Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Spotify has been accused of turning a blind eye to sexism in its workplace. Former sales executive Hong Perez has sued the streaming service over allegations that male execs have perpetuated systemic gender discrimination. The global head of sales reportedly provided higher compensation (including equity) to men, while multiple male executives received little punishment (and in one case, a promotion) despite sexual harassment claims.
On top of this, Perez described an overall hostile work culture, particularly from US sales head (and her boss) Brian Berner. He allegedly chose only men for drug-addled "boys' trips" to the Sundance Film Festival in 2016 and 2017, excluding women who were better-qualified for the ostensibly work-oriented visits. He also purportedly scapegoated Perez after getting in trouble over a buyer deal and taking free Madison Square Garden tickets, getting her fired for conduct violations that were really his.
Pereze added that she'd raised concerns over the lack of anti-harassment action with Spotify's human resources team before she left.
In a statement, Spotify claimed it doesn't tolerate discrimination "at any level" but simultaneously insisted Perez's lawsuit was "without merit."
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/19/spotify-sued-over-gender-discrimination/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 24 2018, @12:28PM (19 children)
Sounds like she'd been bitching for a couple years by the time she got fired. I wonder if that had anything to do with it. I mean if your claims are legit and would be seen as harassment or discrimination by most Americans and could be demonstrated as factual, fine. If everyone hates you because your attitude sucks though, that's an entirely different matter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @12:57PM (12 children)
So why are you still here?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @01:02PM (2 children)
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 24 2018, @02:25PM (1 child)
This freaking flamethrower doesn't have enough range and he won't stand still. Drop a porn magazine or something in front of him, will you? I'm beginning to think maybe I should just switch to a small incendiary weapon instead...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @04:26PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQE66WA2s-A [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 24 2018, @04:36PM (7 children)
+1 Funny for you.
Unless you were serious, in which case it's my sad duty to inform you that nobody on SN staff is going to get the boot for anything they say in a non-staff capacity, regardless of the venue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @06:15PM (6 children)
You didn't reply to the "get fired" post. Becoming more "stable" every day!
BTW, jmorris and an AC are shitting up a racist dog whistle storm in the Africa drone story, now might be a good time to call them out. The rest of us do it all the time, but please, show us how you're not racist and respond to their stupidity. If you can't muster up the courage then remember that old quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 24 2018, @06:29PM (2 children)
I'll leave that to you. Been physically working my ass off all morning and it's nap time. Besides, it's a tautology that anyone who uses the phrase "dog whistle" seriously is a conspiracy theorist, so they automatically go into my tinfoil hat file.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @08:53PM (1 child)
Yeeep, about what I expected from you.
You'll spend lots of time on pointless flame wars but when it comes to being a responsible human you fuck right off with the excuses. This attitude right here is why "you people" get called racist all the time and have zero clue as to why. Tacit approval is barely better than being the douche yourself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:40AM
Darlin, I am not responsible for the actions of others unless they break one of the very few site rules. That would be themselves who are. And after shifting 400lb pews back and forth so I could pull up glued down carpet all morning, I was just too tired give a fuck if someone wanted to say something stupid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 24 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)
I glanced at some of the posts in question. Would this happen to be your concept of "calling out" [soylentnews.org]?
All I can say is that was remarkably ineffective as a "calling out" for whoever was doing it. I suppose it helps that if you're going to call out dumb ideas, you at least try to be smarter than the person you're calling out.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @08:55PM
Whataboutism? Useless distractions! Ivory Tower racists.
#SAD #failingKhallowtimes
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @10:28PM
So challenge not accepted?
User remains lvl 6 Jack Donkey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @10:13PM
Because it is fun to piss you off?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @02:50PM (5 children)
This would be evidence for, not against, her claims. She had a problem, she went to her manager or HR about it in an attempt to work it out without lawyers involved (probably following company policy by doing so), and after a couple of years of the company not doing anything substantial about it they decide to fire her.
Just because they're demonstrable claims to most Americans doesn't mean they're demonstrable claims to management, who has a substantial financial interest in deciding those claims aren't factual. If she has any brains at all, she took with her documents demonstrating the events described above that would back up her discrimination claims, and if not then her lawyer is likely to find them via the discovery process.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 24 2018, @04:39PM (4 children)
No, evidence for her claims would be evidence for her claims. That she made them is not evidence. That seems to be a common progressive misconception lately.
I never said they were or weren't. I hold no opinion on the validity of her claims. I simply offered another hypothesis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @07:31PM (3 children)
If she's going to win her suit, part of what she'll need to demonstrate is that the company was aware of the problem and chose to either do nothing about it or punish the people complaining about the problem. So yes, the fact that she made the complaints internally and gave the company a chance to respond, and their response ultimately was to fire her, is evidence.
