[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.