I was going to critique her for taking on an unsustainable living situation. But by the end of that post, just wow.
Yelp is a large company with a lot of resources, the way they treated this woman is despicable, especially after a family tragedy like that. It's not like they'll be going out of business if she took some time off to be a human being and care for her family.
I don't use Yelp as I've heard many other negative things about them and don't see a need to, but after reading this, I'll actively avoid them and tell others to.
All those points are irrelevant though - they're not part of the story here. The author isn't asking for a pay rise to make up the difference in what she earns compared to what she pays out, or for help looking after her child. She's not looking for any special treatment. All of those things are a distraction from the real point of the post: She wants an employer who's compassionate enough not to fire her for being human. That isn't an unreasonable demand.
You don't need to admire someone to believe that they should be able to take some time off to look after a family member who is ill.
If we made a list of every large company that violated a reasonable code of human morality.. the wheel was spun and today's public outrage is at Yelp. This stuff happens all the time. Sure we get outraged at the random story we come across every now and then, but largely we are numb to it.
I just think the most valuable thing we can do to prevent these situations is have deeper discussions on the macro level instead of micro-analyzing single cases that have all sorts of bias and obfuscation.
I'm British and living in the UK, so under law I can't be fired for taking time off for an emergency with any of my dependents, and I'm entitled to "parental leave" for things like appointments[1]. This is the absolute minimum I would expect a country to afford its citizens.
This is how this problem should be dealt with at the macro level. I find it saddening to see the micro-level impact of not having these sorts of laws in place.
But how a company handles it's legal obligations is also interesting. When my father died the company that employed me at the time said, essentially, "Go away and come back when you feel ready". This despite the fact that the only other member of my direct team was the other side of the world and there was no one with domain expertise was available so it would have been infuriating for them to cover support. There was certainly no mention of statutory pay or anything.
They also let me leave on multiple occasions at short notice in the preceeding years when he was ill.
Their being incredibly generous with compassionate leave allowed me to deal with the personal stuff without worrying about money/job stuff. It also meant that I worked remotely, covered support, and generally made sure that everything ran as smoothly as possible.
These choices make business sense, as well as being the decent thing to do.
We shouldn't need a law for this. From the facts presented in the article seems like a case where an employer can "do the right thing".
Weird thing is HR let her go after the Talia Jayne issue the other day - HR dept should be plugged in to a lot more stuff than just this single employee's situation.
There are enough "studies" (Buffer, Gabe N, ROWE etc.) that demonstrably prove that treating humans like humans, and not like machines, measurably increases performance over longer time-frames - instead of eking out unproductive work over the paltry 3 days while she worries about her boyfriend.
> Its relation with her is that of business
Her relation to the company is that of employee and not slave.
Henry Ford dreamed up this current work environment where people are treated like machines. There is absolutely and utterly zero science to back up this business methodology. Managing people with fear is nothing more than a morally bankrupt global religion that people unwittingly buy into.
Firing someone for taking three days off to handle a family emergency is not reasonable. Your opinion of whether the emergency was caused by risky behavior is irrelevant.
Good point. She seemed to have a lot of things happen that required her to be late, take time off, etc. Her manager may have been frustrated by the constant issues and didn't fully believe her reason now. Sad as it is, I've had more than one employee lie about illnesses, deaths, childcare situations and the like for numerous reasons, including to work elsewhere on short-term projects.
To completely ignore the tone of your post, and reply to the topic at hand, it isn't "clearly sensible". Even if your only motives are driven by profits, it takes a lot of money to retrain a replacement. Add to that the motivational benefits of providing an employee with support during a time of need, which will statistically provide greater productivity in the future, and it's usually better in the long term for a company to support employees in need.
I'm frankly disgusted that anyone would look at this from a purely profit driven viewpoint, especially as this viewpoint is short-sighted and mistaken.
Treat your employees well and they will usually treat you well.
It's really not, because all your other staff will immediately consider leaving, and some actually will. You'll then face the cost of hiring and training replacements, which is very likely much higher than giving the original staff member three days off., not to mention the potential fallout from the negative publicity it might entail (like this thread).
