5 ms·

Oh come on. She's CEO of a company that is circling the drain. Of course she won't take 12 weeks maternity leave, that would be completely retarded.

SeanDav 11y ago
Ask yourself, right now in Yahoo, all things being equal, who will get the promotion, the lady taking a 2 week maternity leave, or the one taking the 12 week maternity leave? I can guarantee you that although in theory it should make no difference, it will in reality.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  In theory it probably should make a difference. The one taking 2 week maternity leave sends a much stronger signal that she cares a lot about her job.
  - lukev 11y ago
    This is absurd. Spending time with one's child instead of one's job is a massive priority for any neurotypical human. Just because someone cares about something more than their job doesn't mean they don't care about their job or do a damn fine job at it. Long(er) maternity leave allows women to manage these conflicting priorities in a way that is more workable for parents and doesn't result in a company outright losing valuable employees when they decide to have a kid.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I agree it's a massive priority. That's why shifting back to work early is a strong signal of dedication to work - it suggests work is probably a higher for you than for a "neurotypical human". Similarly, a person who spends 2 hours/day at the gym to the detriment of other activities is probably more dedicated to fitness than one who doesn't. Is this a remotely controversial claim? I understand that you don't like the consequences of this, namely rewarding people who are not neurotypical, but that doesn't mean the reasoning is false.
      - jbooth 11y ago
        That person who is not neurotypical might be the type of person who works 80 hours a week with the net result of creating more work for everyone else. I've seen plenty of those.
  - jbooth 11y ago
    If we assume a generous leave policy for both? The one rushing back after 2 weeks either has a screw loose or is so bad at their job that they can't take their hand off the wheel for 5 minutes. I wouldn't necessarily consider them better at the job even if I were a sociopath who didn't care about families.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Clearly anyone who thinks differently from me is a sociopath, insane, and must be completely incompetent. Diversity of thought is the most harmful force in the universe; everyone must learn to think like me.
      - jbooth 11y ago
        Wasn't implying you're a sociopath -- I think you were recognizing that a corporation is by definition -- I'm just saying that, even by that standard, the person is STILL not necessarily productive. Working compulsively isn't what I'm typically looking for, I want the guy/gal that can get it done with a minimum of effort and follow-on maintenance, and that typically correlates with not being a workaholic in my experience.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I agree that one can work long hours and get nothing done. On the other hand, many folks can work long hours and get a superlinear amount of work done. In knowledge work the general trend seems to be that output(working_hours) is a convex function - i.e., the 60 hour/week guy is significantly more than 150% as valuable as the 40 hour/week guy. One guy who can keep the entire system in his head is worth a lot more than two guys who can keep half the system in their head. http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2014conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=1103 http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2014conference/program/retrieve.ph...
  - JoBrad 11y ago
    This is the fallacy that hurts men and women. I care a lot about my job. But I care more about my family. Any culture that translate that as a negative (you care less about your job than someone else who is willing to sacrifice family time for the job) is an unhealthy culture, to put it mildly, and one that forgoes long-term thinking for short-term. Employees who are physically and emotionally healthy (which includes your relationships with your family and friends) are more productive and happier. That is the important part.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Why do you believe a person who cares more about his job than you do is not "emotionally healthy" and therefore less productive? Is it so wildly implausible that people might have different desires and emotional makeup than you?
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      Actually was does a disservice to everyone is the idea that you need to "care" for job, or that a business is a "family" A person is paid to do work, if they make a life choice that means they no longer desire to do that work and instead wants to devote their time to other pursuits (like raising children) more power to them. Expecting their co-workers to pick up their slack, expecting their employer to pay for it, and unfairly holding open a job than an unemployed person could fill is simply selfish.
- XJOKOLAT 11y ago
  If I were her boss, as long as things were reasonable under control, and communication channels were relatively open (say a quick weekly catch-up [considering her seniority]) I'd promote the 12 week'er. What people value most is important. This might be difficult in a tiny company, but this is Yahoo. I don't care if they're in trouble. They have the resources to cope with this like it was child's play. She isn't bigger than Yahoo. No CEO is. Is there no leadership team in place at Yahoo? That is part of their role. To cover when one of them is out of action. Cannot believe the comments I've read here.
rorykoehler 11y ago
In that case not taking it is completely retarded. These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back and the company is already done so why should she bother?
- ryanlol 11y ago
  >These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back Sounds like life to me.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    You'd think someone who is set for life financially may be able to have time to reflect a little on this aspect of life and act accordingly.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

