4 ms·

I've read a lot of outrage about this, particularly around the hypocrisy of having a nursery while forcing others to come into the office with no comparable per

by geebee 14y ago

I've read a lot of outrage about this, particularly around the hypocrisy of having a nursery while forcing others to come into the office with no comparable perk. Problem for me is, I actually don't think there's any moral imperative for Yahoo to make life easier for working parents or people who have some need to telecommute. It may make good business sense - Richard Branson certainly seems to think it does, but that's not a moral issue, it's a strategic one. If good employees who have options no longer wish to work for yahoo, they will leave. I do think Yahoo managed this poorly from a PR perspective. I think it would have been wiser to announce Yahoo's plans to make the campus a perfect place to be, with everything a working parent could want. Play up the daycare, gym, dry cleaning. If they're not doing this, start a plan or two and make a big deal about it. I'm speaking cynically here, this is about managing the press. I'd rather it were sincere, of course, but this is PR we're talking about.

rayiner 14y ago
> Problem for me is, I actually don't think there's any moral imperative for Yahoo to make life easier for working parents or people who have some need to telecommute. It's not any more or less of a moral imperative than having bathrooms. It's a concession to the structure of human society, and is arguably moral in that sense.
- geebee 14y ago
  I'd like to start by saying that I do agree with you that some basic rules about the relationship between employer and employee reach the level of "moral imperative" and should be codified in law. "At will" employment is a big part of this (if you don't like it, you leave), but I certainly do agree that there should be some legally enforced rules around this. So the only real disagreement we have is where to draw the line. Do you really put the right to telecommute on the same moral level as having a place to pee or time off to go to the bathroom?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I don't disagree with anything you've said, just pointing out that it's an arguable point. I think child care is more important than corporate America perceives it to be. It is the thing perpetuating the pay disparity between men and women in white collar jobs.

by geebee 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

> Problem for me is, I actually don't think there's any moral imperative for Yahoo to make life easier for working parents or people who have some need to telecommute. It's not any more or less of a moral imperative than having bathrooms. It's a concession to the structure of human society, and is arguably moral in that sense.

geebee 14y ago
I'd like to start by saying that I do agree with you that some basic rules about the relationship between employer and employee reach the level of "moral imperative" and should be codified in law. "At will" employment is a big part of this (if you don't like it, you leave), but I certainly do agree that there should be some legally enforced rules around this. So the only real disagreement we have is where to draw the line. Do you really put the right to telecommute on the same moral level as having a place to pee or time off to go to the bathroom?
- rayiner 14y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said, just pointing out that it's an arguable point. I think child care is more important than corporate America perceives it to be. It is the thing perpetuating the pay disparity between men and women in white collar jobs.