blameless, but…

> The biggest career advice you can take: it never gets better, there is no good fight, and you should flee to save yourself. This is demonstrably false since a lot of people like their jobs (that includes me and, anecdotally, most of the people I work with)

Post by Nadya » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

scott_karana wrote: post #203

doublescoop wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're ignoring their effectiveness. Maybe they work better without coworker interruptions and in a familiar space, which offsets any negatives of caregiving. And even still, who cares?! Do you actually have a good handle on how many of your employees just read HN or Reddit for half a day? Unaccounted for smoke breaks? Having to make personal calls while on the clock? Humans aren't automatons.

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 8:27 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #164

leaveyou wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't deny that the situation must be analyzed carefully but going from "less than 20 percent female" to "more than 80 percent female" in less than 2 years leaves little room for doubt. Also this adds up to the undisclosed security breach and the fact that Yahoo secretly scanned emails for US Intel.. Not a very defensible behavior.

You had no problem with them being 80% male?

Post by protomyth » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

traek wrote: post #313

School-Cotton wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest career advice you can take: it never gets better, there is no good fight, and you should flee to save yourself. This is demonstrably false since a lot of people like their jobs (that includes me and, anecdotally, most of the people I work with)

I think the unwritten qualification is "If it's a bad environment". "If it's a bad environment -- it never gets better, there is no good fight, and you should flee to save yourself." It's very possible to find places that are good to work at. It's highly unlikely for a shitty environment to get significantly better.