4 ms·

She got six weeks instead of eight. How dare they. She could've applied for more days based on her psychological state. Also how dare they not pay her commissi

She got six weeks instead of eight. How dare they. She could've applied for more days based on her psychological state. Also how dare they not pay her commissions earned by her team while she was away. I think the tone is all wrong here. Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". Just my $0.02 as a woman.

kick 7y ago
I think the tone is all wrong here. Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". In most circumstances I agree with this viewpoint, but what happened in this case is something that less-policed societies would see business owners killed for. The "Here's why you shouldn't do it" is both morally and economically obvious, and any corporation or C-level who can't see that is completely without morals and common sense, along with basic human emotion, seemingly. "How dare you be so inhumane to your employees that most European countries would see you fined or imprisoned, and that every religion would see you in the worst possible afterlife!" The press you'd receive alone is reason enough, and anyone with any intelligence whatsoever would see that this would be more broadly controversial than more or less any other possible evil action.
salawat 7y ago
Don't much care your gender, but I think that viewpoint is a bit deranged, with all due respect. There are things you don't do, whether it makes fiscal sense or not. You think very carefully about accepting it as a possibility, because doing so drops the standard for everyone else around you. If for some reason you do, you especially don't do it unilaterally without getting buy-in from the other party out of respect. It's like people have completely lost any sense of civility around actually finding out what people are okay with. I vehemently disagree with the economic argument being given primacy over some level of social decency and civil decorum. It's one of those "honor" things. We do it not because it's the easiest, but because it's what makes us human. Shouldering some extra burden when someone else is suffering from a much greater one foisted through no fault of their own is just how it should work. Of course no one in business likes that type of sentiment because it doesn't fit on a balance sheet.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > Shouldering some extra burden when someone else is suffering from a much greater one foisted through no fault of their own is just how it should work. If I am voluntarily bearing the burden I would like bear it for someone who is suffering the most in the world. Bearing it for someone who happened to apply for job at the same company doesn't make any sense. If you have food on your plate and live in a first world country on a 6 week paid bereavment leave then you aren't even in the vicinity of suffering, like not even close. Only framing I can think of is that I would like to have privileges applied to me if same thing happens to me. This is much more selfish and sensible way to look at it.
monocasa 7y ago
If her commisions are a large component of her compensation, why shouldn't she get that while maternity leave?
skrebbel 7y ago
> Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women. I've heard this repeated a lot but I don't get it (I'm an employer). I mean I can't think of many things that would hurt team morale and hiring reputation more than treating a young female employee like shit just because she got pregnant (let alone went through something as horrific as losing a child). What kind of short-sighted psychopath boss would look at this any other way? I mean, even when looking at it with dry unemotional money glasses, high employee turn-over is a much more costly than the occasional paid pregnancy leave. I just don't get it. But yeah I guess that's what your point is :-) it just makes no sense to discriminate against any of this stuff.
- xenihn 7y ago
  >I mean I can't think of many things that would hurt team morale and hiring reputation more than treating a young female employee like shit just because she got pregnant Anecdote time based on my experience in SV and tech, and second-hand anecdotes from friends in NYC finance: Curiousgal's viewpoint isn't uncommon. The harshest judgment in these situations comes from other women. Men are generally more sympathetic, and if they're not, they're too scared to say anything. Women in competitive & high-paying fields like tech and finance can be brutal, especially if they feel like holding off on having children was a sacrifice that they had to make in order to establish themselves in their career. I would not be surprised if this decision came all the way down from a female manager, with men lower on the chain voicing opposition and being overruled.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > I would not be surprised if this decision came all the way down from a female manager, with men lower on the chain voicing opposition and being overruled. That's very speculative and likely not true.
    - marcoseliziario 7y ago
      Unfortunately, I've seen this too many times to believe it is "likely not true".
lazyasciiart 7y ago
Economically it can be a good choice to kill someone. We still respond with "how dare you".
jancsika 7y ago
> Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". Not sure what century you're living in but here in the 21st the "how dare you" branch is the hair-trigger one. So simple logic dictates to short circuit on "how dare you" and only test "here's why" in the unlikely chance that the first test fails. Please give me the economic argument for putting the cold branch test in the hot path.
cerved 7y ago
Pre-Sales pretty much always get team comission and the kind of product Informatica sell have sales cycles longer than 1Q

