Melissa Mayer's $1.1 million bonus

[janine]

and "$13.3 million in stock for 1/2 a year's work"

I don't fault anyone for doing well, but hard not to raise an eyebrow after all her comments and the fact that Yahoo is not exactly doing great. No wonder she thinks caring for a newborn is easy as well as working in the office - with a nursery built next door and 1% salary, I might say the same!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/07/technology/yahoo-mayer-bonus/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[wellyes]

Typical CEO. I don't want to pour too much outrage on one of the few female company heads. This is business as usual on Wall Street.

[janine]

Typical CEO. I don't want to pour too much outrage on one of the few female company heads. This is business as usual on Wall Street.


Agree but she hasn't exactly made working women friendly comments. And I can tell you that this isn't typical for 99% of working women on Wall Street.

[hellokitty]

I know. She is not your typical wohm and obviously has the attitude of stereotypical male CEOs. I also think that b/c she is in a high position, ppl are watching her every move and she is going out of her way to be a hard ass, so that ppl won't say that she's too soft, b/c she's a woman. So, while I'm annoyed with her for not advocating more for women, I'm not surprised that she's acting like a typical (male) CEO either.

[westwoodmom04]

I don't agree with her putting an end to telecommuting; but I'm curious as to whether yahoo has daycare available for its workers. When she was an google, she wasn't completely family unfriendly according to press reports so I am willing to cut her a break.

[mommylamb]

I think it's just indicative of the greater problem of wealth inequality in this country.

[mommy111]

To play the devil's advocate, here (and please don't flame me too much!), why shouldn't she be a typical CEO? Why shouldn't she get what a male CEO would under the circumstances? She's trying to turn around a major failing company, so I wish people would just give the woman a break and let her at least try without eating into her. If this was a male CEO, noone would be raising their eyebrows. Because she's a woman, she's on the front page of CNN every time she breathes.

[wellyes]

It is a time of record profits and staggered wages (but not at the top levels, obviously). Just sucks. Maybe Mayer's prominence will do a little to piss people off.

Here is Katie Rophie's piece today on the backlash..... we love the idea of powerful women, but then resent them. I am no fan of Mayer's, but, I don't think she is any worse than her peers. And I don't think it's entirely her fault she's in the spotlight so much.... her sticking to the job when pregnant is what made her famous.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2013/03/backlash_against_sheryl_sandberg_and_marissa_mayer _why_do_we_hate_powerful.html

[larig]

To play the devil's advocate, here (and please don't flame me too much!), why shouldn't she be a typical CEO? Why shouldn't she get what a male CEO would under the circumstances? She's trying to turn around a major failing company, so I wish people would just give the woman a break and let her at least try without eating into her. If this was a male CEO, noone would be raising their eyebrows. Because she's a woman, she's on the front page of CNN every time breathes.

I'd attack any CEO for ending telecommuting as a cowardly way to lay off workers. (not to mention a stupid way, because it means you aren't looking to keep talent, you're taking the easy way out). Certainly not attacking her because she is a woman.

[janine]

Ok I may get flamed too but this is just my opinion.

I do agree she is getting alot more attention just for the fact that she is a female CEO, although the controversial things she says don't help. But the fact that she is a woman probably stirs up more ire.

However women have a long way to go in positions of power (despite becoming a sizeable portion of the workforce at an accelaerating rate) and not much progress has been made in establishing fair treatment in light of the specific challenges women face - from being moms, to being more likely to have traits that are not as valued as typical male traits in the working world. These don't have to be negatives, they happen to be so becuase of the way things are structured which favor men because it was created by men (and let's face it, men continue to have a better network and use it). And I know I'm speaking generalizations and there are exceptions, but I guess my point is a general one too.
So to me if a few women manage to get past the ceiling and have the media's attention, why not change the rules a bit instead of turning into a man instead? Is acting like a typical male CEO the only way to turn a company around? We know why some men probably would love to see her fail, but now some women do to because she is acting like a "typical CEO." How about putting a daycare in Yahoo instead of just a nursery for herself. How about coming out and pubilcly commenting on why she is reversing WFH options for employees rather than let the media have field day. How about explaining her decision in light of other successful competitors going the opposite direction and increasing flexibility and maternity leave options (Google). You can't pretend you are not a working mom - just like I can't pretend I'm a man.

I might be totally alone but just wanted to share my perspective on why I'm not a fan. It is also impacted by my own experience - I fought hard for an inch of flexibility (which allowed me to continue working after DD's in a male dominated field) and this week alone have been told it's at risk. Not sure if it's a coincidence.

[anonomom]

Janine, I know we don't agree on much, but all I can say is a big :yeahthat:" to your post.

I think Mayer's pay is outrageous, but not because she is a woman. CEO compensation is out of control, IMO. I heard a statistic that the average corporate employee would have to work for two months to make what a CEO makes in one hour (I don't have the facts or cite to back this up right now, so take it with a grain of salt). If that's even close to true, things are seriously out of whack.

[Snow mom]

She's pissed me off enough that I actively try to avoid typing yahoo.com and hitting enter on my browser. For all the points that Janine raises I am not interested in giving one click to turn around yahoos fortunes.

