• Tue, Feb 26 - 1:34 pm ET

Marissa Mayer Ends Telecommuting But Has Her Own Personal Work Life Balance-Inspired ‘Office Nursery’

marissa mayer nurseryMarissa Mayer just got kicked a few more rungs down the mommy shit list. The Yahoo CEO and timid glass ceiling buster who just ended telecommuting for Yahoo employees — and therefore a flexible work schedules for parents — has a private Marissa Mayer nursery in her office. Cue parental anarchy.

The pioneering Mayer, who recently claimed that it’s imperative for the Yahoo team ”to be working side-by-side” and said how “critical” it was that “we are all present in our offices,” may not work from home. But she definitely brings her home to work. The CEO paid to have an “office nursery” installed, according to Global Post.

But do other Yahoo employees get the benefit of said “office nursery”? It doesn’t look like it. Any plans to maybe get some onsite childcare along with that free cafeteria food and smartphones for all employees? I’m eagerly awaiting comment.

Suddenly, a two week maternity leave doesn’t seem quite so unrealistic when you have the comfort of knowing your kid can come to your personal office when need be.

While the very accomplished CEO may be against flexible schedules as they pertain to working from home (and for good reason, I hear), surely even she acknowledges that some flexibility surrounding office life is needed for parents. She’s one of them.

(photo: DA5/ WENN.com)

Share This Post:
Related Topics: Work Life Balance • • • •
  • Cee

    Why are we holding this female CEO accountable for everyone’s personal needs? Why are we not holding male CEOs to the same judgement? There are surely some male CEOs who have children no? If Marissa Mayer raises her baby in a mansion, should she give you mansion? If she baby wears designer clothes, should give you money to buy your baby the same clothes?

    My boss has so many perks that I do not because he is a boss. She has the perk of building a nursery (along with many others) because she is the boss. She is not responsible for your personal needs, she oversees a huge company. When these complaining mothers oversee a huge company, then they can build their own damn nursies.

    And about the whole working from home debacle here is an article in which former employees said that Yahoo employees were slacking and even hiding from having to work for the company, yet still collecting checks. Read it, shes not after every mother’s uterus. She wants to save a company by getting rid of things that don’t seem to be working.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-yahoos-confess-marissa-mayer-is-right-to-ban-working-from-home-2013-2#ixzz2LxtZ9M5z

    • MamaB

      Um, that’s virtually the same article that’s linked to in the piece.

      And special privileges for a CEO doesn’t bother me. But I’d be interested to see what she has coming down the pike for other employees.

    • whiteroses

      I would agree with all of this. But what Mayer’s effectively done in one fell stroke is as follows: 1) piss off working parents who actually do their job, 2) earned Yahoo! a reputation as family-unfriendly, which in this day and age is practically a death sentence (seriously, this woman has NO IDEA how prohibitively expensive healthcare is), and 3) exposed herself as intensely hypocritical- because why would she need to work from home when she has a built-in nursery?

      Like it or not, women still have to bust glass ceilings. Said ceilings shouldn’t even still exist, but they do. By making the choices she’s made, Mayer’s made it harder for other mothers to work. THAT’s why people are pissed off. If she’s really trying to trim the fat at Yahoo! then she should have thought of that before she built a private nursery. A CEO- no matter their sex- should provide an example to their employees. I would have no issue with this if she provided nursery facilities on site- but she doesn’t.

    • Cee

      Its a death sentence to not be family friendly? What about all those
      restaurants that receive gleeful praise from the childfree (and even
      some people with children) when no children are allowed? I’m sure if a
      flight company opened a child free flights, it would not lose much
      business. There are more and more couples and people in general
      deciding not to have children. So it will hardly be a death sentence in
      this day and age.
      Why are we expecting her to
      build people a nursery or child care facilities? I work in the
      educational field and there is no such thing as child care facilities,
      waiters and waitresses don’t have child care facilities, doctor offices
      (albeit why would they?!) don’t have child care facilities and the list
      goes on! Why is SHE being the punching bag for not accommodating to you? If your goal in your career life is to have a job that has a child care facility, then look for one, but don’t expect a company to build one just because you decided to have children.

    • whiteroses

      It is a death sentence not to be family friendly when your policies have the potential to turn away plenty of folks from working for your company, folks who do have children, who are also qualified and would do well in helping you with this seemingly herculean task of turning around a dying company. Mayer can’t really afford to alienate anyone.

