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."
Cue the feminists to start pointing out that it's impossible to be sexist against white males because we all site at the top of the power hierarchy. Cue the feminists to also call this guy a whiner and tell him to suck it up.
Because if they were fair they would have lead to her own termination.
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.
She was probably just trying to curtail cost by firing the male employees.
Wasn't this reported in The Onion?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
mayer never learned that civilization and all good things are results of males trying to impress women.
-
anyway,
companies should stick to making money for investors through legal means.
companies should not be engaged in politics and social justice activism and engineering(unless that part of their business, as with some pr or lobbying firms ).
if investors and employees want to engage in any of that, do it privately with own money.
but they want to do "good"(usually for their own self interested motivations) with other peoples' money.
And start a new company that combines their core strengths of incompetency, fraud, and perpetual social injustice. They can name the company "Loss Carry Forward, Inc."
I need you westerners to explain something about this feminism fart of yours.
Why is it, and everything along with it, lead by white women?
White women are unarguably the most privileged class on this planet.
- Most prefer white women for dating as dating app surveys showcase.
- Most judicial systems are biased towards white women like no other race or gender on this planet.
- They are much more likely to get away with anything and everything than any other class.
- They have the biggest proportion of material wealth given to them for free/without work/without expended effort on this planet unlike any other class. Through history, most luxury resources, animal hides, bling, leathers, every-fucking-thing exploited from colonization, ended up in the rooms and on the bodies of white women.
- Is there a discussion being had among a diverse group of people? White women always get the lead.
- For some reason, white women are the "representative leadership" for minority groups that have nothing to do with them. Case in point the LGBT for some reason, albeit the LGBT is questioning their involvement.
- White women were never prosecuted for their gender alone, or their skin alone. They were never forced to wear veils, they were never forced to mutilate their clits, they were never hanged and burned for being women like homosexuals and blacks were for their sexuality and skin color respectively. The closest thing they ever got was witch burning, though that has nothing to do with gender but more individual questionable practices.
What the fuck is the point of this social justice shit if justice is being defined by the most unjust privileged class in the world - white women?
The title says it was a "male purge" but also says "That allegation was not tied to gender." Reading the article it says women were less than 20% of the chief editors and within 18 months it was 80%. The main plaintiff does not actually single out Mayer but another editor Megan Liberman. Also the summary fails to mention that this lawsuit was about Yahoo News not Yahoo overall.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Of course, at some point, people simply stop caring. According to progressives and Democrats, I'm a homophobic, racist misogynist, and you know what? I've learned to live with it. Just as I had to learn to live with being a gay man in a homophobic society, and an immigrant in the US.
Sexist? The poster was clearly commenting about the Jews.
And it worked out really nice for Yahoo! Let woman run the all world as they did in Yahoo and we'll have a new age of enlightenment for sure.
Yahoo is so fooked up on sooo many levels, anything is now believable about it, especially ever since Jerry Yang handed over pro-democracy activists to the Chinese government to be disappeared --- effing jackhole, burn in Hell forever!!!! This reminds me of that story in the business section of USA Today back around 2002 or thereabouts, when all the males in an IT department of a corporation were being replaced by foreign visa workers --- the women workers were all quiet about it, until they began replacing them with foreign visa workers, then they started screaming, but the judge ruled against them for whatever treasonous and obscene reason. Since 1999, America has been a net importer of tech services, and around half or more of new IT hires today are foreign visa workers. What's that Martin Feldstein? What's that Obama? You say there's full employment today? Perhaps of foreigners in America, there is, douchetards . . . .
Yup, and Amerika cannot possibly be a Third World Country, which it most certainly is today!
Men are more natural leaders than women, though. It makes sense that men would be over-represented in the pool of leadership positions...a greater percentage of men seek such positions than women, and more men are likely to be naturals at leadership than women.
Please observe...this comment is not praise or criticism of men or women. Each has their natural strengths and weaknesses, with exceptions here and there on any side.
Having rode the "estrogen units are now in charge" merry-go-round twice
When you see a woman put in charge of a organization like Yahoo, non-profit organization, or other like entity, if you are a testosterone based unit just leave. Soon as you see it, check out as fast as possible. Do not pass go, screw the $200 for staying, go straight to resume-land.
Have watched too many times where the upper ranks are "suddenly" being filled with females, many of whom are vastly less qualified than male counterpart. Decisions based solely upon the lead estrogen unit desire to create a 100% women lead organization. As a testosterone unit you have zero chance when that thought comes out.