[codex57]

Not being a woman, what she does doesn't feel like a direct attack to me. Accordingly, I can apparently keep emotions out of my view of what she does.

I think she's doing a fantastic job considering.

Yahoo is not doing that well. It has a lot of problems. As a CEO, male or female, I think she's doing a great job turning things around.

Let's start with the #1 hangup right now: the ban on telecommuting. The most important reason is to consider why she did it. Did she have a valid reason? Absolutely. She's a numbers person. Admits it herself. As a CEO, the numbers matter a lot to you. Hence the phrase, it's not personal, it's business. And did she have a good reason to ban it? Absolutely. A lot of Yahoo telecommuters were absolute slackers. How did she know? She actually knows enough about technology (shocking for a CEO, but not for a former engineer like she is) to know what to ask for and to figure out what the tech stuff meant. She looked at VPNs. Tons of Yahooers were too lazy to even fake working. If your kid abuses tv privileges, a normal step is to ban tv for a while. That's essentially what she did. You can talk about the ancillary and broader societal stuff, but the fact of the matter is, she's Yahoo's CEO, not the world's. Yahoo had a problem with telecommuters. She dealt with the problem. Now, she may allow it later, but it's a problem now so she dealt with it.

So what if part of the reason is a "phantom" layoff? However you cut it, some staffing needed to be cut. Better to have them resign then to pay unemployment. As a CEO move, it's to be applauded.

Would adding in a daycare be nice. Sure. But Yahoo isn't oozing money here. Do any state workers have free at-work daycare? Not in California, which is also under severe budget problems. You think the startups offer at-work daycare? Hell no.

If Yahoo was oozing money, she could just throw money to solve some problems, set examples, etc. That's not her #1 priority here. Her priority is to take limited resources and to get the company back onto a positive path. Culture needs to be changed. Hard choices need to be made. You can't pretend she's got Google resources.

Plus, I'm assuming the Yahoo at-work daycare is free or heavily subsidized. Because if it's not, why are you even bringing it up? If it costs the employee money, then it's no different from them having to get daycare on their own.

As for the pay thing, well, that's a totally different issue. Frankly, you ladies should be happy she's getting the same perks as a male CEO. There's an obvious inequity between corporate officers and rank and file workers paywise, but that's got nothing to do with Mayer and what sex she is.

[gatorsmom]

I think it's just indicative of the greater problem of wealth inequality in this country.

But you have to offer big wages if you want to catch big talent.

I dont have a problem with her salary. But I do think that she could be a lot more pro-family. She is in the position to draw some positive attention to Yahoo in making it a more family- friendly atmosphere. Her hard-a$$, "I'm just one of the boys" actions makes her seem unsure of herself.

[mommy111]

Not being a woman, what she does doesn't feel like a direct attack to me. Accordingly, I can apparently keep emotions out of my view of what she does.

I think she's doing a fantastic job considering.

Yahoo is not doing that well. It has a lot of problems. As a CEO, male or female, I think she's doing a great job turning things around.

Let's start with the #1 hangup right now: the ban on telecommuting. The most important reason is to consider why she did it. Did she have a valid reason? Absolutely. She's a numbers person. Admits it herself. As a CEO, the numbers matter a lot to you. Hence the phrase, it's not personal, it's business. And did she have a good reason to ban it? Absolutely. A lot of Yahoo telecommuters were absolute slackers. How did she know? She actually knows enough about technology (shocking for a CEO, but not for a former engineer like she is) to know what to ask for and to figure out what the tech stuff meant. She looked at VPNs. Tons of Yahooers were too lazy to even fake working. If your kid abuses tv privileges, a normal step is to ban tv for a while. That's essentially what she did. You can talk about the ancillary and broader societal stuff, but the fact of the matter is, she's Yahoo's CEO, not the world's. Yahoo had a problem with telecommuters. She dealt with the problem. Now, she may allow it later, but it's a problem now so she dealt with it.

So what if part of the reason is a "phantom" layoff? However you cut it, some staffing needed to be cut. Better to have them resign then to pay unemployment. As a CEO move, it's to be applauded.

Would adding in a daycare be nice. Sure. But Yahoo isn't oozing money here. Do any state workers have free at-work daycare? Not in California, which is also under severe budget problems. You think the startups offer at-work daycare? Hell no.

If Yahoo was oozing money, she could just throw money to solve some problems, set examples, etc. That's not her #1 priority here. Her priority is to take limited resources and to get the company back onto a positive path. Culture needs to be changed. Hard choices need to be made. You can't pretend she's got Google resources.

Plus, I'm assuming the Yahoo at-work daycare is free or heavily subsidized. Because if it's not, why are you even bringing it up? If it costs the employee money, then it's no different from them having to get daycare on their own.

As for the pay thing, well, that's a totally different issue. Frankly, you ladies should be happy she's getting the same perks as a male CEO. There's an obvious inequity between corporate officers and rank and file workers paywise, but that's got nothing to do with Mayer and what sex she is.
:yeahthat: Completely agree to everything there.
Not to say that I don't think telecommuting is at least as and possibly a more efficient way to work than working at the office butit was obviously not working for yahoo and she did what she had to do.

[Kindra178]

Not being a woman, what she does doesn't feel like a direct attack to me. Accordingly, I can apparently keep emotions out of my view of what she does.

