4 ms·

Nope. Burden of proof falls on the party making the assertion. The NYT says X, based on no cited sources. When X is challenged, the burden falls to the NYT to p

Nope. Burden of proof falls on the party making the assertion. The NYT says X, based on no cited sources. When X is challenged, the burden falls to the NYT to prove X, not the person challenging the assertion. The fact that I'm an Amazonian has no bearing on any of that, and is actually little more than a red herring. The fact that I'm posting from a throwaway matters even less.

rdtsc 11y ago
[from original article] > A woman who had thyroid cancer was given a low performance rating after she returned from treatment. She says her manager explained that while she was out, her peers were accomplishing a great deal. > Another employee who miscarried twins left for a business trip the day after she had surgery. “I’m sorry, the work is still going to need to get done,” she said her boss told her. “From where you are in life, trying to start a family, I don’t know if this is the right place for you.” To reiterate, your criticism was "well they have no proof"? Presumably you wanted to name these women, who one had cancer, and another had a miscarriage, and show a doctor's notice that those conditions happened. Then have a recording of their bosses telling them those things. I imagine there are probably quite a few reasons why these women wouldn't want their full names published in NYT. > The fact that I'm posting from a throwaway matters even less. Well actually that was the main point of my argument you assume those people should post their names, but they didn't so no proof, so well they made that up. Fine then, post your full name and where you work at Amazon then. It is not NYT after all. Just a friendly fireside chat on HN. ...Oh, you might have a few reasons I imagine you don't want that posted... So that was my point.
- crucifiction 11y ago
  Its ridiculous claims because both of them are easy, enormous lawsuits if true. The fact that these people never sued for these claims makes it more likely this is exaggerated like a lot of the rest of the article.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    Employement in the US is usually on "at-will" basis. That is usually sold to employees as "hey you can quit anytime, isn't that great". In reality the employer usually just means "hey, I can let you go anytime". Of course they can't fire for discriminatory stuff. They can't say "well this person is too old or not white enough or a woman". But they can say stuff like "for performance reasons", "restructuring", etc. even if they really mean the former reasons (race, color, gender, age...) as long as there is an official cover the law is on the employer's side. So I still don't see enormous lawsuit potential here. One was fired for "performance" reasons (wink-wink) and another for "culture fit" (wink-wink again). There is some potential but only with a recording/email/some kind of evidence.
    - crucifiction 11y ago
      Both examples in the article would be discriminatory and are against the EEOC and as such would be lawsuit worthy. If they are unable to bring a suit then it likely means the facts are not really in their favor. One person claims to have emails about it, but never brought a case? Seems more likely employees who were on their way out anyways.
      - rdtsc 11y ago
        Most people do not have the means, time, money, connections, ability to go and sue even if they have been wronged or think they might have a clear case. I certainly have not heard about the EEOC, I don't even know what that is. Talking about their experience to a reporter is a lot easier. And I think saying "if they haven't sued, it means their story is false" is a bit extreme.

rdtsc 11y ago

[from original article] > A woman who had thyroid cancer was given a low performance rating after she returned from treatment. She says her manager explained that while she was out, her peers were accomplishing a great deal. > Another employee who miscarried twins left for a business trip the day after she had surgery. “I’m sorry, the work is still going to need to get done,” she said her boss told her. “From where you are in life, trying to start a family, I don’t know if this is the right place for you.” To reiterate, your criticism was "well they have no proof"? Presumably you wanted to name these women, who one had cancer, and another had a miscarriage, and show a doctor's notice that those conditions happened. Then have a recording of their bosses telling them those things. I imagine there are probably quite a few reasons why these women wouldn't want their full names published in NYT. > The fact that I'm posting from a throwaway matters even less. Well actually that was the main point of my argument you assume those people should post their names, but they didn't so no proof, so well they made that up. Fine then, post your full name and where you work at Amazon then. It is not NYT after all. Just a friendly fireside chat on HN. ...Oh, you might have a few reasons I imagine you don't want that posted... So that was my point.

crucifiction 11y ago
Its ridiculous claims because both of them are easy, enormous lawsuits if true. The fact that these people never sued for these claims makes it more likely this is exaggerated like a lot of the rest of the article.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  Employement in the US is usually on "at-will" basis. That is usually sold to employees as "hey you can quit anytime, isn't that great". In reality the employer usually just means "hey, I can let you go anytime". Of course they can't fire for discriminatory stuff. They can't say "well this person is too old or not white enough or a woman". But they can say stuff like "for performance reasons", "restructuring", etc. even if they really mean the former reasons (race, color, gender, age...) as long as there is an official cover the law is on the employer's side. So I still don't see enormous lawsuit potential here. One was fired for "performance" reasons (wink-wink) and another for "culture fit" (wink-wink again). There is some potential but only with a recording/email/some kind of evidence.
  - crucifiction 11y ago
    Both examples in the article would be discriminatory and are against the EEOC and as such would be lawsuit worthy. If they are unable to bring a suit then it likely means the facts are not really in their favor. One person claims to have emails about it, but never brought a case? Seems more likely employees who were on their way out anyways.
    - rdtsc 11y ago
      Most people do not have the means, time, money, connections, ability to go and sue even if they have been wronged or think they might have a clear case. I certainly have not heard about the EEOC, I don't even know what that is. Talking about their experience to a reporter is a lot easier. And I think saying "if they haven't sued, it means their story is false" is a bit extreme.