Hacker News Reader

Comment by rnernento | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure that I agree with this. With the current state of Yahoo Mayer is clearly in a tough position. She can't afford to be absent AT ALL. I suspect employees may recognize that her circumstances are not the same as their own and take the time they need.

View on HN

I'm inclined to agree with you. If the board is questioning Mayer's leadership, i.e. her boss thinks she is not that great independent of her pregnancy, she's on thin ice. But what do I know -- if I were her, I'd gladly take the $100 million golden parachute and retire at 40.

I don't get it. With or without a golden parachute, she is likely already in the class of people who have enough wealth to never have to work a day in their lives ever again if they don't want to. Her children will probably not ever have to work a day in their lives either. Why choose not to take time with them? They're only babies once.

This is why us normal people aren't hyper successful. We're not psychotic enough.

Do you know there are guys working at Walmart who are forced to miss the birth of their children? I personally know a guy who was in this situation, he was a cashier at Walmart and was forced to miss his child's birth because he was forced to be there on a busy day.

It's not just CEOs and high-paying folks not taking time off for paternity/maternity leave, it's everybody people who work in autoshops, cell phone stores, construction jobs, etc.

The difference, of course, is that the high-paying folks choose to not take time off, whereas your friend was forced to.

That's awful. Didn't know that type of thing still happened.

What kind of Candy coated, sheltered existence do you have?

Missing a childs birth is disappointing, not being able to feed that child is awful... Not being able to get that child medical care is awful, Children working $2 a day to make your $500 pants is awful.....

The reality is that the example is set by senior management. If anyone has any ambition to succeed in a large organization they will do a lot better if they follow the example of their leaders. It is human nature that managers tend to promote those who toe the line, and invariably, this line is not defined in the company handbook, but is a set of unwritten rules and behaviour that is set by the leaders in the organization.

Oh come on. She's CEO of a company that is circling the drain. Of course she won't take 12 weeks maternity leave, that would be completely retarded.

Ask yourself, right now in Yahoo, all things being equal, who will get the promotion, the lady taking a 2 week maternity leave, or the one taking the 12 week maternity leave? I can guarantee you that although in theory it should make no difference, it will in reality.

If I were her boss, as long as things were reasonable under control, and communication channels were relatively open (say a quick weekly catch-up [considering her seniority]) I'd promote the 12 week'er. What people value most is important.

This might be difficult in a tiny company, but this is Yahoo. I don't care if they're in trouble. They have the resources to cope with this like it was child's play.

She isn't bigger than Yahoo. No CEO is.

Is there no leadership team in place at Yahoo? That is part of their role. To cover when one of them is out of action.

Cannot believe the comments I've read here.

In theory it probably should make a difference. The one taking 2 week maternity leave sends a much stronger signal that she cares a lot about her job.

This is absurd. Spending time with one's child instead of one's job is a massive priority for any neurotypical human.

Just because someone cares about something more than their job doesn't mean they don't care about their job or do a damn fine job at it.

Long(er) maternity leave allows women to manage these conflicting priorities in a way that is more workable for parents and doesn't result in a company outright losing valuable employees when they decide to have a kid.

I agree it's a massive priority. That's why shifting back to work early is a strong signal of dedication to work - it suggests work is probably a higher for you than for a "neurotypical human".

Similarly, a person who spends 2 hours/day at the gym to the detriment of other activities is probably more dedicated to fitness than one who doesn't. Is this a remotely controversial claim?

I understand that you don't like the consequences of this, namely rewarding people who are not neurotypical, but that doesn't mean the reasoning is false.

That person who is not neurotypical might be the type of person who works 80 hours a week with the net result of creating more work for everyone else. I've seen plenty of those.

This is the fallacy that hurts men and women. I care a lot about my job. But I care more about my family. Any culture that translate that as a negative (you care less about your job than someone else who is willing to sacrifice family time for the job) is an unhealthy culture, to put it mildly, and one that forgoes long-term thinking for short-term. Employees who are physically and emotionally healthy (which includes your relationships with your family and friends) are more productive and happier. That is the important part.

Actually was does a disservice to everyone is the idea that you need to "care" for job, or that a business is a "family"

A person is paid to do work, if they make a life choice that means they no longer desire to do that work and instead wants to devote their time to other pursuits (like raising children) more power to them. Expecting their co-workers to pick up their slack, expecting their employer to pay for it, and unfairly holding open a job than an unemployed person could fill is simply selfish.

Why do you believe a person who cares more about his job than you do is not "emotionally healthy" and therefore less productive? Is it so wildly implausible that people might have different desires and emotional makeup than you?

If we assume a generous leave policy for both? The one rushing back after 2 weeks either has a screw loose or is so bad at their job that they can't take their hand off the wheel for 5 minutes. I wouldn't necessarily consider them better at the job even if I were a sociopath who didn't care about families.

In that case not taking it is completely retarded. These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back and the company is already done so why should she bother?

>These are moments that no amount of money will ever be able to buy her back

Sounds like life to me.

You'd think someone who is set for life financially may be able to have time to reflect a little on this aspect of life and act accordingly.

> She can't afford to be absent AT ALL.

Why? It isn't like anything she has done in the past couple of years have been game changing.

I know you are trying to be funny, but exactly, she's basically on "probation".

Actually I wasn't being funny (or at least trying to be)!

I mean honestly what has she done other than let Yahoo! carry on as business has been for a while? (stagnant). She did some publicity stunts like buying that 17-year olds summery app and that is about it.

Not saying anyone else would have done a better job, I think most of us could predict the future of Yahoo! no matter who was at the helm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com