I think she's doing a fantastic job considering.

Yahoo is not doing that well. It has a lot of problems. As a CEO, male or female, I think she's doing a great job turning things around.

Let's start with the #1 hangup right now: the ban on telecommuting. The most important reason is to consider why she did it. Did she have a valid reason? Absolutely. She's a numbers person. Admits it herself. As a CEO, the numbers matter a lot to you. Hence the phrase, it's not personal, it's business. And did she have a good reason to ban it? Absolutely. A lot of Yahoo telecommuters were absolute slackers. How did she know? She actually knows enough about technology (shocking for a CEO, but not for a former engineer like she is) to know what to ask for and to figure out what the tech stuff meant. She looked at VPNs. Tons of Yahooers were too lazy to even fake working. If your kid abuses tv privileges, a normal step is to ban tv for a while. That's essentially what she did. You can talk about the ancillary and broader societal stuff, but the fact of the matter is, she's Yahoo's CEO, not the world's. Yahoo had a problem with telecommuters. She dealt with the problem. Now, she may allow it later, but it's a problem now so she dealt with it.

So what if part of the reason is a "phantom" layoff? However you cut it, some staffing needed to be cut. Better to have them resign then to pay unemployment. As a CEO move, it's to be applauded.

Would adding in a daycare be nice. Sure. But Yahoo isn't oozing money here. Do any state workers have free at-work daycare? Not in California, which is also under severe budget problems. You think the startups offer at-work daycare? Hell no.

If Yahoo was oozing money, she could just throw money to solve some problems, set examples, etc. That's not her #1 priority here. Her priority is to take limited resources and to get the company back onto a positive path. Culture needs to be changed. Hard choices need to be made. You can't pretend she's got Google resources.

Plus, I'm assuming the Yahoo at-work daycare is free or heavily subsidized. Because if it's not, why are you even bringing it up? If it costs the employee money, then it's no different from them having to get daycare on their own.

As for the pay thing, well, that's a totally different issue. Frankly, you ladies should be happy she's getting the same perks as a male CEO. There's an obvious inequity between corporate officers and rank and file workers paywise, but that's got nothing to do with Mayer and what sex she is.

Excellent perspective. I didn't know that about the VPN monitoring. The fact that Google rarely allows telecommuting establishes that they don't need to in order to attract talent.

[mommylamb]

But you have to offer big wages if you want to catch big talent.



Sure you do, but 30 years ago, when CEOs were well paid, but we didn't have the extreme income discrepancies of today, we still had talented people in leadership positions. Or do you think the CEOs of today have some sort of skill that CEOs of the past lacked?

I'm not saying that Yahoo shouldn't pay her well, or that Yahoo should be the first out of the box to change the system here. But I do think we have an insane system where this is normal for CEOs to make an obscene amount of money compared to regular workers.

[niccig]

I agree with Codex. Her job is to turn Yahoo around. That's it. It's not to champion working women. Everyone else, including the media are putting that requirement on her, but it's not what she's paid to do.

And why is she expected to act differently because she's female? Maybe she agrees with policies put forward by other CEOs that happen to be men.

It would be wonderful if she did have more family friendly policies, and maybe if Yahoo starts to rebound, she will.

[ellies mom]

I agree with Codex. Her job is to turn Yahoo around. That's it. It's not to champion working women. Everyone else, including the media are putting that requirement on her, but it's not what she's paid to do.

And why is she expected to act differently because she's female? Maybe she agrees with policies put forward by other CEOs that happen to be men.

It would be wonderful if she did have more family friendly policies, and maybe if Yahoo starts to rebound, she will.
:yeahthat: Exactly! If you read articles regarding this move as a "standard bearer for working women and families" she is being slammed. But if you read articles regarding this change as a business decision, they are almost all positive. And interestingly enough, Best Buy, also struggling, recently changed their telecommuting policy but you've hardly heard a peep about that.

[niccig]

And interestingly enough, Best Buy, also struggling, recently changed their telecommuting policy but you've hardly heard a peep about that.

Let me guess, Best Buy's CEO is a man.

[janine]

I agree with Codex. Her job is to turn Yahoo around. That's it. It's not to champion working women. Everyone else, including the media are putting that requirement on her, but it's not what she's paid to do.

And why is she expected to act differently because she's female? Maybe she agrees with policies put forward by other CEOs that happen to be men.

It would be wonderful if she did have more family friendly policies, and maybe if Yahoo starts to rebound, she will.

Because as a woman is it really acting differently to think like a woman (which in turn might support working women in general)? I just don't see why it's such a conscious effort to do so, to me it's more of a conscious effort not do so. And I don't see how acting differently (if she chose to) would be so contrary to helping the company turnaround? We seem to be equating acting like a hardass jerk CEO with a succesful CEO.
To Codex57's point about Yahool not oozing in cash and therefore why would they put a daycare in - well that's true but then why the oozing of cash to Mayer alone? Which is it? The dayare comment was to make the point that this is one way she could make it easier for women and men to work in the office and therefore the cost/benefit might be in Yahoo's favor IF one is to follow through her theory that this will be what turns around Yahoo. And just by the fact that she IS a working mom (and built a nursery for herself) surely she can relate to that whether she cares to admit it or not. A guy relates to a guy all the time at work, why is it that we look down on it when it is women do.

