Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Led Illegal Purge of Male Employees, Lawsuit Charges (mercurynews.com)
A prominent local media executive fired from Yahoo last year has filed a lawsuit accusing CEO Marissa Mayer of leading a campaign to purge male employees. "Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees," said the suit by Scott Ard filed this week in federal district court in San Jose. From a MercuryNews article: Ard, who worked for Yahoo for 3 and a half years until January 2015, is now editor-in-chief of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. His lawsuit also claims that Yahoo illegally fired large numbers of workers ousted under a performance-rating system imposed by Mayer. That allegation was not tied to gender. Yahoo spokeswoman Carolyn Clark said Yahoo couldn't comment on pending litigation, but she defended the company's performance-review process, which she said was guided by "fairness." "Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."
In the UK civil service they introduced a performance management system with bands:
Must improve
Achieved
Exceeded
A certain percentage of employees must be in each band.
Most civil service middle managers are women. And what do you know... the percentage of men put into "must improve" is almost double that of women. 'Cos it's much easier for women to fuck over men than their gal pals. That's on top of the blatant discrimination against men that goes on in customer facing roles - where all the real opportunities and back office jobs are reserved for gal pals of female managers.
It's a disgrace. It's right there in the stats. Male employees have publicly asked "what's being done to address this" and get fobbed off every time. The Civil Service doesn't BADLY want to answer that question - even though, by the definitions they set up, it is rock solid evidence of discrimination.
It just goes to show. Women show an in-group preference for other women and try to push out men. Men get little or no development unless they grab whatever chances they can and move onto other jobs... fast.
Pretty much agree with your points, although historically white women did get burnt as witches and treated badly in various ways, they've had a relatively less painful time compared to various minorities throughout history.
Truth is the social justice stuff is basically a way for big business to sell more shit to white women. In order to do so they have to mock & belittle men/the poor. This is why men are always dipshits on commercials. This is why tiny teenage girls are super-warriors on film. We've built our global economy around conspicuous consumption geared towards the whims of white women and therefore need to construct a media bubble based around boosting the esteem of the ladies.
Men of course can fuck off. Good-looking rich men are okay as they are aspired to by rich white women. Nerds, fatties, the average-looking, the average-achieving males are basically worthless. Attempts to make them consume like hungry hippos tend to fail so the only thing left is to keep pushing the tat out to the women and hope they keep on buying. Sadly this has resulted in a generation of neurotic females and depressed to shit males, but hey, at least those profits keep coming in.
Making false claims about someone and then claiming to be the victim has become the normal. Victim hood has become a currency and is used extensively as such. People who don't learn about the Hegelian dialectic are doomed to fall prey to the tactic.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Would you count "good parenting" or "being taught hard-work american values" or "not being a single-parent family" as the sort of unfair advantage that you would complain about as being a racist/sexist unequal-outcome phenomenon?
As a guy who worked in customer service for 15 years and one who spent several years doing it at Yahoo I can tell you that those employee evaluations are nothing more than permission slips to fire employees when they are no longer needed instead of laying them off.
They are intentionally designed with metrics that are impossible to meet and the targets are open to interpenetration by managers, which creates an ever moving target that can't be hit.
It is just like in Office Space where the boss asks the waitress "what do you think of a person who just does the bare minimum."
Meeting expectations is never enough. No matter how good you are, when it comes time to reduce staff you will be eliminated and you have no recourse because the numbers they made up say you performed poorly.
But it's not just Yahoo who does this -- rather it's been the practice at every company I've ever worked at.
Or are you suggesting that the 1960s broke up all-american hard-working black nuclear families?
Sadly, pretty much yeah. The Great Society social programs of the 1960's (that perversely rewarded single parent households), combined with the get-tough-on-crime/War on Drugs policies of the 1980's (that began incarcerating black men at an unprecedented rate) pretty much destroyed the traditional black family.
Today, two-thirds of black kids live in single-parent households and 72% of them are born out of wedlock. Conversely, only 1 in 4 white kids live in single-parent households and only 25% of them are born out of wedlock.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.