Think you are going to stay and just be a good worker bee? Yeaahh...don't. Tell co-worker they are wrong? Cue the sexual harassment HR talk. Disagree with direction and guidance of a project ? Stand by for the whispers between estrogen units of "OMG...he is such a creeper." Speak your mind in disagreement with a policy, email, project meeting? Prepare for the to-the-door-security-escort because "I don't feel safe around him" charade.
And it will fly. Watch a bunch of teenager girls talk about an "unpopular" guy and see how that flows for you. Now, move that to the work-place where they affect your career, because the bitchiness doesn't go away. Especially among the "entitled" ones.
It just isn't worth it.
There is nothing unique about this story. From reading the article, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times over in other companies.
Review systems are inherently flawed at large companies. That's how people are able to hang out for years, just hiding in the woodwork. As long as you keep your head down, you can skate by for your whole career. It can take years to get someone fired, as long as they don't do anything terribly wrong. I once came into manage a team and inherited someone that never should have been hired, but there they were 5 years later and had always gotten "satisfactory" performance reviews. Usually it's because weak managers don't want to deal with problem employees. And you can't fire someone unless they have been on a performance plan. So technically they had 5 years with no problems. Nobody wanted to work with this person, they weren't given anything important to do, etc. It took over a year to get them out of there. (they refused to step up and improve). Why so long? Well, you have to wait until the annual review cycle to give someone a review. I joined in Oct, and the reviews were pretty much set for the year and I was just learning the team. So that person couldn't get a "not meeting expectations" until the NEXT year's review. Then you have to put them on a performance plan, and document everything and prove that they weren't meeting expectations. Then and only then are you allowed to fire them. You can try to encourage them to leave, but you can't fire them. If they are lucky, there are re-orgs (as there always are in big companies) and they get a new manager somewhere during this process, and the fun starts again.
The article talks about upper management changing ratings? Yeah, happens all the time for various reasons. It could have been that they had to fit people into the pre-defined bell curves. (e.g. 10% bad ratings, 80% ok or good, 10% great) As you roll up the ratings for a large organization, management has to do horse-trading and ranking of people. Top, bottom, and middle performers are safe - it's the ones on the edge of great and bad that usually get their rating changed. THEN if you throw in execs with biases, it adds layers of fun to all the built-in BS.
I have seen men and women get promoted for inexplicable reasons, and I have also seen people fired for no good reason (even despite the process I described above). And then there are the people that are just gone one day with no explanation. The corporate world sucks, and while I only know about this story what I read in the article, nothing in there sounds surprising. Even if it were true that she was doing a male purge, so what? Even in the male dominated IT world, I have seen women get fired because of the boy's club mentality. It's big business, don't try to make any sense of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
These are allegations. Of course the guy alleging them will make them as sensational as possible.
Funny how so many guys get up in arms about "SJWs" when this guy seems to be a male version of the dreaded SJW.
You're a gay Trump supporter?
Why wouldn't he be? Whether or not Trump personally would enter into a gay marriage, he was in public talking plainly about how happy he was for (his casual acquaintance) Elton John to have married his long-time partner, and that people should be cool with it. At the same time, Hillary Clinton was voicing her support for her husband's signing of a law to prevent such things, and Barack Obama was sticking with his "marriage should be between one man and one woman" position. Trump has created more jobs jumped-on by gay people (in the entertainment, pagent, and hospitality businesses) that Hillary Clinton ever could or would. Why shouldn't a gay person support him? Are gay people supposed to like illegal immigration, higher taxes, more regulation, feckless foreign policy, and a nanny state that makes class and racial tensions WORSE instead of better? Please explain.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually most of the gays I know are Trump supporters in general. Since they generally know where the best food is, where the best bars are, and always seem to be having fun and have way more sex than most people do, one must wonder if they have some insight into this choice as well.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The problem is that when I look in a dictionary, it says that racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race, and that sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender. And that's how lots of people use those words. The Bustle article you linked to even says, "Sure, men might experience discrimination, bullying or even disparagement of their gender," which is literally sexism.
But you, and others like you, have added "institutional or systemic" to the definitions. And then you tell other people that they're wrong if they use those words without that implicit addition.
What I call racism you call prejudice based on race (which is the dictionary definition of racism). And what you call racism I call systemic racism. I've met plenty of people who will readily acknowledge that systemic racism and sexism exist and are important problems. They'll also readily acknowledge that white men in America cannot be victims of systemic sexism and racism (although the patriarchal system is detrimental to men in various ways, but that's another discussion). They just use slightly different language than you do.