kick 7y ago

I think the tone is all wrong here. Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". In most circumstances I agree with this viewpoint, but what happened in this case is something that less-policed societies would see business owners killed for. The "Here's why you shouldn't do it" is both morally and economically obvious, and any corporation or C-level who can't see that is completely without morals and common sense, along with basic human emotion, seemingly. "How dare you be so inhumane to your employees that most European countries would see you fined or imprisoned, and that every religion would see you in the worst possible afterlife!" The press you'd receive alone is reason enough, and anyone with any intelligence whatsoever would see that this would be more broadly controversial than more or less any other possible evil action.

salawat 7y ago

Don't much care your gender, but I think that viewpoint is a bit deranged, with all due respect. There are things you don't do, whether it makes fiscal sense or not. You think very carefully about accepting it as a possibility, because doing so drops the standard for everyone else around you. If for some reason you do, you especially don't do it unilaterally without getting buy-in from the other party out of respect. It's like people have completely lost any sense of civility around actually finding out what people are okay with. I vehemently disagree with the economic argument being given primacy over some level of social decency and civil decorum. It's one of those "honor" things. We do it not because it's the easiest, but because it's what makes us human. Shouldering some extra burden when someone else is suffering from a much greater one foisted through no fault of their own is just how it should work. Of course no one in business likes that type of sentiment because it doesn't fit on a balance sheet.

dominotw 7y ago
> Shouldering some extra burden when someone else is suffering from a much greater one foisted through no fault of their own is just how it should work. If I am voluntarily bearing the burden I would like bear it for someone who is suffering the most in the world. Bearing it for someone who happened to apply for job at the same company doesn't make any sense. If you have food on your plate and live in a first world country on a 6 week paid bereavment leave then you aren't even in the vicinity of suffering, like not even close. Only framing I can think of is that I would like to have privileges applied to me if same thing happens to me. This is much more selfish and sensible way to look at it.

monocasa 7y ago

If her commisions are a large component of her compensation, why shouldn't she get that while maternity leave?

skrebbel 7y ago

> Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women. I've heard this repeated a lot but I don't get it (I'm an employer). I mean I can't think of many things that would hurt team morale and hiring reputation more than treating a young female employee like shit just because she got pregnant (let alone went through something as horrific as losing a child). What kind of short-sighted psychopath boss would look at this any other way? I mean, even when looking at it with dry unemotional money glasses, high employee turn-over is a much more costly than the occasional paid pregnancy leave. I just don't get it. But yeah I guess that's what your point is :-) it just makes no sense to discriminate against any of this stuff.

xenihn 7y ago
>I mean I can't think of many things that would hurt team morale and hiring reputation more than treating a young female employee like shit just because she got pregnant Anecdote time based on my experience in SV and tech, and second-hand anecdotes from friends in NYC finance: Curiousgal's viewpoint isn't uncommon. The harshest judgment in these situations comes from other women. Men are generally more sympathetic, and if they're not, they're too scared to say anything. Women in competitive & high-paying fields like tech and finance can be brutal, especially if they feel like holding off on having children was a sacrifice that they had to make in order to establish themselves in their career. I would not be surprised if this decision came all the way down from a female manager, with men lower on the chain voicing opposition and being overruled.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > I would not be surprised if this decision came all the way down from a female manager, with men lower on the chain voicing opposition and being overruled. That's very speculative and likely not true.
  - marcoseliziario 7y ago
    Unfortunately, I've seen this too many times to believe it is "likely not true".

lazyasciiart 7y ago

Economically it can be a good choice to kill someone. We still respond with "how dare you".

jancsika 7y ago

> Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". Not sure what century you're living in but here in the 21st the "how dare you" branch is the hair-trigger one. So simple logic dictates to short circuit on "how dare you" and only test "here's why" in the unlikely chance that the first test fails. Please give me the economic argument for putting the cold branch test in the hot path.

cerved 7y ago

Pre-Sales pretty much always get team comission and the kind of product Informatica sell have sales cycles longer than 1Q