There is no benefit to running your business this way. It's only harmful.
Real talk, I've worked for some horrible employers back home in Wichita, but -never- has any fired me for taking time off due to an emergency. If anything, they said, "go and take care of it." And that was that. I don't know what part of the world you come from but even in Kansas (a very socially and economically conservative state) we don't haggle people over three days off for an emergency. We suck it up and deal with it.
It is not the case that people at Yelp find it great joy in firing people. When a person did not turn up for work for three days some HR manager gleefully typed out a termination later and hifived all his co-workers. I don't think that is the case. Hiring someone costs money and so does termination.
Unless I know the Yelp's side of the story I wouldn't buy her version. It is possible that she failed to inform her superiors properly. It is possible that she has a long history of staying absent from work. It is possible that she was terminated for entirely different reasons and her being in a difficult situation is a pure co-incident.
When terminated people get angry. They say all sort of things.
> It is possible that she has a long history of staying absent from work.
She did. She'd only been working there from December, used up all her sick-days while still in training, and missed even more days in the following months. One time she missed work because she couldn't find her car keys. It sounds like her manager got fed up and that was the end of it.
Well, to be honest some countries don't have unjustified sick days, you can take unlimited ones, but with a doctor's note, otherwise it's taken out of your pay
I think a key difference here is paid sick leave versus unpaid sick leave. I think companies should allow more unpaid sick leave, but if we allow unlimited paid sick leave, no one would ever go to work.
It's the kind of thing.....if it happens once, it's no big deal. If little things keep happening like that throughout the month, then there's probably something you need to fix.
Taking the 3 days off to care for the bf regardless of whether his injury was his fault or half a day to care for a sick kid are not unreasonable requests.
So by your logic it would be OK to fire her because her partner was doing some risky outdoor activity?
Would it still have been OK if he was knocked down just crossing the street? That's also a risk after all.
What about if he had been on a bus involved in an accident?
Thinking of my own career I've had several occasions to call upon compassionate leave - and each time the employers (one a large US firm) handled it in exemplary fashion.
Have you ever heard of a concept called "basic human compassion"?
Also I don't understand the "single mom" part. Society does not owe any special treatment to a single mom, not more than any other mom. Single mother is a choice of an independent woman and if she cant afford it she should probably not make it.
Instead of being thankful for an employer to have given an opportunity in first place she is ranting against her employer, this is going to make it difficult for her to find next job. I wont hire such a person.
Single mother is a choice of an independent woman and if she cant afford it she should probably not make it.
The father of her child might have died, or left 10 years after the baby was born, etc. Saying she shouldn't have made this choice is completely idiotic. It's highly unlikely she chose her situation.
I wont hire such a person.
You will, because you have to. Deep down everyone is this person. We will all take time off to look after our families and prioritise things above our jobs if they're important to us. An employer has to understand this, especially when you get to the size of Yelp and you're employing call centre sales staff.
She is demanding special treatment for being single mother which in my opinion should not be accorded to her no matter why she is single. She could marry someone for all I care if being single is a handicap for her.
Yes, I know people have problems. The kind of people I dont want is who bitch about it and have sense of entitlement.
> Society does not owe any special treatment to a single mom, not more than any other mom.
Just playing the devil's advocate here:
1) Society also does not provide any particular path for her kid's pre-school, which she must cover out out of pocket, unlike, let's say, creches in France.
2) When her kid grows up, society (in California at least) also doesn't provide any meaningful transportation options to/from school. She will have to handle the driving. Her best hope is to find other parents who'd agree to a carpool, so that at least it's not daily.
3) Most work hours are 8 to 6. Most school hours are conveniently 9 to 3, which means that she ought to explain to the coworkers that she'll be late in the morning as she needs to drop off the kid at school and then pay someone (after-school care) to pick the kid up at 3, or drive herself, if feasible.
4) In some states leaving the kids at home alone would be a reason for neighbors to call Child Protection Services, so there's a need to hire someone to accompany the kid from 3 till 6 until mother gets home.
So while society may not owe a single mother much, it seems to have gone to incredible lengths to complicate their lives and annihilate any possibility of them having a career and any modicum of social mobility.