You simply suggested that you don't believe a word she says. Which means you do have an opinion on the validity of her claims.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday September 24 2018, @09:05PM (1 child)
No, I think that he might mean, "show me the evidence", or even, "innocent until proven guilty".
This line from the summary tipped me off that there may be no merit what so ever to these claims:
We don't punish people for having sexual harassment claims against them. At least, we shouldn't be. They are punished IF they are found guilty of harassment, after the evidence has been presented, and they have had their opportunity to confront their accusers in a court of law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @07:38AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:47AM
And that would be evidence of her actions not of anyone else's. Accusation is not evidence of a crime, you kiddy porn producer.
No, I did not. I neither believe nor disbelieve her. You read that in there all by yourself. Unlike myself, you appear to have already made up your mind and it is very obviously coloring your perceptions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @01:27PM (1 child)
It's just internal affaires at a shitty company that does not pay artists.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 24 2018, @08:19PM
Spotify may well be a shitty company, I wouldn't know as I don't work there.
They don't pay the artists because it's not their job. They pay something like 90% of their revenue to the music industry cartel who then fail to pay the artists.
That's the way the system is set up, and it runs exactly the way it is supposed to.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @01:36PM (20 children)
So in Japan and Russia they have this odd custom where when the shift is done everyone goes out to drink. Sometimes it happens over the weekend and sometimes it doesn't. But it happens and it's not something you can say no to even if you have kids waiting at home. It's explicitly seen as putting your career ahead of your family and it gets you (rightfully) promoted as a person who has the company interests as his priorities.
Believe it or not, this is actually the norm in the west. A manager or co-worker will tell you "Some of the guys are going to X's for drinks later..." and that's when you're required to drop everything and follow. Some places are stricter than others. But say no two or three times and you end up not getting invited to corporate retreats and getting passed over for promotions for not being a team player.
It's not because you're not a guy and they're discriminating you. It's because you're not a team player and aren't putting the company's interests ahead of your family life.
Next time do what most career oriented men do: Get a pretty but dumb stay-at-home husband to take care of the kids and get ready to miss out on most of their birthdays and such like every other professional business person. Men don't really have it all. What made you think it's going to be any different for women?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @02:59PM (10 children)
Now imagine a different scenario: Your boss never invited you out for drinks because of something you have zero control over (e.g. race, gender, age, or sexual orientation). If you hear about it through the grapevine and show up anyways, your boss and coworkers give you the cold shoulder until you stop bothering. They still leave you out of the corporate retreats and pass you over for promotions because you aren't seen as a team player.
Do you still think this system is OK?
Or here's another variation: Your boss never socializes with you because you don't go to the church he and the rest of upper management all attend. He leaves you out of the corporate retreats and passes you over for promotions because (ostensibly) you aren't seen as a team player.
While this is something you could change, do you still think this system is OK?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @04:08PM (3 children)
Yes I'm fine with it. It's their company and they get to do what they want with it. If they have a monopoly I'll boycott them and vote to the guy who'd drop their contract. But otherwise, let the market punish them for missing out on capable workforce by having their competitors pick us up. IBM only hired white Americans in black and white suites for a few decades until one day they woke up to find themselves losing whole markets to long haired hippies of all colors and creeds that have little qualms about bringing over H1Bs for whatever they were working on.
Discrimination laws are superfluous in competitive markets. What stops Spotify's competitors from hiring all the people Spotify rejected on discrimination grounds and end up with a superior workforce, service and products? They're not a monopoly. They're not infrastructure. They don't work with government...
These laws are necessary for other markets. But Silicon Valley? If you can get the job done they'll hire you or be drive out by the competition. No discrimination laws required.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 24 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
You make a presumption here, which is no more and no less stupid than IBM's presumption that white Americans in black and white suits are the superior work force.
I would prefer to work for the company that relies on a meritocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy [wikipedia.org] Being white, or non-white, isn't even a consideration in such a setup.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @08:17PM
There's nothing to presume when over half the adv.algo elective class are Asians. Sure, there some white male geeks still in CS hanging around. But at what ratio to the extremely talented minorities or the unbelievably hard working Asians? Gender especially is the case that the few women in the field are all there for the love of the field and their unusual talent in math and coding. So, assuming those discriminated from entering it based on whatnot will do extremely well in other companies is a VERY safe bet.
No you wouldn't. You'd never get promoted in a meritocracy since being good at programming means you're not as good at management. And that's assuming you'd even get a job. If the best are running things, the first thing they'll do is dispose of the inefficient shit happening all around us. And that's almost all the money going into the consumer market. In fact, there won't be too many consumers left. You'll have a dozen programmers doing software and hardware. And everyone else unemployed by automation.
