Hacker News Reader

Comment by coderdude | Hacker News Reader

Clearly I read the entire article. I don't consider that to be relevant to the quotes I pulled and I'll explain why. She had a team, she went away for several months, the team needed be reassigned and when she returned, she (rightfully) expected to be returned to that same leadership position. But, what had happened, was that the team was reassigned. That much makes sense. I'm sure she got screwed over in that situation but I still don't make the connection she's drawing.

View on HN

You are treated like crap in multiple ways at Amazon is the connection.

Being treated like crap doesn't automatically mean you're being treated like crap because of your gender or race. Right? I can't be the only person who believes that.

Amazon apparently doesn't have proper maternity leave procedures in place: if you go on mat leave it treats it like you left the company and your team gets reassigned. That's crap treatment that will only happen to one gender.

They have paternity leave, too. You're making a claim that can actually be verified so if you have any information to put forward, please do.

There's a difference between allowing people to take parental leave (eg their legal requirement) and actually supporting it.

If they only pay lip service to the letter of the law and you return to find your job effectively gone, then that's still crap treatment that will disproportionately affect one gender, given the usual length of maternity leave compared to paternity

but she did return to her existing job, it's just that it was now working with another team. would it be fair for the people who had been working for the interim manager to now have to switch managers again? that is going to affect their annual review and possible promotions. on top of that all her directs except for one were already gone, so why would it make sense to put her back on that team? did she start working there specifically to run that team because thats not usually how these big companies work, people are expected to have to occassionally switch from one team or another.

That's zero-sum: the (minor) cost the team pays for supporting the leave is repaid by the support they get when they need to take leave themselves.

The other things could and should have been improved by Amazon. Their obligation is to get you back into a situation as close as practicable to the one you left.

what are you talking about? reporting to a new manager is far from a minor cost, especially when it's a manager you never reported to to begin with. since everyone else is making random unfounded statements, her going on maternity leave probably had a lot to do with why there was only one person left on the team when she came back.

what about the new manager? why should they have to change teams? basically what you're saying is that everyone on the team should suffer significantly so that one person can return to lead the same team with different members rather than just leading a new team that needs a manager?

If properly handled maternity cover is a pretty painless process. It's not like a boss quitting: there are handover periods and keep-in-touch mechanisms. The new manager should be explicitly hired for maternity cover, and have their expectations set. It happens in most of Europe, almost without comment it's so routine.

If it's a massive career-impacting hassle for employees of people on leave at Amazon, where they "suffer significantly" that's yet more evidence for Amazon being a terrible place to work.

If by 'they' you mean Amazon, unfortunately that is not the case. Amazon does not have paternity leave.

Despite 'clearly' reading the entire article and having it pointed out, you missed/ignored the second part.

"Her team was reassigned" (during her extended absence) - reasonable. Disappointing, for her, perhaps, but reasonable.

"and she was placed on a PIP" - she comes back from maternity and is told, formally, 'your performance is unacceptable and is going to have to improve to stay at the company'. This just screams vindictiveness. "Your pregnancy inconvenienced the company / team, so here's a formal black mark for you, often used as an excuse to be able to fire you at any time in the future".

I did mention that she was screwed over. I'd say the PIP was part of that. That doesn't automagically equate to discrimination and I've yet to see any of these snide rebuttals put anything forth to change my mind about that.

What is your bar for discrimination then? Person takes a leave that is only available to their gender. Is screwed over as a result. It's not a complicated case, and that's even before you add in the cancer.

Proof is my bar. An email from her male manager telling HR to put her on notice for going on maternity leave would be more than sufficient to justify the claims in the article.

You'd make a terrible judge. "The suspect was found with the murder weapon in his hand, next to the body? Insufficient. Circumstantial. I need a confession".

No manager with any sense at all is ever going to write an email like that, don't be ludicrous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com