I was going to reply do your #2 and ask why doesn't her kid just take the school bus like everyone else, but did a quick search and learned today that California does not require schools to provide busses! WTF is up with that? We force parents to send their kids to school, but don't provide a way to get them to school, and punish the kid with detention when they're late or don't come? Now THAT is messed up.
How do kids in CA expected to get to school if they're not within walking distance and have no public transportation?
But hey US uses drones to kill little kids in Pakistan and doctors in Afganistan.
Also society is not same as government. People voluntarily doing stuff is society. Few people through power of majority forcing everyone to pay up for single mothers is government.
I agree with your point that writing this post could be a red flag for future employers, however:
> Single mother is a choice of an independent woman and if she cant afford it she should probably not make it.
With respect, this is a very naive and simplistic view of the situation which displays a lack of empathy. I doubt many women make the explicit choice to become single mothers. There are many reasons she could have ended up in this situation. Perhaps her husband died, or ran away when he discovered she was pregnant.
You might as well say that being in a car crash is the choice of an independent driver, and if they didn't want to experience pain they should not have chosen to be in a car crash.
Employers are people to we expect them to behave both ethically and humanely. Society doesn't owe you much but we can afford to give a little extra consideration to those who might be in need of it. You company wont go bankrupt or fall apart because of it.
Just remind me to -never- look to whatever firms you work at for a job. Because if they tolerate someone like you they gotta be more robotic than Rubio.
Not to distract from the content of the piece, but she took a 300% loan? THREE HUNDRED PERCENT? Could she have gotten a better loan? I'm under the impression that most banks offer loans at more reasonable rates.
Also, how is Yelp able to retain salespeople in the Bay Area if they pay only $2k/month? The salary is clearly under the cost of living.
On topic: please don't let all the particularities of this case distract you. The fundamental issue is that she was fired over a short absence due to a serious family emergency, all while ostensibly performing well at her job. That's not acceptable.
Some title loans (automobile) charge 10% per week, which if left unpaid, will amount to 520% per annum. Hence why payday loan stores compete for every corner in impoverished areas.
In the UK payday loan interest rates are listed in terms of APR (anualised interest) because regulations stipulate it. A payday loan is a short term loan so the effective interest rate is lower. Still high - that's how the time value of money works, try getting a short term bridging loan from a retail bank (actually almost impossible, hence Wonga et al) - but not 1000%. Always provided that you pay it back on time, of course. It's true that taking one out without the ability or intent to pay it back within the window is irrational but people in dire straits are often subject to hyperbolic discounting effects.
Quoting: "I do not rely on the state to care for my son."
Not being from the USA and seeign the place this human being is in, it hurt me reading that justification.
Goddamm, that is what state is for! You have been fed all that capitalist bullshit for so long that don't see that another way of living is possible?
Are people waiting for private companies to help them in moments of need? That's what a welfare state is for. Just look at Europe, for all the jokes about french-strikes, taxes, corruption and whatelse we are not as fucked as this.
> while being pitched ads for my brand new vocal studio in the South Bay
> took out a loan with 300% interest to move to SF to begin training December 1st at Yelp
> pays $2500 in rent (I make 2k a month so YES, my family has to help and I am so sorry to burden them), pays $1200 a month in daycare
I do not understand.
Why would someone take a loan (at a ridiculous interest rate) to move to a situation with higher rent (let alone cost of living) than salary, especially with kids in tow, especially in a country with at-will employment, especially having just started a new business? What was the upside that would be worth so much stress and risk?
For similar reasons people take out tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands in loans to go to college: a promise of a better future, a little bit of risk and debt now for a life-changing career, and a better future for her children.
It's quite possible she was sold the position on the basis of "well, in 3-6 months time, we'll reevaluate and get you up the ladder".
She may have seen it as a life-changing opportunity with some risk for a few months.
It annoys me that you are focusing on the things she did "wrong" rather than asking whether Yelp is culpable for some of the blame here.