      One of those people who chose to have children is the CEO herself. She can’t provide perks on the job for herself and then expect her employees to turn themselves inside out, to work hard for her and miss out on time with their own kids. She’s got the huge perk of having her child with her at work. Yeah, CEOs get extra perks. But saying that nobody can work remotely to take care of their children when she brings her own child to work is putting her employees in the position where they have to choose between their jobs and their families. She’s the punching bag because she’s a public figure and, at least in theory, she’s supposed to be a trailblazer. There’s no point in being a pioneer when you don’t make life better for people around you. To be honest, if I had to choose between my son, who was throwing up and sick, versus pretty much anything, I’d choose my son. And I’d do it for a very good reason- because he didn’t choose to be born and he deserves to be taken care of. If an employee has to take off work to take care of his or her children, that’s less time spent on projects or billable hours.

      I have no problem with businesses that have childfree flights or facilities. What I do have a problem with is people who can’t see the correlation between mistreating employee’s families and dissatisfied workers. Even if Mayer used her own money to build this nursery, it’s still on company property. That, to me, is a problem- because she expects her employees to spend time away from their own families when she’s not willing to do the same. She’s taking away from her own time to look after her child- who never asked to be born, after all. If you’re going to be a leader, the least you can do is follow the maxim, “I wouldn’t ask you to do anything I wouldn’t do myself.”

    • Cee

      Like I said, more and more people are choosing not to have children now. Yes a person with family may have the potential to contribute to this company, but in this economy and with lots of people with degrees and skill unemployed, there will be a long line of people waiting to fill positions Mayer will offer. If a parent doesn’t want to work for her because they feel alienated then so be it. STEM degrees are very popular and there will no doubt be someone that will contribute the same things a parent pitching a petulant fit over a CEO perk will. Feed your children tonight or leave your job cuz your boss has a perk?

      You know who else has to choose between work and spending time with their children? Every parent who goes to a job site. Every parent must make a choice between not spending so much time with their child or to put food in their mouths or make the extra money that will go into their college fund. Marissa Mayer is not single handedly forcing every parent in America to make this choice. It is every CEO and boss, male or female, childless or parent. So don’t act like she’s taking away something personally from you and if someone is take it up with them,not her. Just because she is a female does not mean she is a trail blazer. She is a CEO of a company and acting like one, not holding your hand because you have bad cramps. And hey, maybe she will be spending long hours trying to figure out how to lift this company off, not like every other worker punching in 40 hours a week, so she’ll have her CEO perk of having her kid around along with the CEO misery of trying to lift a company. Maybe when its lifted off the hell hole its in she’ll consider perks for everyone else.

      She is not mistreating employee families, when did she slap someone’s child? Everyone working for a boss or having deadlines is probably dissatisfied to some effect. Her expensive car, bigger desk, bigger office, better equipment, full fridge, better food and so on are on company property, should she provide that for you because you are missing out on those things on the job too?

    • whiteroses

      Mistreating employee’s families= making it clear that no matter your reasoning, you can’t work from home. “Dissatisfied to some effect” doesn’t work when you’re, say, a single mom (or dad) and the only one who can pick up your child from daycare, because if you’re late again you won’t be able to take him or her back to that particular daycare (they do that, you know). But hey, you can’t go pick them up, because your boss has decided that you can’t work from home. Oh, and by the way, she’s got her son in her office.

      Also, Mayer’s policy doesn’t work when you’re a man who has a, say, sick father who lives with him, and has nobody else to care for him. What about people who need flexibility for religious reasons? And what about the workers who live outside of commuting distance? It’s not just parents who are getting screwed here.

      As I said before, I get that she gets perks. But she had to know what this was going in. She’s a trailblazer, whether she or anyone else likes it or not, because she’s a woman who’s the CEO of a tech company. Women are still underrepresented in that sector of society.

      The reason why everyone’s jumping down her throat is because she redefined benefits for herself while taking them from everyone else. And if the CEO of a tech company isn’t willing to explore the MANY different ways that telecommuters can work from home (Skype, FaceTime, IM, heck- even a telephone) then it makes me wonder just how mismanaged Yahoo! really is. They’re a pioneering tech company and they can only collaborate within four walls? There are programs where, with both user’s permission, one user can actually control the other’s computer. Honestly, if your job consists of sitting in front of a computer, you can do it just as well out of the office as you can in. And if you can’t, then you should probably be fired. I’ve worked in the tech sector before- and I know this to be true.

