3 ms·
>The assumption that women can't possibly belong in management is galling. No mystery why Silicon Valley has the reputation it does. You're putting a lot of wo
by rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
>The assumption that women can't possibly belong in management is galling. No mystery why Silicon Valley has the reputation it does.
You're putting a lot of words in other people's mouths in this thread, and I believe you are equating skepticism and discomfort from the lawsuit's allegations with willful ignorance or even sincere sexism.
If a CEO wishes to fire half the company and hire new people, sure. If the CEO wants to fire half the company (who happen to be men) and replace them with new people (who happen to be women), again, sure.
If a CEO implements a review system designed to illegitimize honest work by a cohort of people and have them demoted and/or fired to minimize severance costs while bringing on or promoting people of a different cohort, then we have a discrimination problem.
Honestly I am a little surprised at the accusations of sexism towards people that are expressing discomfort with what appears to be a primarily sexist act.
- shagie 10y agoOne of the things that has been only lightly touched upon: > ... and have them demoted and/or fired to minimize severance costs ... Tangential to this was the violation of the California and federal WARN act. Yahoo reduced the workforce by 600 employees without declaring the corresponding reduction in force under WARN acts. If a company has 100 (federal) or 75 (California) or more full time employees that have been employed for 6 of the past 12 months and lays off 50 or more employees during a 30 day period, the employer falls into the WARN act. This also isn't something that's new at all - its been brewing for months. http://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2016/yahoo-accused-warn-act-violations/ http://www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net/2016/yahoo-ac... is from March 6th.