Meritocracy is just trickle-down economy where you replace money with merit. It doesn't work without perpetual and exponential growth. And with computing even that's not enough.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @07:54PM
Who exactly are you referring to? Apple, HP, Compaq, Microsoft, and Sun during the time period in question were mostly led by stuffy white guys in black-and-white suits, and definitely not long-haired hippies. Neither are Bob Young or Marc Ewing of Red Hat. Heck, Linus never was a long-haired hippie either.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @04:43PM
You're really stretching there, Thexalon. It's none of those things, at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHaOHKFzHx8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday September 24 2018, @06:16PM
Relative to reasonable alternatives, possibly.
Which is to say no, I don't like it a bit, but I would like to see it solved without resort to violence. I shun people like that by instinct, and even moreso when I see a chance to do some good by it.
But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that the government 'solutions' are viable, or beneficial in any way.
Also, just to be clear, I say this as someone who has virtually always been the outsider the one getting the raw end of this kind of 'system.' I hate meetings, and the last thing I am likely to do is go to another unpaid meeting after work. Office Christmas Parties? Secret Santa? Spare me, please. I'll be leaving at my regular time and back at my regular time and y'all have fun, please don't worry about me.
Few employers appreciate that attitude.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday September 24 2018, @09:10PM (3 children)
IF you had any value or skills above and beyond yes-man and/or beer drinking buddy you wouldn't have to play the demeaning game of "blowing your boss" for a promotion. It would be self-evident. They would need you in that position.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @09:42PM (2 children)
You are making 2 potentially incorrect assumptions about the people above you in the management chain with your statement:
1. You are assuming management is smart enough and knowledgeable enough about the requirements of your job to recognize who has value and skills. In your career, you're almost definitely going to encounter someone with management authority who has absolutely no idea which of their subordinates is good at their job and instead will make their decisions based on who appears to be good at their job (which is not the same thing).
2. You are assuming managers want the people below them to be valuable and skilled. If you're a manager who is in over your head, the last thing you want is a direct report who is better at the job than you are and show no signs of being personally loyal to you. Managers can and do try to dumb down their department to reduce the risk that they'll be replaced.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday September 25 2018, @01:29AM (1 child)
Yep, I agree with your assessment of the reality of working in a large corporation. But being valuable and competent is still one valid way to break through. Even in entirely political and corrupt large corporations stand-out performance gets noticed and gets you on the track upward.
Also, you know, just because management doesn't want to hang out with you all the time doesn't mean they don't think you would be right for promotion. I've seen this happen, and I've also seen being the boss's favorite drinking buddy can work against you directly. A non-hostile work environment doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a "socially fair" environment. It doesn't mean people have to be robots.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:11PM
That sure is what your boss would like you to think, but it's often not the way things work.
Lawrence J Peter gets into this in The Peter Principle: Your performance is judged by the people above you in the hierarchy. Their primary concerns are (1) the preservation of the hierarchy and (2) their own position within it. Your actions are therefor measured not against whether it serves the ostensible purpose of your job's existence, but whether it serves those 2 ends. Doing well at your job can help with that, but doing really too well at your job can hurt those goals. For example, if you're so good at your job that you're worth a department of 10 average people, you're likely to make people around you angry at you: Your coworkers won't like that you're changing the curve they're judged by, and your bosses won't like that they're keeping their own headcount and thus their own pay grade down, and soon enough you'll see efforts to remove you from the organization. If you're less extremely good at your job, say only worth 2 average people, then what will most likely happen is that your boss will claim credit for your performance and be seen as a miracle worker who motivated you to accomplish great things, and the boss will get promotions and raises while you'll stay right where you are because you're too valuable as an "individual contributor" to consider promoting you.
I've been in large corporations at times, and it's very easy to see the difference between those whose careers are driven by patronage versus those whose careers are driven by performance. The performance-based folks typically started as a grunt-level person in their 20's, work their way up to senior pay grade over the course of their 20's and 30's, make team lead sometime in their 40's, and there they remain for the rest of their careers. The patronage-based folks, by contrast, often never worked as a grunt and often do nothing useful for the organization but keep on getting raises and fancier titles, and nobody dares say that they're bad at their job because their higher-up patron will ensure there are nasty consequences for doing so. Another place you can see the contrast is in what behavior is tolerated: I observed a patronage employee walk into a meeting, insult everybody in the room (many of whom she didn't even know), making it completely clear that she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, and that was considered just fine. Meanwhile, I saw a 40-year performance-promoted veteran was kicked out because he dared to suggest that a plan that someone had been pushing for wouldn't work - a few months later, the plan failed exactly as the now-fired person had predicted.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @03:28PM (3 children)
Men should work to change this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @04:45PM (2 children)
To hell with that. I only work from sunup to sundown. If that isn't enough, go hire a woman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)
Oh so all women are night workers? Or exempt from labor laws?