Trying to impose a new definition on words that are thoroughly entrenched in our language makes you come across as an asshat and makes people stop listening. Maybe this whole conversation would go better if you didn't tell an enormous swath of the country that their consensus definitions are wrong and just resigned yourself to putting the word "systemic" in front.
Given that 50 percent of the population is female, yet most jobs and management positions are held by males - a correction is in order.
Given that many females still become mothers, a position that entails a huge amount of work no matter how much paid or unpaid help is available... and given that many females still like to run their own households with all the work that entails... and given how many women are emotionally disinclined to give orders and boss other people around... good luck with that.
I am all for female managers, and have seen some very good ones. I have also seen some real Medusas, but nothing worse than many male managers. It's just a question of practicality and feasibility.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
That is self-contradictory. If discrimination against an individual male can be justified because of the average traits of males as a whole can legitimately warrant that discrimination, then discrimination against any individual can be justified because of the average traits of the larger group he/she belongs to.
The whole point of anti-stereotype and anti-discrimination statutes is to prohibit using average traits of the group an individual belongs to as justification for sanctions against that individual. The assumption being that while the stereotype may be true of the group on average, it may not be true of a particular individual who belongs to that group, and it is wrong to pre-assume that individual exhibits those traits and thus must be sanctioned for it.
In other words, you cannot pick and choose which groups get protection from discrimination and stereotyping. Either all are protected, or none are. Either applying the average traits of a group to all individual members of that group is OK, or it is wrong.
Its because a muslim walked into a gay night club and killed lots of homosexuals, and the response from the left was to push their gun control agenda while saying "dont call them radical extremists."
Gay people have realized that within the SJW pyramid, they are at the bottom getting crushed.
"His name was James Damore."
So you're saying that the "alt-right" you find so disturbing IS the Republican party, but the hardcore lefties who literally attack Trump supporters in the street, say they hate him as they burn down parts of their own cities, screech that the First Amendment's protections shouldn't apply to non-liberals, and who think that (for example) Julian Assange should be shot for endangering Hillary Clinton's campaign ... those are all people who ARE the Democrat party, right? People who align with Hillary Clinton but who actually call for police to be killed and for the tearing down of any privately owned businesses ... that's what Democrats stand for, and thus why you should vote for Clinton, right? Because you like those ideas?
Or is there a chance that you're being a totally disingenuous hypocrite in using one fraction of one group to define the whole, but carefully avoiding that exact same standard when it comes to the person you like?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"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."
Mayer still has a job, therefore something here isn't true.
Do you have ESP?
Yes, but what were the final vote totals?
I get it that Trump didn't have 16 other candidates all the way through the race, but he did have more than 1 almost all the way, and just 3 roughly-equal candidates in a FPTP election will necessarily result in a "split vote".
In this case, near the end it was split between Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich.
Not only that, but all the early elections count too; it's not like they go back to IA and NH and let people re-vote instead of wasting their vote on someone like Paul or Huckabee who dropped out so early. In a truly democratic contest, the only thing that would really matter is how many *total* votes did Trump (the winner) get, compared to the other candidates, regardless of state? On the Democratic side, unfortunately, Hillary was the clear winner here with millions more votes than Bernie, so even if you just took all the votes for each and threw them in two piles and tossed out the superdelegates (and delegates too), Hillary would still win. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with Trump, as he didn't win a majority of votes (just a plurality).
Personally, I don't think anyone should ever be able to win an election with a plurality. If you can't get a majority of the voters to give you a vote, you don't deserve the office, and it's not democratic. If the election system prevents this, then the election system needs to be changed. FPTP is a horrible and antiquated and downright stupid voting system that should have been banned in the days of Ancient Greece. With modern mathematics, we can do much better.
The question you should be putting is why does the OP think that greater competence is tied to the feminine gender.
I completely disagree about plurality. No, 45% or 35% is not enough. Only with a majority does a leader have a legitimate claim to a seat. A voting system other than FPTP can do this with multiple candidates, which is why FPTP needs to be banned.
If the election were held again with Cruz, Trump, and Kasich, and an approval or ranked voting system used, I think Kasich would probably be the winner. Trump and Cruz are too polarizing. In a democratic system, the leaders should reflect the overall will of the people, and you don't get that with polarizing candidates who only a minority vote for. Someone more moderate like Kasich might not be anyone's first choice, but if he's the most agreeable to a majority, then he's the one who should win.
Your comments seem to indicate that you're someone who simply cannot conceive of a voting system other than FPTP.
Yup. Just another angry lib. Just yesterday I was another angry feminist-hating conservative, too!
You people are fucking idiots.