      What she should have done was communicated with the people who worked under her and determined who can work from home and who can’t. Then you fire the dead weight. Or you limit access to telecommuting and give it to those who are most senior. You don’t treat your employees like children and demand that they be within your line of sight. More to the point- why on earth is the ability to take care of your actual children, to be there for the people in your life when they need you, considered a perk?

      I’m not getting any privileges taken away from me, that’s true. But it does disturb me. And inasmuch as tech worker’s jobs don’t end at 5, acting like they do is somewhat naive.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-memo-telecomute

    • Ipsedixit

      It becomes a perk when you’re doing it on the company dime or rearranging meetings and deadlines to meet non-work demands. Yahoo isnt paying employees to care for their children, but to actually work. If people are able to shift their schedules to accommodate non-work activities and still put in a full days work, that’s great. But considering there’s been admissions that people were abusing the privilege, then it’s just not working. I do think they should cut the fat and reinstitute telecommuting at a later date, but for now, bringing in everyone until an evaluation can be done seems like a reasonable option. And while it might seem archaic that a tech company is forcing workers to return to 4 walls rather than use technology, there’s probably a reason Google is building a big, new campus and they and Facebook only allow telecommuting sporadically.

    • argyle69

      in that case why should yahoo pay mayer 100 million to be distracted by her baby in her office area? if she is at work, then she should leave behind personal distractions.

    • Ipsedixit

      Well, she’s tasked with a pretty big order. Plus, I’m going to guess she’s got a nanny there doing the heavy lifting. If a regular staffer wants to put in the time at the office that Mayer is, then sure, they have a right to complain. But I’m going to guess the secretary doesn’t want to stay at the office till 9 at night. She’d rather head home at 5 without distractions than bring her kid to work and try and juggle the two.

      In any event, a CEO and other working parents aren’t equals. I’d certainly like to make a million, but its not worth the sacrifices to me.

    • beetle

      Seriously? I would never say that Mayer isn’t spending long hours at the office and is, in part, well-compensated as that is an expectation. But what you cannot do is equate higher pay with more dedication to job or lower pay with sacrifice of family. I think many of us, whether a “secretary,” a middle manager or at a higher organizational level are expected to work harder and longer. No, the “secretary” probably doesn’t want to stay at the office until 9 at night. Who does? But there is absolutely an expectation that whatever sacrifices are expected will be offered regardless of your pay grade. If you think many people at all levels aren’t staying late and coming in early, you work in a much different environment than I do. After all, anyone and everyone – including the mythical CEO – is replaceable. A CEO and working parents aren’t equals? Well, one could argue that CEO pay is inflated given ROI in company performance The most brilliant CEO strategies could not be executed without “other working parents” doing the work.

    • NeuroNerd

      I wish I could up vote this more. People act like all tech company employees do is sit at computers and … what, exactly? True product development is a creative endeavor, and creativity is better done in person. All of my friends in the tech industry support Meyer’s decision.

    • GoodGollyMissMolly

      I don’t think you understand the point of telecommuting… it wasn’t designed to give mommies precious times with their little bundles of love. It was designed to cut down on overhead and open shit up to the international community. Companies are global. Telecommuting equalized the global community. You can’t telecommute full-time and be a mother full-time. The children would be in the care of someone else. This is not simply working from home for a small company a couple days a week or blogging and/or meeting a deadline days or weeks into the future. This is legit running a sophisticated office environment in your house.

      A few people in my family telecommute and work at IBM. All of their children were in daycare or they had a housekeeper. It was not possible to do both.

      Yahoo needs an overhaul and clearly needs to run a think tank together as a physical unit. The kids will just stay with their childminders longer. Because that’s where they are in the first place.

    • http://www.facebook.com/helen.donovan.31 Helen Donovan

      If it is a death sentence than she’ll pay for it BIG in the long run. However you are either completely clueless about the real word, or you have an enlarged entitlement gland. Yes, a CEO CAN have perks that everyone else does not have – get used to it. Going in to work full time is the norm, it is not a call for workers to “turn themselves inside out..” nor is it “mistreating” anyone’s family. Further, if someone is at home with a vomiting child they are NOT WORKING so don’t lie and say that you are telecommuting; you are on PTO/sick day.
      I’m not sure what theory says that Mayer is “supposed” to be a trailblazer, but given that you have no problem with male CEOs (and dads) getting special privileges, and that you keeping rambling about children who “didn’t choose to be born” as if it means something, I’m not holding out much hope for the alleged theory to have logical origins.