Is it acceptable for somebody to be fired for wanting to take three days unpaid leave to deal with a loved one in ICU? Never mind the other points she raises: this alone is terrible behaviour.
hate to agree with you(nothing personal), but people do tend to exploit beneficial systems. So, the few end up ruining a well-meaning support network for the truly needy.
> people take out tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands in loans to go to college
I also do not understand this when there are many cheap or free options [1] in the US, and most private colleges have excellent scholarship programs (i.e. free rides) for those smart enough, but not rich enough to attend (much better than anything in Europe). Especially when the cost of education has skyrocketed and its payoff is so low - hell, I usually ignore the education part of the CV when hiring.
Having the right to live and study in the US, being eligible for these opportunities is a treasure by global standards (even if some European countries have it a bit better). But that's a separate discussion.
> It annoys me that you are focusing on the things she did "wrong" rather than asking whether Yelp is culpable for some of the blame here.
This position you implied for me, but it was not what I was stating. I am attempting to understand the reasons behind the displayed pattern of decision making (and you indeed provided a plausible explanation), not passing any kind of moral judgment.
> I am the single mother who closed 17K in month one and 19K in month two.
This needs more context. Is this amount of sales considered incredible, very good, average, below average or significantly below average in Yelp world?
It's one thing if the author was a top-notch performer terminated for family circumstances beyond her control, it would be a different story if she was under-performing, perhaps on internal probation, and termination coincided with a series of tragic family events.
Some companies are known to stack-rank and trim their sales force en masse.
If she was a top-notch performer Yelp would have bent over backwards to keep her around.
The fact that they didn't would imply that the trouble of keeping her is less than the cost of firing her, which says a lot about the performance of an employee.
>> If she was a top-notch performer Yelp would have bent over backwards to keep her around.
There is no 10x or 100x phone web-ad sales person. It's slightly more differentiable than bricklaying. You might be impressively and noticeably better than everyone else, but your greatest asset is being non-differentiable: show up on time, follow your script, go home. When you start costing more expensive people's time your marginal advantage isn't enough to save you.
I keep hearing this phrase here, often as justification for being picky when hiring. As someone who's never run a business, can someone please elaborate a bit about what it costs to fire someone? I thought, at least in the USA, there are really no worker protections. You just say "pack your stuff up and get out".
It's stories like this that cause everyone in Europe except the blind SV worshippers and libertarian fundamentalists to just shrug and shake their heads every time a rant comes up about how the US is so much better for startups and entrepreneurs.
And this thread is just full of sociopaths blaming the victim. SV culture disgusts me.
>And this thread is just full of sociopaths blaming the victim.
It's better to not think of it as blaming the victim, but rather offering advice on how to avoid that problem in the future. Even if the tone of the advice is rather negative...
How can you take a job where you make 2k/month and pay rent of 2.5k + 1.2k daycare. That sounds unsustainable. And a 300% loan...what?
Company culture at Yelp sounds horrible. Tell someone they can come in or get fired over the phone while they are in the ICU is pretty bad. The other stuff mentioned is also bad.
> I am the single mother who closed 17K in month one and 19K in month two. I am the single mother who gets to see her son for a few hours a night, pays $2500 in rent (I make 2k a month so YES, my family has to help and I am so sorry to burden them), pays $1200 a month in daycare (#yelpcares — no subsidy there)
I'm not experienced in sales...but how is this a good deal for the author, nevermind tenable? This, plus the 300% loan she mentions...I wonder what the Yelp recruiting pitch was to her? To give her the benefit of the doubt, it'd have to be that Yelp overpromised on commissions for her to take such a risk.
But Yelp or no Yelp, this is just a difficult situation overall, and one that continues to increase the admiration I have for women who can deal with pregnancy/motherhood and go for a high-pace job, tech or anywhere (how the F did Ada Lovelace manage 3 pregnancies in her day?)...I'd love to hear from other companies -- whether it be traditional ones or established tech companies like Google/Facebook -- about how they've dealt with similar extreme situations, if ever? My conception of Yelp is that it's not doing so hot financially and so, malice or not, has just poorly prepared itself to deal with the author's situation, such that a manager/CEO can justify being abrupt because "it's her, or the overall company". Whereas a much more stable company with all the tech amenities has more flexibility in practicing "humaneness"
Yelp: So here's how it's going to play out. We'll start you on $2k/month base, and then after 3 months your target bonuses kick in.
