Anonymous wrote:I guess my comment was deleted for profanity? I basically was saying I'm tired of her "look at me, I'm such a hard worker" nonsense.

She can do this because she can hire a ton of support. She doesn't keep the same hours that her office drones do, etc.

She set up a nursery in her office after #1 and could bring her team of helpers to work-something her workers cannot do.

Oh, and she can work from home while she took that from her employees.


Screw her - she's a hypocrite.

I totally agree!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, flexible telecommuting...and not having to take as many hours out of the office if you just have to run an errand around the corner at home.

I work a job where I don't have to be cometely chained to my computer during normal work hours. So, yeah, I guess flexible work from home hours. I get paid for however many hours I actually work.

The not having to commute each way also gives one time.

Sorry your telecommuting job is inflexible.

Ah, so you're an hourly employee. That's totally different.

Wow, condescending much? I'd much rather be paid for time actually worked than have an inflexible work schedule. There are many nights I have been up at midnight, even past, completing work for clients to meet deadlines.

My husband doesn't work your typical 9-5 either. On days when he has meetings close to home, he is paid for drive time and they basically just ask him to check in by phone and log into the network for a minute or two. He's salaried but on call whenever they need him to be (he's worked many overnights and then not had to go in the next day)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She'll do fine; she hired a nanny before and brought the child to work, and I imagine she'll do the same again. Wealth helps.

This, exactly this. If I could have had my baby at work with me every day and could have him/her brought to me to nurse or to cuddle, I would have been super productive mom. If I had enough money to have a full suit where I could have a little fridge, my own bathroom, and maybe food brought from a healthy place, I could have done it. Staying home with your newborn is not all it's cracked up to be. I think she'll have the best of all worlds - doing work she enjoys and staying close to her newborns.

This, pretty much. The problem is that she thinks everyone can be back to work at 2 weeks and no one else can afford these things.

She has never said this, idiot.

Anonymous wrote:Fine, flexible telecommuting...and not having to take as many hours out of the office if you just have to run an errand around the corner at home.

I work a job where I don't have to be cometely chained to my computer during normal work hours. So, yeah, I guess flexible work from home hours. I get paid for however many hours I actually work.

The not having to commute each way also gives one time.

Sorry your telecommuting job is inflexible.

Ah, so you're an hourly employee. That's totally different.

Fine, flexible telecommuting...and not having to take as many hours out of the office if you just have to run an errand around the corner at home.

I work a job where I don't have to be cometely chained to my computer during normal work hours. So, yeah, I guess flexible work from home hours. I get paid for however many hours I actually work.

The not having to commute each way also gives one time.

Sorry your telecommuting job is inflexible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She'll do fine; she hired a nanny before and brought the child to work, and I imagine she'll do the same again. Wealth helps.

This, exactly this. If I could have had my baby at work with me every day and could have him/her brought to me to nurse or to cuddle, I would have been super productive mom. If I had enough money to have a full suit where I could have a little fridge, my own bathroom, and maybe food brought from a healthy place, I could have done it. Staying home with your newborn is not all it's cracked up to be. I think she'll have the best of all worlds - doing work she enjoys and staying close to her newborns.

This, pretty much. The problem is that she thinks everyone can be back to work at 2 weeks and no one else can afford these things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, telecommuting isn't a substitute for childcare. I do it full time, and had a nanny for three years, now daycare.

That being said, she's still a hypocrite.

No one said it was a substitute for childcare. I got daycare while working from home, too.

But allowing telecommuting gives people a little more flexibility to deal with things like appointments close to home, sick kids, etc. More productive hours, really, when done correctly.

I do get that there were people abusing it, and it probably needed to be reigned in a bit, but taking it away completely while doing it yourself? Yeah, hypocrite.

No, it doesn't. I have telecommuted full time for the past 10 years and work 8-5. Every day. Unless I take PTO which I'd also take if was working in an office. Telecommuting is not a solution to appointments and sick kids. Maybe you're confusing it with a flexible work schedule or you're just a slacker who isn't working when you ought to be.

Anonymous wrote:She'll do fine; she hired a nanny before and brought the child to work, and I imagine she'll do the same again. Wealth helps.