    • whiteroses

      Helen- I’m neither clueless nor have an “enlarged entitlement gland” (speaking of illogical organs). Cee mentioned that CEOs and people who work have chosen to have children. I was merely responding to that. As for Mayer being a trailblazer? I was merely restating what’s been said about her since she started at Yahoo! by nearly every Internet source and piece of print media I’ve seen about her.

      Yeah, a CEO can have perks that everyone else gets. What I don’t get (and what I kept repeating) is that in this day and age, looking after your kids (or family members who require care) shouldn’t be considered a perk, but when you build a nursery attached to your office and tell your employees that they can’t have that time, it smacks of rank hypocrisy. And ruling out telecommuting for everyone, no matter their reason, is mistreatment. It’s a death sentence when you pretend that your employees don’t have obligations outside of work that they need to take care of. Again- what about those who telecommute for religious reasons, who take care of eldery parents, or those who live outside of an area where they can reasonably commute to the office everyday- and yet have consistently done good work for the company? It bears repeating, since you clearly didn’t read it the first time: Moms aren’t the only ones getting screwed here.

      Also, I did not, in any of my responses, mention that I didn’t have an issue with male CEOs recieving special privilege. I do. CEOs should not have a “do as I say, not as I do” policy. And if they do, then they should be honest about it, and set up employee conditions so that everyone can work at maximum productivity. People are more likely to preform better if employers are accomodating to their life outside the office. For most of us, a child in the office would be a major distraction. If a male CEO did this, I’d be equally as outraged. To be very clear, I would have no issue with this whatsoever if Mayer provided childcare for her employees. She does not.

      I also stand by what I previously said. This is something Mayer probably should have done, on a smaller scale. If abuse of telecommuting is so rampant, then she should have fired the freeloaders and let those who have consistently done good work continue to do so. If you expect your employees to be in the office constantly, then you, as the CEO, need to set up an office culture that makes such a thing possible and also allows all employees to meet all their responsibilities. That’s simply good business sense.

      GoodGolly- I am also very aware that telecommuting doesn’t mean that you can spend all your time being a mother. Nor should you. If you’re being paid to do a job, then you should do it. But the point here is that you can successfully telecommute and still take care of what you need to take care of at home. It’s been done before and will doubtless be done again- just, you know, not at Yahoo!.

    • whiteroses

      If CEOs are allowed to do whatever they damn well please, then employees should be able to speak out against it. They’re allowed to be pissed off about this.

    • redroses

      Ha, a death sentence. Like there aren’t millions of qualified people looking to take one of those jobs who can drive in everyday. If they can’t telecommute, they can’t telecommute. Someone else will be able to. Sucks for them, but life’s tough, get a helmet. Sounds like they need a totally new cast and crew anyway.

    • whiteroses

      Fair point. But don’t ruin it for those who’ve always done good work. That’s all I’m saying.

    • beetle

      Again. Well said.

    • beetle

      Well said. All of it.

    • beetle

      Thanks for sharing this link. I haven’t read this (I don’t think), but will. Totally applaud getting rid of things that don’t seem to be working. Not convinced telecommuting is the (or a) root problem, but suspect it to be a symptom of a different one. Unproductive employees will still find ways to be unproductive…even if they’re at the office. I realize this response is but a side point to what you’re saying. :)

  • reldawn

    A CEO is not a 9-5er. She is probably spending a hell of a lot more than 40 hours a week at work, which, to me, makes it feel a little less unfair. However, maybe a better answer is an on-site daycare for ALL workers.

    • whiteroses

      I agree with this. A CEO shouldn’t do anything that she wouldn’t expect of her employees.

    • EditKitten

      To be fair, she is well compensated for that time, so.

    • Makabit

      On-site daycare seems as though it would be a very smart idea. I don’t know about Yahoo, but Google is famous for doing everything they can to make sure all their employees are doing a hell of a lot more than forty hours. Food, massages…blah, blah. Daycare? People would knife each other to get hired.

  • chickadee

    She is the new CEO of a failing company, yet you want her to take months of leave to shit your idea of what a mommy role model ought to be. She has to spend a lot of time in the office of the company for which she is responsive le, so I say good for her that she want to se her child while she’s at work.