You: OK, what could those be?
Yelp: Well, if you work hard, you could be looking at 25% of sales you book, and we'd be expecting you to be doing $15k-$30k of sales a month, so let's take the lower end of that, and assume an additional $45k a year bringing you up to near $70k/year. Whilst you're here you're gaining great experience at a great company
You: Well, currently my life is utter crap and this seems like a good way to provide for my kid given I can't afford to go to school, so, OK...
More than paying the commissions for the salea that are finalized during the 'probation period'? The parents statement seems to be spot-on for Yelp's business standards track record.
I haven't seen this mentioned in comments before: we really need the other guy's POV in this. The most common scenarios in which you'd fire somebody for failing to show up at work is if:
- you want to fire them anyways and are just looking for an excuse
- there are recurring issues and this is just the last drop in a bucket - in which case the firing incident could very well be relatively trivial
> I am the single mother who was the top of my class in training for you Jeremy
It does not make financial sense for a company to fire a top employee for missing a day, evil or not.
Currently in the process of moving the family back to the US from Sweden, and this is one of the things that scares me the most about life in US. At most workplaces, managers treat you like cattle, and people in IT are still so blessed when I compare to the crap my wife had to go through working hospitality/restaurants and hospitals.. The situation is unacceptable.
Still, sure there are great companies in the US that emulate perks and benefits that you take for granted in the rest of the western world, but for the most part, I have always felt I've needed to start my own business to rid myself of this craziness and be able to afford myself some basic measure of work/life balance.
No, I did not mean the harsh physical conditions, I mean the lack of control over your own life. This employer seemed to 'own' her much more than I would consider reasonable. It's not legal ownership, but the outcome seems practically the same.
If you think the only slavery is the kind with heavy manual labor, you're minimising the hardships that many slaves have gone through. All slavery is bad. Some is worse.
And of course the fundamental fact that she chose to work here and that a slave did not have a choice, except to not obey his master and be beaten or murdered.
A slave could have chosen not to work and would have been beaten. She could have chosen not to work and wouldn't have been able to feed herself and her children. To me this looks like a situation which is at least related. Not exactly the same, but not completely different.
A slave can escape though. It's all a matter of degrees, and where one draws the line between 'slavery' and 'freedom' depends entirely on one's world view. Personally I believe the crucial element is the psychology of a human being, and I believe that by that measure, 'true' freedom is much rarer than we think.
On the level of societies, I think a world where everyone would have too much freedom might actually not lead to optimal individual or collective happiness, and I think finding the balance is incredibly complicated.
All that said, I think the relative lack of security and freedom for many people in the US is a travesty and not fitting for a country that puts freedom front and center.
Boyfriend in hospital doesn't qualify as 'sick leave.' FMLA is very narrow. I've been down a similar hole once in my life before. I was sickened and shocked. One emergency in my whole life. Nominal top employer. Senior position there. Zero support.
Surely this isn't worth it in the long run for Yelp. I understand if someone was constantly absent in a way that looked like they were abusing goodwill.
Surely though, the loss of morale from fellow employees over an incident like this is not worth it, unless you want to reinforce some kind of authoritarian workplace where people better keep quiet and stay in line if they want to continue being employed.
Isn't that what a lot of sales environments are like? High pressure to perform, constant turnover, management who only care about the quarterly numbers?
Hey everyone can I just make the point that comments supporting either the mother or Yelp bring value to the discussion especially if they reflect the true opinion of the reader (and likely reflect the opinion of many other readers).
Sounds like yelp is probably a shitty place to work, but on an unrelated note you're not supposed to have your phone on in the ICU. At least not where I live.
I really don't see it as a problem with Yelp. Yelp is doing everything in its best interests - even if its inhumane, immoral and scummy. I see it as a problem with a completely broken social care system in the US which is just utter bullshit, no guaranteed maternity leave is not something you would normally accuse a "1st" world country of.