And specific to the VPN piece of information - just curious where did you hear that? First time I'd heard that as specific cause for the policy change. Per below link competitors like Google are expanding work-life benefit initiatives so it is Yahoo that is the outlier in their field right now.

I guess in the end it will come down to whether the company is turned around or not, so we'll shall see.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2013/02/26/can-yahoo-really-be-doing-this/

[gatorsmom]

Sure you do, but 30 years ago, when CEOs were well paid, but we didn't have the extreme income discrepancies of today, we still had talented people in leadership positions. Or do you think the CEOs of today have some sort of skill that CEOs of the past lacked?

I'm not saying that Yahoo shouldn't pay her well, or that Yahoo should be the first out of the box to change the system here. But I do think we have an insane system where this is normal for CEOs to make an obscene amount of money compared to regular workers.

I do think more is expected of CEOs nowadays. They have to not only answer to their secretaries but now a days to their cell phones, email, text messages. We can critique them not just in the papers or tv but now we get news of their decisions practically within minutes of them making them. Certainly we can read it online within the hour.

But honestly my thought is that if they can get the high wages they are getting then good for them! The problem, IMHO, with the wealth discrepancy in this country is not that they are getting paid too much but that the lower classes are not being paid enough or at all. We need more jobs. More people need to be able to provide for their families in a job that provides them with an income and give them some dignity.

How would you reduce the gap between the higher and lower classes?

[janine]

:yeahthat: Exactly! If you read articles regarding this move as a "standard bearer for working women and families" she is being slammed. But if you read articles regarding this change as a business decision, they are almost all positive. And interestingly enough, Best Buy, also struggling, recently changed their telecommuting policy but you've hardly heard a peep about that.

I heard about it - it was all over the news yesterday. It's being presented as just following Yahoo!'s lead so of course whoever started the lead will get the most press time.

And perhaps those applauding the "business" decision are men?

[marymoo86]

Sure you do, but 30 years ago, when CEOs were well paid, but we didn't have the extreme income discrepancies of today, we still had talented people in leadership positions. Or do you think the CEOs of today have some sort of skill that CEOs of the past lacked?

I'm not saying that Yahoo shouldn't pay her well, or that Yahoo should be the first out of the box to change the system here. But I do think we have an insane system where this is normal for CEOs to make an obscene amount of money compared to regular workers.

30 years ago the world was a much smaller space and your biggest competitor was probably in the same town, state, time zone for many companies. Sure there were still large MNC out there but not as common. Technology has had a huge impact on how we do business, replacing workers, impacting wages/salary, and gave us global competition. I would say it is a night and day difference.

The Business Impact of IT (http://andrewmcafee.org/2012/12/the-great-decoupling-of-the-us-economy/) is a really good view into this topic.

[chottumommy]

Because as a woman is it really acting differently to think like a woman (which in turn might support working women in general)? I just don't see why it's such a conscious effort to do so, to me it's more of a conscious effort not do so. And I don't see how acting differently (if she chose to) would be so contrary to helping the company turnaround? We seem to be equating acting like a hardass jerk CEO with a succesful CEO.
To Codex57's point about Yahool not oozing in cash and therefore why would they put a daycare in - well that's true but then why the oozing of cash to Mayer alone? Which is it? The dayare comment was to make the point that this is one way she could make it easier for women and men to work in the office and therefore the cost/benefit might be in Yahoo's favor IF one is to follow through her theory that this will be what turns around Yahoo. And just by the fact that she IS a working mom (and built a nursery for herself) surely she can relate to that whether she cares to admit it or not. A guy relates to a guy all the time at work, why is it that we look down on it when it is women do.

And specific to the VPN piece of information - just curious where did you hear that? First time I'd heard that as specific cause for the policy change. Per below link competitors like Google are expanding work-life benefit initiatives so it is Yahoo that is the outlier in their field right now.

I guess in the end it will come down to whether the company is turned around or not, so we'll shall see.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2013/02/26/can-yahoo-really-be-doing-this/

I agree with Codex that this is what Yahoo needed to do now. And as to the bolded part it was partly due to the VPN/proxy traffic (or lack thereof) for WFH employees that this policy was put into. The policy does not affect people who WFH ocassionally but rather for people who telecommute all the time. And there were exceptions made. Most of the affected people were also given a relocation package. I have friends in Yahoo and the report has been circulating all over silicon valley.

As to whether she should be held to a different not, not sure about it, however I do agree that she is different from the next door male CEO - how many male CEOs would get away with having a nursery built next to their office for their newborn.

Whether her CEO bonus is too much that should be for the board to decide. In general I do think the disparity between the CEO and average employees is huge and don't agree that companies need to give out so much cash to hire CEOs. Yahoo might be a different case, its losing revenue and to get a turnaround and a CEO who will stick around they do need a good package with bonus and all the frills.

[niccig]

Because as a woman is it really acting differently to think like a woman (which in turn might support working women in general)? I just don't see why it's such a conscious effort to do so, to me it's more of a conscious effort not do so. And I don't see how acting differently (if she chose to) would be so contrary to helping the company turnaround? We seem to be equating acting like a hardass jerk CEO with a succesful CEO.