    • chickadee

      Oh my god. My phone autocorrected…that is SUIT. SUIT, not shit. I am so sorry.

    • once upon a time

      Eh, I like the autocorrect better.

  • Kate

    At two different places I worked a daycare/nursery was located on site. It was NOT free, but subsidized based on employees for the company. Those outside the company but working in nearby office buildings paid the usual price. Most of the parents I worked with LOVED this. I’m not sure why some larger companies don’t try to implement this. Obviously small offices it might be difficult but Yahoo isn’t exactly “small”.

    • Lawcat

      It could be that Yahoo is TOO big for it to work. Or maybe cost prohibitive. My old firm wouldn’t have child care on site because of increased insurance. My new firm does have it, it’s not free (nor should it be), but its not like I’m stopping by multiple times a day to see my son. I dont have time for that because, you know, work and all. We have lunch together and that’s about it. The only real perk is that I don’t have to make another stop on the way home.

  • Steph

    After reading a Business Insider article, I feel like if mothers or fathers can prove that they are working hard at home, they should be able to stay, but if you slack, you can’t anymore. It sounds like the worst of them all ruined it for everyone.

    But on the nursery issue, good for her, I guess. She built it with her own money, so it’s more hers than anyone else’s. Hopefully Yahoo can have onsite child daycare for all someday to help with this issue.

  • LAwcat

    She’s a CEO and I’m going to guess she doesn’t clock out at 5.

    Does this blog honestly believe that telecommuting allows for a “flexible” schedule? You realize you can’t just call into the office once a day and do whatever, whenever just because you’re at home. You still work core business hours. You can’t take off at 11 for a 2 hour play date. I mean, maybe in this Pollyanna mommy blog site you can, but for an actual large corporation that’s not going to fly.

    Telecommuting has benefits, but you can’t take care of a kid and work when you want and expect to keep a full-time job.

    Sometimes I think this site wont be placated unless someone pays them a salary to stay at home with their kids from the ages of 0-5 and write whenever they want. Oh, didn’t get your 5 stories you copied (but changed words to synonyms! and added “personal pronouns” so it’s an opinion piece!) from Gawker/Daily Mail/Jezebel/CNN done? That’s cool because you’re a MOM and you have responsibilities that totally trump everything else. You go do what you need to do and we’ll pay you. Why can’t every employer do that?!

    Its one thing to advocate for work life balance, it’s another to actually provide some solutions. However, that would involve thinking on your own rather than restating another article/authors work.

    • Tinyfaeri

      Yup! I can confirm that working full time from home with an infant means neither one gets the full attention – work less than baby.

    • Lawcat

      Props to you for being honest! We now send our dog to daycare because my work at home husband can’t give him attention during the day. I realize that’s #firstworldproblems, but seriously, if he can’t give a DOG attention, there’s no way he’d be able to add an infant in there. Working from home isn’t a cake walk people seem to think it is. My SIL and BIL both work from home and they had an in house babysitter for a while. Another couple down the street do the same thing, so I think maybe that’s common.

    • Tinyfaeri

      Most of my coworkers do the same. We’re lucky enough to have her grandparents close by so they’re here most days, and we can flex our hours enough to accomodate the rest of the time.
      Our dog’s used to being ignored… :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/helen.donovan.31 Helen Donovan

      You are not the only ones with the dog issue. I’ve got two friends who do the same for each of their dogs when they really need to get work done.

    • once upon a time

      This. This. So much this. Wish I had more upvotes for you.

    • EditKitten

      Uh, I don’t even HAVE kids, and telecommuting gives me so much more flexibility. My commute disappears (and that’s nice, considering it’s 90 minutes each way), which allows me more time to focus on work. Yes, it is not my company’s problem that I live far away, but for doctor’s appointments, home disasters and saving money, telecommuting can’t be beat. No one ever said you don’t still need child care as a telecommuting parent, but considering the penalties many have to pay for picking up a child late and having to build their days very carefully around a daycare schedule, it’s got to be awfully helpful.