Easy for you or I to say. Or anyone else who isn't impoverished, without(or ignorant of) credit choices who's seemingly last option is the ubiquitous 'Loan Stores' that prey on the disadvantaged.
It doesn't have to be a "status" - it's her actual life. Employers and managers should be sensitive to their employees' needs (and I say this as an employer). It's not all about the law and ticking boxes. Yes, a low paid single mother does deserve more leeway than a middle aged childless white guy in the office whether or not the law says so.
Your middle aged childless white guy may well have caring responsibilities to his elderly parents or disabled sibling, which he didn't feel comfortable telling you about as you appear to be unsympathetic to some kinds of employees.
It does smack a bit of "my problems are more important than yours" attitude. The same kind of judgmental tone can be seen in other parts too:
>I am the single mother who closed two deals with a fever during winter “break” while my co-workers took their days off for fun. I worked through and paced my time off into half days bc I knew I needed to save up my time off.
Why does she care what her coworkers use their time off for? Everyone gets the same amount of vacation and they can use it for whatever they damn well please, that's none of her business.
In which a bunch of privileged males cast judgement from their perches on someone who's clearly had to make some unpleasant choices, some of which may even have been poor ones.
Yelp didn't make her move, or make her take out high-interest loans, or promise any certain job stability based on performance. It isn't relevant to Yelp that she's a single mother. And on and on and on. So much of what is written here seems to be failure to take responsibility for questionable decisions and irrational expectations.
Isn't that attitude the issue at hand though? Large corporations (this one has north of 3k employees and is pulling in hundreds of millions in revenue) shouldn't be able to treat their employees like replaceable trash instead of human beings to save a few bucks.
Ironically, if I had a family tragedy and asked for leave at the small company I work for that makes very few profits, they'd give me the thumbs up instantly. You'd think the super rich corporations would have an easier time accommodating that, but some of them just refuse if it means a few bucks out of the pocket of John Q Millionaire.
This is precisely why our parents' generation had far more robust unions: they got paid higher wages, and got treated with a lot more dignity over it. Even if unions weren't perfect, they prevent a few millionaires at the top from stomping all over the little people.
> they got paid higher wages, and got treated with a lot more dignity over it
This. But I guess working conditions will need to go back to early 20th century ones for people to find out how low can things go without bargaining power.
Would she be offered such position if the company didn't "treat their employees like replaceable trash instead of human beings to save a few bucks"?
Performance-based sales in any industry (Internet ads, Yellow pages ads, timeshares, used cars) are known for high pace and high turnover. Companies are quick to hire, but also quick to fire.
If you told the company they were entering a long-term relationship with an employee, and it wouldn't be that easy to get rid of them, the employer would suddenly get very selective, and the candidate would probably have to show years of past sales experience, recommendations from previous employers, go through a few rounds of interviews, etc.
They are not treating employees like replaceable 'trash'. They are treating employees like replaceable workers.
And this relationship goes both ways. Employees can treat their employers as replaceable. Although I haven't seen an equivalent loaded word for 'trash' in this scenario.
And there is no reason to believe that the only reason she was fired was because she wanted days off. Based on her own testimony, which is the best version of the events for her, she had many times used leaves to care for her children and put her manager in a 'difficult position'. So she would have been marked as a bad employee.
As for the union. A union of sellers of anything is called a cartel and is illegal, but if it's a union of sellers of labour then it is suddenly the shining beacon of equality. The only real difference is that union of sellers have way more voting power.
> Large corporations (this one has north of 3k employees and is pulling in hundreds of millions in revenue)
The statistic 'revenue' is well chosen to support your point, because they also posted a net loss in 2015, and 2013, and 2012 and 2011, all in the order of tens of millions of dollars, so while they have a lot of receipts they don't actually have any spare cash.
Companies, big or small, have some quota of instances where they can engage in charity instead of business (that is, make decisions on the basis of their humanitarian value rather than how much they increase net revenue), sometimes they literally engage in charity outside of the company (sponsoring good causes) and sometimes they engage in charity inside the company.