This, exactly this. If I could have had my baby at work with me every day and could have him/her brought to me to nurse or to cuddle, I would have been super productive mom. If I had enough money to have a full suit where I could have a little fridge, my own bathroom, and maybe food brought from a healthy place, I could have done it. Staying home with your newborn is not all it's cracked up to be. I think she'll have the best of all worlds - doing work she enjoys and staying close to her newborns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would have kids if they are just going to hand them off to someone else to raise them. What's the point?

This is my take. It's easy to say "that's what works for her family", but does it really work for her kids to have parents who work super crazy schedules. Reminds me of that Bethesda mom who was profiled last year in the Bethesda magazine.

Why have kids if you work 80hrs/wk and your husband does too?

Signed,
working mom who deliberately mommy-tracked because my kid deserves as much as I can give

You realize there are people thinking the same thing about you, right? Why didn't you quit your job to stay home? Don't your kids deserve that time with you?!

Yep, they do. And I cut back my hours as much as I can and still keep our family afloat. DH is still full-time but is home as much as he can, teleworking at night to get the rest of his work done. Wish I could give even more time.

She could, but is choosing not to which makes me incredibly sad. Nothing to be admired. Seriously, who the hell doesn't want at least some time to bond with their children. Going back to work just days after giving birth shows very clearly where her priorities are. Hint, they aren't with her kids.

Except she cant. See is not like any other employee - she is the CEO of a publicly traded corporation. One that is not doing so well I might add.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why someone would have kids if they are just going to hand them off to someone else to raise them. What's the point?

This is my take. It's easy to say "that's what works for her family", but does it really work for her kids to have parents who work super crazy schedules. Reminds me of that Bethesda mom who was profiled last year in the Bethesda magazine.

Why have kids if you work 80hrs/wk and your husband does too?

Signed,
working mom who deliberately mommy-tracked because my kid deserves as much as I can give

You realize there are people thinking the same thing about you, right? Why didn't you quit your job to stay home? Don't your kids deserve that time with you?!

Yep, they do. And I cut back my hours as much as I can and still keep our family afloat. DH is still full-time but is home as much as he can, teleworking at night to get the rest of his work done. Wish I could give even more time.

She could, but is choosing not to which makes me incredibly sad. Nothing to be admired. Seriously, who the hell doesn't want at least some time to bond with their children. Going back to work just days after giving birth shows very clearly where her priorities are. Hint, they aren't with her kids.

A bit off topic but her cash salary and bonus is relatively low. Base of $1 million and bonus of $1.1 million. She is still on another $40 million in stock and options so I can see why she wants to keep her foot on the pedal - that stock price has been on a downward trend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:honestly two weeks is enough if you have good childcare

Heck unless you have a C-section 48 hours is enough. Its a personal choice people.

wow. where do you work, I wonder, that you can go back to your job 2 days after having a baby?

Never said I did, just that i could. My friend who is a self-employed lawyer went back to work after 3 days. Her clients were not going to wait and she had to make a living (husband was a student at the time).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:honestly two weeks is enough if you have good childcare

Heck unless you have a C-section 48 hours is enough. Its a personal choice people.

wow. where do you work, I wonder, that you can go back to your job 2 days after having a baby?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel sorry for her. To be a successful business woman she needs to make a lot of compromises in her family life. It's a shame that corporate America doesn't allow for a better balance, at all levels.

Are you kidding? She is in the position to make changes to this dynamic, instead she chooses to stay the same old course and take away one of the benefits that folks have, but keep them for herself.
Not only that, but how many of her employees are allowed to bring their babies to work.
She can take a seat -- all of the seats.

You are attributing more power to her than she has in reality. Marissa is not a shareholder of any significance, despite her salary she is still just an employee that serves at the pleasure of the board. She is in a no win situation - even if she wanted to make the CEO position "family-friendly" she cant without tainting herself and other women to follow - its a tough place to be.

Anonymous wrote:honestly two weeks is enough if you have good childcare

Heck unless you have a C-section 48 hours is enough. Its a personal choice people.