    • Lawcat

      Like I said, telecommuting has awesome benefits. My husband doesn’t have a commute so he can do some laundry before I get home or go workout before he starts his day. But he would also have that if we lived 10 minutes from work. Plus, its saving the company money in expensive downtown office rent. Maybe I’ve just worked for good companies, but I thought it was pretty standard in the corporate world to be able to leave for appointments, emergencies, etc. And the companies Ive worked for have allowed to adjust start and end times to meet outside concerns. It’s certainly nice to be able to have increased flexibility, but if you have a meeting at 6:00 when your kid is to be picked up, that responsibility is still there whether you’re telecommuting or not. Between this and the other article, you would think they were essentially forcing working patents out of the workforce by stopping telecommuting. It’s not the end of the world or the denial of a perceived right that i feel they are making it out to be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/helen.donovan.31 Helen Donovan

      No, no! Didn’t you read the article and some of the comments? Telecommuting is to make life better for parents – specifically moms. Stop benefiting from it right now you undeserving sprogless person. ;)

    • LiteBrite

      It IS awfully helpful. However, and as you said in your comment, it’s not my company’s problem. I know that sounds harsh, but the fact that I have a long commute, childcare issues, or whatever isn’t their problem; it’s mine, and I need to find ways to make that work.

      Now, in my case, my company is very flexible. If I have to leave early due to childcare issues, they’re cool with that. This morning I’m home for a half the day due to my son’s school and daycare being closed because of weather. Again, they’re fine; they get that sometimes life and work intersect. I’m also careful not to take undue advantage of it because I understand it’s a privilege, not a right. However, no matter how you slice it, my parenting duties and my employee duties are two separate things, and it’s up to me to find that balance between responsibilities.

    • Cee

      Yes! Thank you! A lot of blog sites are collectively losing their shit because of this decision. It’s not like Marissa Mayer is going to drag them out of their pjs and take their telecommuting jobs away. Yet, they are the ones that are losing their minds over it than even most mothers. I have read other mommy blogs that are less outraged and at times even supportive at what she is doing. I think many bloggers, because they are in the telecommuting sphere, forget that there are many benefits to working from a job site.

    • chickadee

      This site features bloggers who are often inconsistent and who apparently trade accuracy, nuance, and critical thinking for clicks and comments. I wonder sometimes if they get bonuses based on the number of comments a post generates. It would explain a lot.

    • TerribleTowel

      Can you hear that? That slight sound off in the distance? It’s me. Clapping. Clapping heartily and with unrestrained vigor! This comment nails it. Pageviews and clicks are all that matter here… and they totally steal from everywhere else. The only site worse than this is TheStir. What a vapid wasteland.

      Also, as far as I am aware, all of the parents I know who telecommute have some sort of “allowance” (not sure if it’s called that) for child care services because it’s impossible, as you’ve said, to work full-time and mind children full-time. Surely that will still exist… lest that’s what all the stories would/should be about. THAT is heading backwards. This is misguided and under-informed “wannabe” (what up, 1996) feminism aimed at the wrong target.

    • beetle

      what up 1996…love. Stealing it. :)

    • beetle

      As a partial telecommuter (and prior f/t telecommuter for a different organization…neither of which are Yahoo), you make great points. I’ve always had and needed f/t childcare even when telecommuting. That’s just the reality of what’s needed to do my job. BUT, I did have a perception of more balance when telecommuting was at least a partial option. As someone else said well, t/c’ing has benefits (commute), but also carries tradeoffs (visibility, promoteability). Work/life balance is hard to navigate and very complex, but important…and not just for moms/parents.

    • read a lot but never post

      I absolutely agree. Also, I seriously have no clue how most of these writers (hint hint: Rebecca Eckler) get paid for this. It must be the EASIEST job in the world. Most of the time, it seems like the bloggers here just think of whatever random crap is on their mind and spend 10 minutes writing about it (which shows through the lack of creativity and editing). I wish I had this job!

  • Christa Palmer

    As a mom, I care more about flexibility and daycare than I do about free food and smartphones. Does she get AT ALL how much this is going to give moms a rage stroke? Really, she has her own nursery. That makes work-life balance a bit easier for her.

    Great article.

    • Ipsedixit

      Methinks those same moms would have a rage stroke if they had to work the same hours as a CEO, be tasked with turning around a dying company, and all other downsides of being a C level employee.

      Like having to fly to Indonesia for emergency meetings and finding out 30 hours before you have to leave like my boss did in December. He was gone for a week, but at the time it was unknown how long he’d be gone. If he wanted a nursery in his office so he could see his kids during the 12 hours he’s at the office 5 days a week, I’d line up the contracting crew.

      Everybody wants the perks, but not the duties or sacrifices of a CEO.