However, if they exceed their quota, they go bankrupt, and then they are incapable of engaging in any future charity and also everyone who works for them gets fired. Companies who consistently lose money (like Yelp) have a lower quota for charity than companies who consistently post profits.
This sounds like manipulating the circumstances so it only benefits the organisation. When tech companies are having hard time, they expect employees to put extra hours because "you are a part of a team and you have to save the ship". When company is doing better, they expect employees do their job and their circumstances are not their responsibility.
This is the first time on HN I'm actually sad I don't have enough karma to downvote a post.
"It isn't relevant to Yelp that she's a single mother". There are so many things wrong with this statement that I can't even begin to answer. To quote something I found yesterday:
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
When my father died last year, I was immediately offered (without me even asking for) up to two weeks payed leave. And they didn't call me the next day to give me an ultimatum.
Of course the company didn't care that my father died. No one outside of my team even knew. But my immediate supervisor did. And he did everything he could to help me get through. Because he's a human, not a corporate drone.
However deep or shallow a company's hierarchy may be, at each level there are discreet human beings.
You lucked into working for a pretty great company, then. I couldn't imagine being offered unsolicited extra paid time off from any company I've ever worked for, regardless of reason. The mantra these days seems to be: companies exist to squeeze as much value out of employees as they can whilst paying as little as they possibly can. If, as a company, you're not doing this, you're going to get outcompeted by companies who are.
> I was immediately offered (without me even asking for) up to two weeks payed leave.
That was really good of them. My hope is that the author (and everyone) will choose to work for a company that would be as good to her as yours was to you.
But a job is just an offer. The employer can't ensure that the offer makes sense for any individual's situation. I personally think Yelp's offer totally sucks, but my situation is different from others', so I look for whether or not they were deceptive or failed to hold up their end of the deal. Were they? Right now I'm not seeing it.
> I look for whether or not they were deceptive or failed to hold up their end of the deal.
Does that even matter? The way her manager treated her was utter crap and that reflects badly upon the whole company. Her article is a subjective accounting of what happened, and I truly believe most of it is true. Having an accurate, objective picture of the situation is impossible.
> The way her manager treated her was utter crap and that reflects badly upon the whole company.
Was the way her manager treated her a violation of their agreement? If it was, we should condemn Yelp, or at least that manager. If on the other hand Yelp was acting in accordance with the agreement, why are you talking as if your values should be important in an agreement you aren't a party to?
I guess it comes down to, do you think adults should be able to make deals as they see fit? Or just ones you think are nice?
Companies are run by people and exist because they have value to people. Entitlement or not, it is extremely distressing to see people argue that the employees of companies are not worthy of a little bit of sympathy by their own coworkers.
This is a really shitty situation but I'm not sure it's Yelp's fault.
There seems to be a fundamental assumption that, by paying someone to make sales calls for them, Yelp takes on a sort of overarching responsibility for that person's general well-being.
Is it just because Yelp is a big institution with deep pockets? Aren't the various governments bigger institutions with deeper pockets?
It seems to me much more logical that welfare should come from the state, and that people and corporations should be free to enter into or exit from mutually beneficial economic relationships.
The author proudly states that she doesn't rely on the state to care for her son, but why not? Wasn't she effectively relying on the goodwill of Yelp to care for her son?
I am not excusing Yelp, but in most countries this is fire-able offense. In EU my friends were in similar situation and they had to go to work. She got half-day off on very short notice..
I don't know about the rest of EU, but I currently work in France and I'd be shocked if someone were fired because they took half a day off with little to no notice for serious health or family reasons. If anything, the company would be sued in a heartbeat and almost guaranteed to lose.
I worked in the UK for a few years, and have had to take days off with no notice - to attend a funeral, say - and no one even thought about criticising me for it, let alone fire me. That might have been because it was a Japanese company though, I can't really tell.
I also worked in Germany for a while, and a co-worker found himself in a similar position. The company made a point of reminding him that this was not how the rules went before sending him off with instructions not to be back until the situation was resolved.
I don't know which part of EU your friend worked in, but I wonder if your generalisation might not be a bit too broad.
It's hard to know what happened without hearing both sides of the story.
