3 ms·

Err, why not let everyone appeal their rating? (I understand, percentage wise, due to bias or whatever, it's likely a higher percent of things would be overtur

Err, why not let everyone appeal their rating? (I understand, percentage wise, due to bias or whatever, it's likely a higher percent of things would be overturned for women, but it's not like the error rate for non-women was 0 anyway, so why not just make a process that nobody is going to complain about?)

shawn-furyan 11y ago
In my reading, the description of the process running in this manner is an allegation, not an established fact. So it's not really clear that Yahoo has anything to answer for on this point.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Sure, i understand. I meant my parent is complaining that clearly the women can appeal because of gender bias issues affecting them more heavily than men, as if that magically would make it okay. Instead, the thing that seems "okay" on that point would be "let the men appeal too" (IE my parent is wrong no matter what!)
codeonfire 11y ago
What would be the result of that? You appeal and find, oh management really did make a mistake and is incompetent of it's primary purpose of evaluating employee performance correctly. AND, management did in fact discriminate and now has proven it for any and all future and current lawsuits. There is literally no reason for management to allow ratings appeals.
- knughit 11y ago
  That's like saying there is no reason for a single party government to investigate claims of corruption. Management is not a monolith.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Natural Justice is one - in the UK not having a proper appeal procedure and applying it is normally an automatic "unfair dismissal" And if your a big company and take the piss in court you get the book thrown at you by the Triibuneral see Imarsat a few years ago.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "What would be the result of that? " (Let's ignore the obvious point - not everyone is malicious, some companies really do want to try to make sure people get correct ratings and get rid of discrimination, and aren't worried about the cost of lawsuits. These companies exist, i've worked at them) Again, i think you missed the point (I guess i'll be more explicit when it's a touchy subject like this). If you read the allegation, women were allowed to appeal, men were not. Someone tried to say that this was okay, because gender bias affects women more. But it's not okay. It makes no sense. Either you believe some people are getting terminated wrongly, in which case both women and men should be able to appeal, or you don't, in which case nobody should get to appeal :)

shawn-furyan 11y ago

In my reading, the description of the process running in this manner is an allegation, not an established fact. So it's not really clear that Yahoo has anything to answer for on this point.

DannyBee 11y ago
Sure, i understand. I meant my parent is complaining that clearly the women can appeal because of gender bias issues affecting them more heavily than men, as if that magically would make it okay. Instead, the thing that seems "okay" on that point would be "let the men appeal too" (IE my parent is wrong no matter what!)

codeonfire 11y ago

What would be the result of that? You appeal and find, oh management really did make a mistake and is incompetent of it's primary purpose of evaluating employee performance correctly. AND, management did in fact discriminate and now has proven it for any and all future and current lawsuits. There is literally no reason for management to allow ratings appeals.

knughit 11y ago
That's like saying there is no reason for a single party government to investigate claims of corruption. Management is not a monolith.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Natural Justice is one - in the UK not having a proper appeal procedure and applying it is normally an automatic "unfair dismissal" And if your a big company and take the piss in court you get the book thrown at you by the Triibuneral see Imarsat a few years ago.
DannyBee 11y ago
"What would be the result of that? " (Let's ignore the obvious point - not everyone is malicious, some companies really do want to try to make sure people get correct ratings and get rid of discrimination, and aren't worried about the cost of lawsuits. These companies exist, i've worked at them) Again, i think you missed the point (I guess i'll be more explicit when it's a touchy subject like this). If you read the allegation, women were allowed to appeal, men were not. Someone tried to say that this was okay, because gender bias affects women more. But it's not okay. It makes no sense. Either you believe some people are getting terminated wrongly, in which case both women and men should be able to appeal, or you don't, in which case nobody should get to appeal :)