News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Salesforce prevents employee from sitting on external board by webmaven on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @02:50PM (#25363647)
> I still don't think the policy itself is actually discriminatory: at this particular point in time that executive level has a disparity, and that's the issue, not the policy.

Look, it isn't particularly controversial that policies that are discriminatory in effect are problematic, even if the policy is on its face non-discriminatory. This isn't even a particularly new idea:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." — Anatole France

> my being unsympathetic has less to do with the disparity aspect

What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

Re:Salesforce prevents employee from sitting on external board by RobertKerans on Thursday December 10, 2020 @01:03PM (#25376443)
I'll preface this by saying that her actions may do some unalloyed good here, I understand your point. I still think that the inferred makeup of the direct reports is more the issue that needs fixing, but if this causes some positive change in corporate structure then, great.

> What is the source of your lack of sympathy, then?

Mmm. So this is a powerful corporate executive being denied a seat in another corporate board. She is also a powerful corporate political lobbyist who, until very recently, worked on behalf of a party that often seems to actively fight for policies that entrench discrimination. She inhabits an elite level and this course of action has effectively no downside for her -- she is aware of the contract stipulations, she tests breaking the contract, is fired for doing so, and she can do so with absolute confidence that it will have net zero-to-positive impact on her own prospects. That, in this case, is quite likely a very good thing, because she is in a position where she can possibly force/successfully lobby for change, but re sympathy for her specifically? No