I think she's making business decisions. You can disagree and say she's being a hardass jerk, but I still don't see why her gender holds her to a different standard. I believe there would have been less outcry if Yahoo's CEO was a male and stopped telecomutting. It's a total double standard.

Actually, I think she's screwed regardless of what decisions she makes. I would not want to be her at all, she's going to earn every cent she makes.

[codex57]

:yeahthat: Exactly! If you read articles regarding this move as a "standard bearer for working women and families" she is being slammed. But if you read articles regarding this change as a business decision, they are almost all positive. And interestingly enough, Best Buy, also struggling, recently changed their telecommuting policy but you've hardly heard a peep about that.


Let me guess, Best Buy's CEO is a man.

That's what bugs me about all this negative commentary directed at her. Ladies everywhere should be applauding her. First, she broke the glass ceiling and got a CEO position of a major company. She may not be the first, but it's still a rare thing so she's still one of the pioneers. Secondly, she's doing an awesome job. Instead of bashing her, women should be using her as an example that a woman can do as good or better job than male CEOs (insert whatever struggling male CEO).

Could she do better? Possibly. That's not her job tho. And I don't think it's fair to single her out to be the pioneer for advancing female perks. If you're gonna go pick on someone for not being the MLK for women's rights, go pick on Meg Whitman (HP) or Ginni Rometty (IBM) for not making more of a statement. HP and IBM are like 20 times the size of Yahoo. Both have had opportunity to make a big stink about women in business if they wanted to (Meg with all the publicity from the run for governor and then jumping to HP; Ginni with the Augusta National thing).

Just saying give poor Marissa a break. Let her right Yahoo's ship, build up some political capital with her Board and Wall Street, then see if she makes some pro-working mom moves. Demands (especially uninformed/unreasonable ones) too early is just asking her to tie her own noose. It is a double standard IMO and if the women stop criticizing her, you think the male members of the media is gonna continue to jump to ride the bandwagon of criticizing her telecommuting? All these stories would die quick if the women would just give her some support. She's doing a hell of a job at a hell of a hard job.

[mommylamb]

I do think more is expected of CEOs nowadays. They have to not only answer to their secretaries but now a days to their cell phones, email, text messages. We can critique them not just in the papers or tv but now we get news of their decisions practically within minutes of them making them. Certainly we can read it online within the hour.

But honestly my thought is that if they can get the high wages they are getting then good for them! The problem, IMHO, with the wealth discrepancy in this country is not that they are getting paid too much but that the lower classes are not being paid enough or at all. We need more jobs. More people need to be able to provide for their families in a job that provides them with an income and give them some dignity.

How would you reduce the gap between the higher and lower classes?


Sure, things are different than they were in years past. But I do not think that justifies the wage discrepancies we see now. I'm not saying that I have the answer to class stratification, but I do think it's a problem when there are such massive differences in wages. Sure, we need more jobs (I mean, who doesn't?), and I would support a higher minimum wage. Is that what you're advocating? Though, I don't think people with limited means are necessarily lacking in dignity. But regardless, I think CEO pay is too high. I'm not saying that the change should start with Yahoo, or that she shouldn't get paid that much when her counterparts certainly do. I just think that in general, the very top tier are overpaid at the expense of the rest of us. That doesn't mean I think they don't work hard or deserve high pay. I just think at some point enough is enough.

[wellyes]

I do think more is expected of CEOs nowadays. They have to not only answer to their secretaries but now a days to their cell phones, email, text messages. We can critique them not just in the papers or tv but now we get news of their decisions practically within minutes of them making them. Certainly we can read it online within the hour.

But honestly my thought is that if they can get the high wages they are getting then good for them! The problem, IMHO, with the wealth discrepancy in this country is not that they are getting paid too much but that the lower classes are not being paid enough or at all. We need more jobs. More people need to be able to provide for their families in a job that provides them with an income and give them some dignity.

How would you reduce the gap between the higher and lower classes?
Well, more is expected out of every employee nowadays. That is why there are not more jobs. All employees multitask. Corporations are incredibly efficient. My husband says the job he is doing used to be done by 3 people..... I'm sure he's not the only one in that boat. What can be outsourced is outsourced. CEO pay is insane (average $12 million nowadays), shareholders are doing great, typical workers are worse off than they were 10 years ago.

To reduce the gap, I would make taxation more progressive, increase the minimum wage and I'd federally subsidize daycare, as a starting point.

[GvilleGirl]

I think that technology has increased the outside work demands of many employees, but few have seen the increase pay that CEOs have received. Wealth discrepancy has a lot to do with the the CEOs getting paid more in my opinion. Their pay has increased dramatically while the people they have employed has not. 127% more than the average worker since 1978. (source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/03/475952/ceo-pay-faster-worker-pay/?mobile=nc )

I do think that this is a bigger issue than Marissa. But I don't think we need to keep increasing CEOs the wages to keep people in those positions.

