SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.