511–520 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't there be lots of stories about this on the front page? It is big news about a major player in the exact target market of this site. It is also actionable to the audience here: this story may affect the decisions of many current and potentially future Uber employees.
Relax, kuyan didn't provide any opinions with these links. It wasn't necessarily a complaint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That will only work if those thrown to the wolves get some serious hush-money, as in "I'll never have to work again" money. I assume those folk have some strong evidence that the protection of misogynist employees went further up the org chart.
That assumes a lot about making-sure-you-have-a-paper-trail skills and how effectively management dodges that. Suppose you're a forward-thinking manager in a quickly growing company - do you promote the HR person who asks for a paper trail, or the one that is okay with getting told to do sketchy stuff in a deniable way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this kind of behavior is endemic to the industry. Just about every woman I know in the industry has a story similar to this. All over Twitter, women are sharing their similar stories. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It means you haven't paid attention.
Mild sexism is endemic to a portion of our industry. But I honestly have not previously encountered allegations on the level of "my boss propositioned me on my first day and HR said they wouldn't do anything". I would like to pay attention: we can't improve this problem unless we pay attention. If you would be willing to point me to a few examples of people making similar claims, I will commit to reading through them…
What's this "we" business? Who's "we"?
I don't know about you, but I'm an engineer. I am neither a manager, nor an executive, nor an HR goon. I accept no responsibility for the actions of people in those positions. Especially those useless HR people. We engineers are nothing more than low-level lackeys, rank-and-file employees who have zero power except to quit.
One thing that every employee needs to understand is that HR is not your friend. No matter how friendly or helpful they seem, their job is not to protect you. It's to protect the company.
In many companies, the apparent job of HR is to allow the HR director to act like a little Napoleon, even if it harms the company substantially.
One thing that every employee needs to understand is that HR is not your friend. No matter how friendly or helpful they seem, their job is not to protect you. It's to protect the company.
Sure they're not your friend, but Jesus Christ, the amount of legal trouble this particular HR establishment exposed themselves to through their actions is breathtaking. THAT'S their job: to prevent the company from getting sued!! In this case I'm completely bewildered as to why HR handled this particular situation so clumsily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The blog post it was posted on?" Unless what you mean is that you don't want any comments on that blog post, this is actually a criticism of content. "How posting it here would make people feel?" Also content.
So you don't think the name or time is content, but you do think where the comment is, is content? Do you feel like if you make a comment in one situation, and then make the exact same comment in another situation, that the content of the comment has changed? Keep in mind that the time or name used on the comment may have changed - you've ruled those out. Your line of argument earlier was that you thought I was again…
I have not abandoned the line of reasoning that objecting to pitchforking is generally a good thing. You are the one who is arguing against a comment that objected to pitchforking. I don't even understand why you are asking this question.
I wonder how much impact this will have. If they will discipline and fire people and put processes in place to keep the problem fixed, or if they will make a lot of noise about investigation and saying how terrible they feel and not have anything change. Someone here once asked me how I differentiated between a corporation run by people and a corporation structured as an institution. In the latter there are processes…
It will have impact. It won't move the needle 100% across the industry, but I can see a 5% movement. Well done Susan if she doesn't sue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't think the name or time is content, but you do think where the comment is, is content? Do you feel like if you make a comment in one situation, and then make the exact same comment in another situation, that the content of the comment has changed? Keep in mind that the time or name used on the comment may have changed - you've ruled those out. Your line of argument earlier was that you thought I was again…
Yes, if you post the same comment on two different blog posts the can have different content. Context matters. I have not abandoned the line of reasoning that objecting to pitchforking is generally a good thing. You are the one who is arguing against a comment that objected to pitchforking. I don't even understand why you are asking this question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Ellen Pao was the plaintiff. The jury determined she didn't make a convincing case.
Oh. Am I wrong in believing that even for a civil trial, the jury must be heavily biased towards the defendant? Does California require jury unanimity to reach a decision in a civil case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe it would be wrong for Gawker or Pando to publish the 4 most awful true facts about Travis Kalanick? E.g., leaked emails he wrote to a fraternity (as was done to Evan Spiegel)? Or perhaps reports by a third party that he was a great big jerk? These are things that notable journalistic establishments do on a regular basis. I'm asking the same question that Emil Michael asked: why is it wrong to do the sa…
Some journalists have written trashy gossip articles, and I wouldn't defend that. But if that's his mindset, "Other people have done bad things, so why shouldn't I?", that's not great. That leads to a culture of decaying ethics, lowest-common-denominator behavioral norms, backstabbing and retribution, etc. And the stories we've heard about life at Uber become much more plausible.
But I don't think that Ben Smith (editor at Gawker, and the person Emil Michael was arguing with) could make the same objection without being a transparent hypocrite.