A great visualization on wealth inequality in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM

[Ceepa]

And I don't think it's fair to single her out to be the pioneer for advancing female perks. If you're gonna go pick on someone for not being the MLK for women's rights, go pick on Meg Whitman (HP) or Ginni Rometty (IBM) for not making more of a statement. HP and IBM are like 20 times the size of Yahoo. Both have had opportunity to make a big stink about women in business if they wanted to (Meg with all the publicity from the run for governor and then jumping to HP; Ginni with the Augusta National thing).

I agree. She is not the only woman CEO with clout, but she seems to carry the expectations for them all.

[gatorsmom]

Well, more is expected out of every employee nowadays. That is why there are not more jobs. All employees multitask. Corporations are incredibly efficient.



There are not more jobs because entire factories have been outsourced overseas. Heck, entire customer service departments and IT departments are overseas now. It's simple- the labor is cheaper.

As for corporations being incredibly efficient, that definitely couldn't have been said of the last 2 Fortune 500 companies I worked at. :rotflmao:

[mommylamb]

There are not more jobs because entire factories have been outsourced overseas. Heck, entire customer service departments and IT departments are overseas now. It's simple- the labor is cheaper.

As for corporations being incredibly efficient, that definitely couldn't have been said of the last 2 Fortune 500 companies I worked at. :rotflmao:


Actually, there is a huge movement towards what's being called "reshoring" for a number of reasons. Yes, some jobs are gone and gone for good, but a lot of companies are moving back to the US. Transportation fuel costs, intellectual property, political corruption in many low wage countries, being closer to the customer, better coordination between R&D and production are all contributing to this. The idea that work is cheaper oversees and therefore there is outsourcing is not really reflective of reality any more. Moreover, Chinese wages have been increasing at amazing rates, so there is far less of a wage differential than there was 10 years ago between US and Chinese workers. Yes, there are other countries that are cheaper than China now, but many of them simply don't have the infrastructure needed for exports. We have more to fear from a competition standpoint from Mexico than we do from China at this point, due to their proximity to the US consumer and the number of free trade agreements Mexico has with countries around the world vs. the U.S.

But Wellyes is exactly right-- we are doing more with less. Call it increased productivity, or overworking, there are fewer jobs even with a greater reshoring movement. Also, so much of the factory work once done by people is automated these days. Robots really are taking over a lot of jobs. There's an article about it in the Post today.

[TwinFoxes]

And specific to the VPN piece of information - just curious where did you hear that? First time I'd heard that as specific cause for the policy change. Per below link competitors like Google are expanding work-life benefit initiatives so it is Yahoo that is the outlier in their field right now.



There have been several articles the last few days specifically mentioning VPN. And last week the radio show Marketplace had a story about how a lot of people at Yahoo were happy with the change because the WAH folks were slacking.

http://news.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/3432916/yahoo-ceo-mayer-checked-vpn-logs-before-banning-home-working/

(Not supporting her decision, just answering the where did you hear that question).

[larig]

She's pissed me off enough that I actively try to avoid typing yahoo.com and hitting enter on my browser. For all the points that Janine raises I am not interested in giving one click to turn around yahoos fortunes.

:yeahthat: I may avoid Flickr (which is yahoo too) as well.

[larig]

I do think more is expected of CEOs nowadays. They have to not only answer to their secretaries but now a days to their cell phones, email, text messages. We can critique them not just in the papers or tv but now we get news of their decisions practically within minutes of them making them. Certainly we can read it online within the hour.

But honestly my thought is that if they can get the high wages they are getting then good for them! The problem, IMHO, with the wealth discrepancy in this country is not that they are getting paid too much but that the lower classes are not being paid enough or at all. We need more jobs. More people need to be able to provide for their families in a job that provides them with an income and give them some dignity.

How would you reduce the gap between the higher and lower classes?

If one person is sucking such a huge percent of a company's money, then how can they afford to have or create more jobs? Isn't their money limited by what they can raise by selling products, or through raising capital through share sales?

[codex57]

As to whether she should be held to a different not, not sure about it, however I do agree that she is different from the next door male CEO - how many male CEOs would get away with having a nursery built next to their office for their newborn.

At the level Yahoo is at, pretty much all of the male CEOs could do the same thing should they be so inclined. For multibillion dollar corporations, the perks are insane. There are quite a number that have a corporate jet fly them across the country every week so that they can "commute" from their desired location. That costs multiple times more than attaching a nursery to her office. A more common perk that also is insanely expensive is where the company pays the taxes (both on the stock options and income) so that the CEO isn't out anything. Honestly, building a nursery is a tiny perk. It's analogous to a CEO wanting a remodeled bathroom. Shoot, even government directors (big scandal recently) do that. I don't think any male CEO is known to have built a nursery, but I bet there are countless who got the corp to pay for a nanny so their spouse doesn't have to do any work.

[MMMommy]

I agree with Codex. Her job is to turn Yahoo around. That's it. It's not to champion working women. Everyone else, including the media are putting that requirement on her, but it's not what she's paid to do.

And why is she expected to act differently because she's female? Maybe she agrees with policies put forward by other CEOs that happen to be men.

It would be wonderful if she did have more family friendly policies, and maybe if Yahoo starts to rebound, she will.

:yeahthat: Well said.

[mom2akm]

I think it's just indicative of the greater problem of wealth inequality in this country.

So true and so sad!

[rlu]

: And interestingly enough, Best Buy, also struggling, recently changed their telecommuting policy but you've hardly heard a peep about that.

