[EliAndrewC]

Perhaps the most common and controversial aspect of Mayer's decision was the claim of hypocrisy regarding child care. Staying home with children to avoid the cost of a full-time nanny is a common reason for telecommuting. Some claimed hypocrisy for her installing a persona nursery next to her office for her own newborn while making Yahoo significantly less family friendly for its employees.

Although I never agreed with these criticisms, I'm annoyed that she apparently said, "I need to talk about the elephant in the room" and then avoided addressing this complaint at all. Unless she did and this was simply bad reporting which omitted any reference to it - I'd appreciate a link to the fill keynote transcript if one exists; I can't seem to find it.

[doktrin]

My familiarity with this issue extends only so far as the coverage it has received on HN, and this is the first time this "most controversial" aspect of the decision has been brought up.

The whole nursery thing also strikes me as a bit of a red herring. Yes, CEOs of multi billion dollar companies taking home million dollar paychecks receive perks that rank and file employees don't get to enjoy. Maybe I'm just complacent, but that doesn't even begin to enter "controversial scandal" territory IMO.

[vor_]

I consider it controversial if the reasoning behind a policy is one the CEO isn't required to endure because of perks.

[svachalek]

I take it you don't live in the US? CEOs aren't required to endure any policies. Nor Congress, or anyone else at that level. Some of us don't like it but it's the norm.

[vor_]

I was speaking morally, not legally.

[EliAndrewC]

My familiarity comes more from Slate Magazine, and especially it's sister publication DoubleX, where the child-care aspect was heavily emphasized both in articles and in their bi-weekly DoubleX podcast.

However, I strongly agree with your analysis of her nursery as a CEO perk, which might like her high salary is simply much better than what normal employees have access to. This is why I disagree with the claims of hypocrisy, as I alluded to in my original comment.

[chollida1]

> Staying home with children to avoid the cost of a full-time nanny is a common reason for telecommuting.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you please elaborate?

How does working from home avoid the cost of a full-time nanny? If I work when I'm at home then I can't, by definition, take care of my children at the same time.

Assuming a minimal commute, working from home doesn't save hardly any time at all.

[hkarthik]

Anyone who's ever been at home with a child between the ages of 0-7 knows they pretty much need constant attention. Maybe you can put older ones in front of the TV and get them to a vegetated state while you write code for an hour or two at most.

Doing it occasionally with a sick child is understandable if it's a rare occurrence. I've done this quite often, but even then I'm always playing catch up at night after they go to bed. It wouldn't be sustainable every day.

[drcube]

We're not talking about babies here. My six year old can take care of himself just fine if he's fed and has an adult around in case of emergencies. I have worked in my home office for hours while he played in the rest of the house, watched videos, etc.

Daycare can be $500/week, for the privilege of simply having an adult be near my kid. If telecommuting helps me avoid that cost, it's a significant incentive.

[chollida1]

Hmm, then I guess your kids are better behaved than mine:) I've tried this and it was so disastrous that I'd never let an employee do this.

There is just no way you can get proper work done if you are responsible for looking after any kid under the age of 12:)

I agree it may save money and time but I've never seen anyone not have it affect their work. You must be a rare individual:)

[MichaelGG]

Under 12? Are you serious? Maybe you're being sly by hiding something loaded in "proper work". A 10 year old should be rather self-sufficient.

Even my four year old was able to take care of herself, playing games, browsing the web and so on. Cooking is the only thing we wouldn't let her do. Or perhaps you mean it's more appealing to hang out with them and play?

[rayiner]

> I've tried this and it was so disastrous that I'd never let an employee do this.

It's not your employees' fault you didn't raise your children properly. Kids in Asia are doing hard manual labor on a farm at 7 or 8. They can definitely keep quiet and entertain themselves at that age.

[homosaur]

Fairly certain having 7 or 8 year old kids doing hard farm labor is "raising them properly." More like "desperate poverty."

[rayiner]

My point is that for the majority of human history, 7 and 8 year olds were expected to do things that were a lot more intense than simply not bugging their parents for a few hours at a time while they did office work. They aren't constitutionally incapable of it, and OP shouldn't make assumptions about the upbringing of his employee's kids.

[infinite8s]

Wow, that's a bit harsh. It can also depend on the personality of the child. Some kids like to have more attention.

[_chrismccreadie]

Agreed, every child is different. What is the definition of properly and at what point does a child reach that state? The poster has minimised a complex parent -> child relationship to a a binary state of being raised properly or not.

[wvenable]

I did it with my daughter after schools and I'll likely do it with my son again once he is school aged. For the first week or so, my daughter would come and pester me and I'd hold firm. And slowly it was less frequent until finally she stopped bothering me altogether and then we kept that up for years.

[leecGoimik7]

It's quite simple: school ends at 3pm. Somebody needs to pick up the kid. After that my 6 yo is perfectly capable of entertaining herself for few hours while I continue my work. And why would you assume minimal commute? For me that's 2.5 h a day, and that's not a lot by NYC metro area standards.

[signed0]

I would imagine that taking care of one's children does not require constant interaction. If that is the case then one could WFH for 8 hours a day but space out their time so that they can attend to their children's needs as they arise.

[bjelkeman-again]

Depends very much on the age of the children. A friend has three, 6-10 years. It is not so easy to work from home when they are five or less. Try with someone else's kids and you will see.

[5555624]

> If I work when I'm at home then I can't, by definition, take care of my children at the same time.

Our telework policy spells that out and working from home to avoid child care is not allowed. I'm not sure how strictly they enforce this -- I don't have kids -- but then they also only allow us to telework one, maybe two, days per week.

[shardling]

>Perhaps the most common and controversial aspect of Mayer's decision was the claim of hypocrisy regarding child care.

That seems more like a rhetorical tactic than a genuine issue? (The hypocrisy, not child care in and of itself.)

[EliAndrewC]

>That seems more like a rhetorical tactic than a genuine issue?

I ascribe it to something else; Mayer is a female CEO, which I think causes many people to assign to her responsibility for championing women in the workplace. When she fails to live up to this standard which has been imposed on her, people cry foul.

Another relevant example is her interview awhile back where she mentioned she didn't really consider herself a feminist. This was met with far harsher criticism than I think any man would have received for making the same statement - "Oh really... which of your equal rights do you want to give back?!"

This is why I don't think the claims of hypocrisy are just a rhetorical tactic. People are genuinely disappointed in her failure to live up to the standards they've imposed on her, which they imagine that as a female CEO she has also set for herself and is implicitly broadcasting to the world.

[ultimoo]

Not to disagree with the point you are making, but just to add to it -- I'm sure the personal nursery bit was a part of the employment terms that Mayer must have negotiated before joining Yahoo!.

[Sambdala]

and working from home wasn't part of the terms any Yahoo employee negotiated before joining the company?

Edit: Not that I really have an opinion on the policy as it applies to Yahoo specifically.

[dragonwriter]

> and working from home wasn't part of the terms any Yahoo employee negotiated before joining the company?

If it was a contractual employment condition negotiated before joining the company, then there wouldn't be complaints, there'd be breach-of-contract lawsuits.

"Our policy is X", "Okay, cool, I'd like to work somewhere with that policy" isn't a negotiation for a benefit that the employer is obligated to continue to provide.

[snowwrestler]

There is a very big difference between working from home, an working from home while caring for a child. Most WFH policies only allow the former.