    • Makabit

      The tragedy of success.

      Look, I won’t say this woman doesn’t have the right to call her employees into the office, but cry me a river for the poor overworked CEOs. In my experience, there are always a hell of a lot of employees in a CEO’s wake, making a fraction of the money, and working the same hours. No one made them take the responsibility on, and if they can’t stand the ‘duties and sacrifices’ without people praising the heck out of them as well as paying them well…uh, whatever. I’m sorry they succeeded in their chosen careers. It must be hell.

    • whiteroses

      This. I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who pulls in a six to eight figure salary, especially since said people normally have staffers who are paid a lot less and do the same thing. The difference is that the staffers are expected to tug their forelocks and work an extra forty or so hours while the CEO takes a “well-deserved” vacation to a private island.

    • beetle

      Everybody wants the perks, not the duties and sacrifices? Your choice of words has me picturing the CEOs on a pedestal. :) That said, I totally agree with the point you’re making. I don’t quibble the money/perks (in concept) and know that they have big responsibilities riding on their shoulders (lots of people’s jobs riding on company performance) and make sacrifices in their roles. But:

      - It’s not like that the expectations are a surprise. She and any other CEO know what they’re taking on and what will be expected to them. Accepting the job and taking it on? Choice. Not duty, choice. Fulfillment of that choice is their duty and does require sacrifice.

      - CEOs aren’t exactly the white horse carrying the torch alone (I’m mixing metaphors, I know). And those emergency meeting/international surprises happen at other levels of the organization too, not just the c-suite.

      I won’t argue that non-C perks/pay should be the same or even comparable, but I and many would appreciate recognition that I’m also asked and expected to make similar sacrifices and work long hours to fulfill the ‘duties’ of my role. I think the bigger point is that many CEOs (male or female, parent or not) truly believe that their sacrifices are exceptional or somehow different than the rest of us. In many (but not all) cases, they really aren’t.

      It’s not jealousy or expectation of equalness that I find galling, it’s lack of acknowledgment that the sacrifices of others in the company’s employ are just as real and as costly.

      We can’t and shouldn’t all be CEOs, but that doesn’t make the sacrifices of working any less costly or burdensome or hard. Even recognizing that will go a long way. Mayer didn’t and she’s not the exception there, she’s the rule. It was, IMO, a leadership fail. Maybe not because she made the decision to revoke the policy, but because of how she went about it. What she said – as well as what she didn’t – equally important.

      -

  • Mary

    I’m actually kinda relieved she wants to have an office nursery. Seems like she’ll see the little guy more than I thought.

  • Tinyfaeri

    Wait… a CEO getting something that “other employees” don’t get? WOW, that doesn’t ever happen…except at every single company that has ever existed. What do you guys want from this woman? Just because she’s a CEO and new mother doesn’t mean she has to be all your hopes and dreams.

    • Lawcat

      You mean I can’t have a million dollar salary AND leave work at 3:30 to pick up the kids from school? Working is the worst!

    • whiteroses

      No, she doesn’t. But a little less hypocrisy (do as I say, not as I do) would be nice. As a working mom herself, and one in a high-stress, high-pressure job, she should understand the challenges a working mom faces better than anyone. She has the ability to make life better for all her employees. She instead chose to make life better for herself and make life harder for the parents who work for her.

    • Ipsedixit

      As a working mom, these “challenges” are something that should have been anticipated before one has kids. Additionally, theyre largely more annoyances than actual challenges. Maybe if you’re working an hourly rate with a shifting schedule, but salaried workers with core hours shouldn’t have that hard if a time. She’s not making life harder for parents, she’s bringing them in line with other tech companies (Google, Facebook, etc). The only parents who she’s making it harder for are the ones not really working when they should’ve been; the same ones who ruined it for others.

    • whiteroses

      The difference between, say, Google and Yahoo! is that Google (based on what I’ve read) is a thriving company with a very large amount of onsite amenities. Yahoo! isn’t a thriving company and clearly doesn’t have the amenities. If you’re trying to make your company like the company you used to work for (as Mayer did with Google), and you’re the CEO, then you should probably ensure that they have similar corporate cultures. This is a lot like taking a meat cleaver to a hot dog, if you’ll forgive the analogy. She could have done this in various different ways, but this is the one she chose instead.