But what I did hear about Best Buy is that it is now by department and with manager approval. Not at all different from what my SW company has been doing for years. It's not a ban, just common sense decision if telecommuting does make sense for that employee. http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/03/07/best-buy-yahoo-and-telecommuting-the-problem-isnt-distance-its-management/ and click through to CNN article.

[larig]

But what I did hear about Best Buy is that it is now by department and with manager approval. Not at all different from what my SW company has been doing for years. It's not a ban, just common sense decision if telecommuting does make sense for that employee. http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/03/07/best-buy-yahoo-and-telecommuting-the-problem-isnt-distance-its-management/ and click through to CNN article.

And if Mayer were a good manager she would use that telecommuting VPN data to see which employees were abusing vs which were productive and weed out the bad ones. A blanket policy such as the one she instituted, to me, smacks of lazy managerial decision-making.

Eta:consider me unimpressed.

[gatorsmom]

Actually, there is a huge movement towards what's being called "reshoring" for a number of reasons.

But Wellyes is exactly right-- we are doing more with less. Call it increased productivity, or overworking, there are fewer jobs even with a greater reshoring movement. Also, so much of the factory work once done by people is automated these days. Robots really are taking over a lot of jobs. There's an article about it in the Post today.

I get most of my business news from DH these days and he had mentioned the reshoring movement but i love to hear that it really is happening. As the daughter and niece of factory workers, it's great to hear this is happening more and more. Music to my ears.

As for more efficiency in the workplace, automation replacing factory jobs has been progressively happenening throughout the last century. I don't think this is a new problem and I don't think it has taken away as many jobs as the ones we lost to overseas labor.

[codex57]

And if Mayer were a good manager she would use that telecommuting VPN data to see which employees were abusing vs which were productive and weed out the bad ones. A blanket policy such as the one she instituted, to me, smacks of lazy managerial decision-making.

Eta:consider me unimpressed.

That gets to be minutiae. Part of the problem is that apparently some of the managers were abusing the system too. When a problem is that deep, it can take too long and be too inefficient to start figuring out exactly who's abusing the system. I mean, where do you draw the line? Enough employees were disgruntled about the abusers that it was dividing the company. Plus, if you've worked at a big company, do you honestly expect HR to do the job properly and fairly? A blanket ban sends a message that she's serious about changing the culture, it gets rid of some payroll, and there is a benefit to people seeing each other everyday (camaraderie, etc) and getting those "oh, by the way" ideas and conversations which actually are very important.

Are there downsides? Sure. But from what it sounds like, she had sound reasons for doing what she did.

Honestly, a lot of the people angry at her sound an awful lot like the NRA types refusing any compromise. She made a hard choice. Making these broad moves that please some people and piss off others is what a CEO does. The telecommuting thing is such a minutiae type of thing for what a CEO does that it's amazing she's getting such heat from people without truly considering her reasons and her particular situation. You can't necessarily judge her based on what another company does. No company has the same exact situation and variables as another company.

[squimp]

And if Mayer were a good manager she would use that telecommuting VPN data to see which employees were abusing vs which were productive and weed out the bad ones. A blanket policy such as the one she instituted, to me, smacks of lazy managerial decision-making.

Eta:consider me unimpressed.

I am with you.

[queenmama]

I really don't understand the gripe over salary or the wages of CEOs in general. She -- and other CEOs -- don't set the salary, the board and shareholders do.

And I agree with Codex on the rest of it.

Lara

[anonomom]

As far as expecting more of Mayer than I would of Joe Schmoe CEO, for me it's not because she is a woman as such, but because she seems to be playing both sides of the coin. If she's going to be bragging to the media about how easy she has it as a working mom, then she either needs to recognize that her situation (and the perks that accompany it) is extraordinary, or she needs to do what she can to make being a working parent as easy on her workers as it is on her.

If she had just been doing her job and focusing on the business of running Yahoo, then I wouldn't have a problem with her. But when she makes statements about it being "easy" to be a working mom without even seeming to acknowledge that her average office employee has orders of magnitude fewer resources and flexibility to balance their own work & family, then she sounds like a jerk.

[BayGirl2]

I agree with Codex on this. It's the reason I was not so upset with her move a few weeks ago. She's in a turnaround situation and doing what must be done.

And for the record, more jobs have been eliminated due to technology and efficiencies than have moved out of the US due to off shoring. (Outsourcing doesn't necessarily reduce jobs btw, it just changes the company they report to.)

[sweetsue98]

Not being a woman, what she does doesn't feel like a direct attack to me. Accordingly, I can apparently keep emotions out of my view of what she does.

I think she's doing a fantastic job considering.

Yahoo is not doing that well. It has a lot of problems. As a CEO, male or female, I think she's doing a great job turning things around.