In this case, what we can guess it looked like from her manager's point of view was: she kept taking days off, with excuses that didn't seem to make sense (can't find car keys), and now she wants to take three more days off.
Without trying to blame anyone, I feel bad for her and hope her boyfriend recovers.
Oh, sure, I wasn't really commenting on the original story but on the parent's assertion that it'd also get you fired in Europe, which I think is either untrue or too general a statement.
Firing a single mom for needing to take time off to take care of someone close to her, especially when it would appear her performance has been at least acceptable (if maybe not her attendance)... right or wrong, it's still a bit of a dick move, wouldn't you agree?
I live in France, in most companies you don't get to finish your trial period if you are out of the office.
However for a low pay job like this one, you don't get a 3x2 mnth trial.
I was under the impression that her trial period, or the american equivalent if there's such a thing, was long since finished. If that assumption is incorrect, I agree that taking sudden unpaid leave during one's trial period is dangerous.
That being said, it's happened in my company and we most definitely didn't fire the person for that. I can see how it could happen, but I don't think it's a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination.
It depends on what job in the UK. In the office IT jobs that most HN readers have, you'd get the time off without questions, and likely a sympathy card from the team too.
As a packer on a zero-hours contract in an Amazon shipping warehouse? I don't know for sure but my gut feeling is "hell no, you'd be let go!"
Sure. Though the Zero-hours contract is the modern loophole that's being enthusiastically exploited: A person on a zero-hours contract may not technically actually be an employee. And even if they are, the employer can just threaten to withhold paying work, since no work is guaranteed.
One more time I do not agree with Yelp, and I think its not good what they did.
I live in Czech Republic, it is post-communist country with protective work law, for example employer must give 3 month notice when someone is fired. Law specify long list of reason for taking a leave (children sick, wedding, funeral, blood donation, even looking for new job)...
But her boyfriend is not dependent on her (and is not even relative). It is very different when children are in hospital.
These posts in a nutshell: "I am bad at managing my finances. Also, it is much easier to blame big companies than to introspect and try to improve myself."
Yelp was really shitty for treating her this way, but the decisions she made to move to SF and work for Yelp are HIGHLY questionable.
Taking out a loan at 300% interest while FULL WELL knowing that you can't afford rent (HER ENTIRE PAYCHECK goes to rent!) or basic living necessities AND caring for a family AS A SINGLE MOM is beyond irresponsible.
If consistently treated this poorly, why would one not leave the job and go elsewhere, especially if rent + said job puts you in the red? Not to excuse yelp of anything, but if you don't feel you are valued you are the one responsible for bettering your situation.
Most likely she doesn't know how to find jobs elsewhere. Learning to manage a career is a skill all of itself (which for that matter is a skill I am still learning).
So while she could do that, it's not always easy to figure out.
Ok, so how they treat their employees sucks. Now comes the famous but.
Why did she take a job she could not afford - from what I understand she's making a monthly loss of $700 + groceries, gas, etc. Why move to SF, to take a sales job you can't afford? More importantly, a job you knew would be making you an unsustainable loss before you even took it!
With a kid in tow this just seems irresponsible.
Now you can talk about career development, the american dream etc. but at the end of the day, you don't take a job you can't afford.
Now I'm not saying you can't take a job where you are loosing money so you get experience/references/career opportunities, (here comes that but again) BUT only if you can afford it. Yeah, you missed that "opportunity", but others will come along.
In that case nobody should ever go to college ever.
If you don't think you can get into a top school, another way to find a way up the ladder is to find a position at a top start-up you believe will lead somewhere better.
$1k/month for a year whilst building experience is a cheap way to get yourself into a position that might pay $100k/year if you work hard, especially compared to college.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. In my mind also, her early risk of a low salary is equally equatable to the up front investment of college/university.
Yelp is a large company with a lot of resources, the way they treated this woman is despicable, especially after a family tragedy like that. It's not like they'll be going out of business if she took some time off to be a human being and care for her family.
I don't use Yelp as I've heard many other negative things about them and don't see a need to, but after reading this, I'll actively avoid them and tell others to.