5 ms·

Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030 https://news.ycombi

Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030

acdha 11y ago
There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.
  - acdha 11y ago
    Or, as many others have pointed out, that her experience with her immediate management and group can be true without being representative of the entire company. Note that, unlike the unverifiable hecklers, deelowe did not claim that her experience was invalid or that the numbers in the spreadsheet were inaccurate but instead discussed the question of sampling bias or simply the sample size being small enough to be skewed by other known factors.
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      As I pointed out in my comment, I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism. In particular the accusations of racism regarding her peer bonuses, telling the "known racist" to "fuck off", etc. That seems to be completely unsubstantiated/refuted. It's fair enough being upset about your peer bonuses being rejected. What is not okay is to just to some invalid conclusion about racism and then slander your company in public.

Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030

acdha 11y ago

There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.

cpncrunch 11y ago
Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.
- acdha 11y ago
  Or, as many others have pointed out, that her experience with her immediate management and group can be true without being representative of the entire company. Note that, unlike the unverifiable hecklers, deelowe did not claim that her experience was invalid or that the numbers in the spreadsheet were inaccurate but instead discussed the question of sampling bias or simply the sample size being small enough to be skewed by other known factors.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    As I pointed out in my comment, I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism. In particular the accusations of racism regarding her peer bonuses, telling the "known racist" to "fuck off", etc. That seems to be completely unsubstantiated/refuted. It's fair enough being upset about your peer bonuses being rejected. What is not okay is to just to some invalid conclusion about racism and then slander your company in public.