Let's start with the #1 hangup right now: the ban on telecommuting. The most important reason is to consider why she did it. Did she have a valid reason? Absolutely. She's a numbers person. Admits it herself. As a CEO, the numbers matter a lot to you. Hence the phrase, it's not personal, it's business. And did she have a good reason to ban it? Absolutely. A lot of Yahoo telecommuters were absolute slackers. How did she know? She actually knows enough about technology (shocking for a CEO, but not for a former engineer like she is) to know what to ask for and to figure out what the tech stuff meant. She looked at VPNs. Tons of Yahooers were too lazy to even fake working. If your kid abuses tv privileges, a normal step is to ban tv for a while. That's essentially what she did. You can talk about the ancillary and broader societal stuff, but the fact of the matter is, she's Yahoo's CEO, not the world's. Yahoo had a problem with telecommuters. She dealt with the problem. Now, she may allow it later, but it's a problem now so she dealt with it.

So what if part of the reason is a "phantom" layoff? However you cut it, some staffing needed to be cut. Better to have them resign then to pay unemployment. As a CEO move, it's to be applauded.

Would adding in a daycare be nice. Sure. But Yahoo isn't oozing money here. Do any state workers have free at-work daycare? Not in California, which is also under severe budget problems. You think the startups offer at-work daycare? Hell no.

If Yahoo was oozing money, she could just throw money to solve some problems, set examples, etc. That's not her #1 priority here. Her priority is to take limited resources and to get the company back onto a positive path. Culture needs to be changed. Hard choices need to be made. You can't pretend she's got Google resources.

Plus, I'm assuming the Yahoo at-work daycare is free or heavily subsidized. Because if it's not, why are you even bringing it up? If it costs the employee money, then it's no different from them having to get daycare on their own.

As for the pay thing, well, that's a totally different issue. Frankly, you ladies should be happy she's getting the same perks as a male CEO. There's an obvious inequity between corporate officers and rank and file workers paywise, but that's got nothing to do with Mayer and what sex she is.

:yeahthat:

[janine]

As far as expecting more of Mayer than I would of Joe Schmoe CEO, for me it's not because she is a woman as such, but because she seems to be playing both sides of the coin. If she's going to be bragging to the media about how easy she has it as a working mom, then she either needs to recognize that her situation (and the perks that accompany it) is extraordinary, or she needs to do what she can to make being a working parent as easy on her workers as it is on her.

If she had just been doing her job and focusing on the business of running Yahoo, then I wouldn't have a problem with her. But when she makes statements about it being "easy" to be a working mom without even seeming to acknowledge that her average office employee has orders of magnitude fewer resources and flexibility to balance their own work & family, then she sounds like a jerk.

:yeahthat:

It's not just women up in arms attacking another woman for making millions as CEO (this actually perpetuates the image of women being jealous and devious to each other). It's not just that she isn't being a pioneer for the women's movement. And it also isn't a case of critics not understanding what CEO's do or why tough business decisions must be made. There haven't been many female CEO's but there have been some and they don't seem to have generated the same reactions and why is that? Mayer says things oddly, and seems to make impulsive decisions naively. She appears to be a contradiction at times. It makes me wonder if she's lacking a media communications department or if she actually believes if she just acts a certain way she'll be perceived as a tough CEO. Moves like saying "newborns are easy" while she builds a nursery next door for herself and reeling in all WFH employees with a memo that went public asap are clearly not going to get a warm and fuzzy reaction. She knows she's being watched and heavily covered which actually is a powerful position to be in - but what she does with that is what seals or will seal her image. Maybe she doesn't actually care about that, but isn't part of the CEO job of a public company also the public image?

The VPN thing - I mean why not just fire those employees period. They have the technology to determine the worst offenders. I can't imagine it was a huge percentage and dragging those disgruntled ones in will not help yahoo's bottom line. Which is what will determine her fate in the end (the bottom line and a few quarters), so let's see how her strategy turns out after another 1/2 year. Those restricted shares will worthless if she doesn't get the job done.

[niccig]

There seems to be a lot of vitriol aimed at Marissa Mayer. I don't understand why, nor do I wish to be in her shoes at all. It seems people want her to fail. I hope she can turn Yahoo! around, for the sake of all those employees.

[citymama]

I think it's just indicative of the greater problem of wealth inequality in this country.

I totally agree with this. Everything else is debatable - gender, business decisions, etc. - but this inequity is the sad truth!

[anonomom]

Just want to note that I have no desire to see Yahoo (or Mayer) fail. I just don't like the things Mayer has said since she took the spotlight.

[TwinFoxes]

I think MMs statement has been misquoted here quite a bit. She didn't say "newborns are easy" or "being a working mom is easy" she says HER baby is easier than people made it out to be. She said she has been lucky he is easy.

"The baby's been easy. The baby's been way easier than everyone made it out to be. I think I've been really lucky that way but I had a very easy, healthy pregnancy, he's been easy."

http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-the-babys-been-way-easier-than-everyone-made-it-out-to-be-2012-11#ixzz2Mx41exsU

The truth is, some newborns are easy. I just don't get what people wanted her to say. Forbes asked her about being a mom, I'm sure it's not what she wanted to talk about as CEO. She gave a short answer and moved on.

[janine]

I don't want to see MM fail - that's too simplistic.

I actually wasn't a fan of Jerry Yang towards the end of his tenure either (as CEO). He made some blunders when Microsoft was shopping around and the stock price has not recovered since!

We all agree get CEO's get paid obscene amounts. Taking criticsim (including on the PR front for public statements, phrasings and actions) is part of the job.

[janine]

dupe post, sorry