SeanDav 11y ago

Ask yourself, right now in Yahoo, all things being equal, who will get the promotion, the lady taking a 2 week maternity leave, or the one taking the 12 week maternity leave? I can guarantee you that although in theory it should make no difference, it will in reality.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
In theory it probably should make a difference. The one taking 2 week maternity leave sends a much stronger signal that she cares a lot about her job.
- lukev 11y ago
  This is absurd. Spending time with one's child instead of one's job is a massive priority for any neurotypical human. Just because someone cares about something more than their job doesn't mean they don't care about their job or do a damn fine job at it. Long(er) maternity leave allows women to manage these conflicting priorities in a way that is more workable for parents and doesn't result in a company outright losing valuable employees when they decide to have a kid.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I agree it's a massive priority. That's why shifting back to work early is a strong signal of dedication to work - it suggests work is probably a higher for you than for a "neurotypical human". Similarly, a person who spends 2 hours/day at the gym to the detriment of other activities is probably more dedicated to fitness than one who doesn't. Is this a remotely controversial claim? I understand that you don't like the consequences of this, namely rewarding people who are not neurotypical, but that doesn't mean the reasoning is false.
    - jbooth 11y ago
      That person who is not neurotypical might be the type of person who works 80 hours a week with the net result of creating more work for everyone else. I've seen plenty of those.
- jbooth 11y ago
  If we assume a generous leave policy for both? The one rushing back after 2 weeks either has a screw loose or is so bad at their job that they can't take their hand off the wheel for 5 minutes. I wouldn't necessarily consider them better at the job even if I were a sociopath who didn't care about families.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Clearly anyone who thinks differently from me is a sociopath, insane, and must be completely incompetent. Diversity of thought is the most harmful force in the universe; everyone must learn to think like me.
    - jbooth 11y ago
      Wasn't implying you're a sociopath -- I think you were recognizing that a corporation is by definition -- I'm just saying that, even by that standard, the person is STILL not necessarily productive. Working compulsively isn't what I'm typically looking for, I want the guy/gal that can get it done with a minimum of effort and follow-on maintenance, and that typically correlates with not being a workaholic in my experience.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I agree that one can work long hours and get nothing done. On the other hand, many folks can work long hours and get a superlinear amount of work done. In knowledge work the general trend seems to be that output(working_hours) is a convex function - i.e., the 60 hour/week guy is significantly more than 150% as valuable as the 40 hour/week guy. One guy who can keep the entire system in his head is worth a lot more than two guys who can keep half the system in their head. http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2014conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=1103 http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2014conference/program/retrieve.ph...
- JoBrad 11y ago
  This is the fallacy that hurts men and women. I care a lot about my job. But I care more about my family. Any culture that translate that as a negative (you care less about your job than someone else who is willing to sacrifice family time for the job) is an unhealthy culture, to put it mildly, and one that forgoes long-term thinking for short-term. Employees who are physically and emotionally healthy (which includes your relationships with your family and friends) are more productive and happier. That is the important part.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Why do you believe a person who cares more about his job than you do is not "emotionally healthy" and therefore less productive? Is it so wildly implausible that people might have different desires and emotional makeup than you?
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Actually was does a disservice to everyone is the idea that you need to "care" for job, or that a business is a "family" A person is paid to do work, if they make a life choice that means they no longer desire to do that work and instead wants to devote their time to other pursuits (like raising children) more power to them. Expecting their co-workers to pick up their slack, expecting their employer to pay for it, and unfairly holding open a job than an unemployed person could fill is simply selfish.
XJOKOLAT 11y ago
If I were her boss, as long as things were reasonable under control, and communication channels were relatively open (say a quick weekly catch-up [considering her seniority]) I'd promote the 12 week'er. What people value most is important. This might be difficult in a tiny company, but this is Yahoo. I don't care if they're in trouble. They have the resources to cope with this like it was child's play. She isn't bigger than Yahoo. No CEO is. Is there no leadership team in place at Yahoo? That is part of their role. To cover when one of them is out of action. Cannot believe the comments I've read here.

rorykoehler 11y ago

In that case not taking it is completely retarded. These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back and the company is already done so why should she bother?

ryanlol 11y ago
>These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back Sounds like life to me.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  You'd think someone who is set for life financially may be able to have time to reflect a little on this aspect of life and act accordingly.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]