    • Tinyfaeri

      She’s the CEO, not their mommy. It’s her job to run the company, not make sure everyone’s receiving the exact same benefits she has. In what world do any CEO and an employee 2-15 levels down have the same benefits? Should my company’s CEO let me use the corporate jet the next time I have to travel for work? I mean, he gets to use it, why shouldn’t I? Oh, wait, because I don’t work 24/7, I don’t make the decisions he does, and I’m not the CEO.

    • whiteroses

      Never claimed that she was their mommy, or meant to be. And no, a CEO and a low-level employee may not have the same benefits. But my point in all this is that if Mayer is going to ensure that her family is taken care of, she should at least make an attempt to do the same for the people who work for her. Again- that’s just good business sense. Happy people work harder, most of the time.

    • Tinyfaeri

      A CEO giving their benefits to all employees would not be good business sense, it would be lunacy. If she’s paying them a fair, living wage, and providing some level of company-sponsored healthcare, she’s doing her part in making sure their families are provided for. The rest, including childcare, is up to the employees.

    • whiteroses

      Yes. And she shouldn’t make it impossible for her employees to actually care for their children (or for elderly parents) or to meet other obligations. I’m not saying she has made it entirely impossible, but I’d venture to guess that she has made it a heck of a lot harder.

  • once upon a time

    I think Mommyish is just trolling us now. What other explanation is there for this steaming pile of hypocritical misogyny?

  • NotSurprised

    Is it actually surprising to anyone that this is how Marissa Mayer went back to work so quickly. This has been my assumption all along. Beyond having the ability to have a nursery–and I’m assuming a nanny–in her office, as CEO she sets meeting times and her own availability. She should not be the standard by which working mothers are measured, as she is absolutely the exception when it comes to working mothers, not the rule.

  • Sasura

    She made the right call. the company is a sinking ship, in large part due to people abusing the work from home flexibility they were given. while i agree it sucks to those of us who need flexible work because of family obligations, whatever they are (not just kids, ageing parents are in the mix for most people now as well), too many people were abusing the system, and not actually working at home. if the whole company goes under, no severance for those poor working at home moms we are all wringing our hands over. its reality. hopefully this will trim the fat and get the company back into a place where these perks are warranted.

    • beetle

      I don’t work at Yahoo and don’t know anyone that does. Curious because I’ve heard the “abusing the work from home flexibility” argument used to support Mayer’s decision. I’ve worked elsewhere where telecommuting has been an earned benefit–it’s not given equally to everyone, but it’s a perk used to retain (as opposed to attract) talent. It was tied to performance reviews very directly and abuse was (in theory) minimized; in part, because it was selectively given. Note I’m NOT saying that abuse of working from home doesn’t exist–it did other places I’ve been, I’m sure it does at Yahoo. There will always be people who take advantage.

      What I’m most curious about is how widespread and prevalent that abuse really is – at Yahoo or anywhere else. Is the allegation of abuse (especially as its hard to prove true/false) just an excuse to take away the privilege? If it’s individuals abusing, it can be dealt with individually — not a ‘policy’ revocation. And quite frankly, if abuse is that widespread, telecommuting abuse is just a symptom a different problem that won’t be quickly or easily solved just by bringing people back to the office full-time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/helen.donovan.31 Helen Donovan

    “….just ended telecommuting for Yahoo employees — and therefore a flexible work schedules for parents…..” and “surely even she acknowledges that some flexibility surrounding office life is needed for parents.” Interesting to see these two comments in such a short article. So which is it, you just don’t give a shit about people who aren’t parents/don’t have small fry in the home, or you can’t see past your own womb to consider that others may be inconvenienced as well?

    • beetle

      Well, this is a Mom-blog…so insertion of parents is expected. That said, it doesn’t – to your point – preclude non-parents from being affected. Just read an article (somewhere) about the rise of altzheimers, how more of us working will be needing to ramp up parent/elder care and that we and the companies who employ us are totally unprepared for the costs (hard and soft) of that care. Not just parents in my view at all…people who are responsible for the care of others, period.

    • whiteroses

      Yep. Alzheimer’s is a horrific disease- and were I in that position, I would want to spend as much time as possible with my parent before they didn’t remember who I was. It’s not just parents who are being affected, but it’s kind of a no-brainer why that would be the focus of the site.

      Helen, on a site called “Mommyish”, you should probably expect a focus on parents.

  • Pingback: Marissa Mayer Announces Amazing New Maternity Leave