I see how it is, back to the mancave beast!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @04:02AM
Only some of the most awesome ones. Check a street corner in your local shady part of town and you'll find these wonderful champions of capitalism working worse weather than postal carriers will and wearing a whole lot less while doing so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 24 2018, @04:41PM (3 children)
It's not because you're not a guy and they're discriminating you.
And yet, you assume she didn't attend those events because she has a vagina
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 24 2018, @04:53PM (2 children)
It's a statistically safe wager if you're a betting person. Women, on average, are significantly less willing to miss home time in favor of work time. This is not an arcane secret or #FakeNews, it's public knowledge and part of what those of us who value truth have been telling people who harp on an imagined wage gap for quite some time now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @08:17PM (1 child)
Willing to, or think they can viably make that choice without causing extremely serious problems? Those are two different things.
I'm guessing you're not married with children. That means you've never had to face the following choice: You want to come home late because of a work thing. Your spouse wants to come home late because of a work thing. Your kids have to be picked up from the babysitters by 5:30 PM, which means one of you isn't getting what you want unless you like being charged with child neglect and having your kids in foster care. Or just as likely, both of you have to work, but the kid is sick and one of you has to leave work to take the kid to the doctor. In those situations, the two of you have to decide whose career is more important, and if he's getting paid more then a rational salary-maximizing couple will choose his career over hers every time.
This creates a circular problem: She's getting paid less because the company thinks she'll be less willing to turn her family time into company time if she has kids. Meanwhile, she's less willing to turn her family time into company time because she's getting paid less because she has kids. Me, I'm sitting here thinking that most employees do at most about 25-30 hours of actual productive work, and overtime is detrimental to productivity after a couple of weeks, so why does the company have any interest whatsoever in demanding employees turn their family time into company time?
This kind of thing is why it's illegal to ask about marital status or children during job interviews, or to take those into account when making personnel decisions.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:54AM
The former is necessary for the latter. And in case you think you have it figured out, both raw hours worked statistics and preference of the workers tell the same story. Women are more likely (for any reason) to make the choice not to work over. There's no victimhood to be found here, sorry.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @12:46AM
This may be changing, but being a smoker is also a part of getting ahead in many companies. I have worked in a couple where most of the management smoked, and being outside with them in the smoking area got people noticed and promoted. Deals are done in the carpark.
You want to smoke just enough to meet and be known to them, but always appear anxious to get back to work. Cut your breaks a couple of minutes short, or be late getting out there and go back on time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @08:45PM (6 children)
This is going to sound like a troll (about the article story), but I mean it seriously:
WHO CARES?
Some random person sues an asshole company over her asshole boys not giving her the promotion she wanted.
Jee-zus, welcome to life for 90% of males, only we don't get to use our gender to sue over it.
I say this because we have no way of knowing if she is irritating, a bitch, or no more qualified than any of the other people that were getting ahead. Do you know what I would say if I got asked to go to some music festival and take drugs? No thanks. I suppose that would hurt my chances too, but do I get to blame it on my sex then? If I'm a man, apparently not.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @09:13PM (1 child)
I see no mention about promotions, just about pay rates, the boys club "work trips", and no accountability for sexual harassment abuses. I see you are too addled in the brain pan to comprehend this highly nuanced graduate level topic so go get your sippy cup and let the grown ups discuss. Maybe find a testosterone support group that specializes in whiny bitches.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:55AM
Accusations not abuses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by crafoo on Monday September 24 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
Hey man, she's just using the tools at her disposal. Right now, crying about how unfair the workplace is is the hot-thing for certain self-defined groups. Especially amongst these snowflakes who haven't been living with it their entire lives, thinking it's something new and interesting they personally discovered about the world.
It's actually kind of adorable.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @10:47PM
crafoo loves SJWs you heard it from the twaddle's mouth!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:30AM (1 child)
No kidding, but considering that being a cuckolded white-knight male that brainlessly & blindingly taking the "her" side in any situation is "the thing" now, it's not a surprise so many people are defending this poor, defenseless, unprivileged, discriminated female.
The people on here that are trying to defend her unfounded sexist tantrum are no better than the sissy men who think Asia Argento was a poor, defenseless, confused, woman who couldn't control her actions as she was manipulated and seduced by a boy 20 years her junior. Or the ones that defend poor defend Nikki Yovino, even when her lies destroyed the future potential lives of two men.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 25 2018, @03:59AM
And the hilarious bit is, they're not even going laid for doing so. Chicks who dig men dig men not minions. A frat boy has a better chance of nailing one of the blue-haired darlings than all of her favorite incel betas put together.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.