
A Colleague Drank My Breast Milk and Other Wall Street Tales - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/a-colleague-drank-my-breast-milk-and-other-wall-street-tales.html?ribbon-ad-idx=15&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
======
Afton
There was a real suggestion buried in this piece. Ban mandatory arbitration.
I'm most interested in knowing what HN thinks about that piece, since I have
no informed opinion of working conditions on Wall Street.

Mandatory arbitration seems like a generally bad idea that employees should be
protected from. Does anyone have a good argument counter?

~~~
nickff
Mandatory arbitration reduces the cost of resolving disputes (i.e. lawyer's
fees). There are many arbitrators available who are comparable to the courts
in outcome, but much speedier, more predictable, and cheaper. In cases where
the parties are interested in good low cost dispute resolution, they may be
willing to choose one of these arbitrators to reduce uncertainty and
transaction costs. In other cases, one party may pay the other extra to 'buy'
biased arbitration, or a specific arbitrator (or set of rules) may be selected
as a way of shifting risk from one party to another, much like buying
insurance; I do not see why this should be disallowed.

There is also a signalling aspect to this, which we usually do not account
for. By allowing the other party to select the arbitrator, you may be showing
that you trust them; refusing their pick may be a sign of deeper issues.

~~~
akiselev
The thing is, insurance is almost always meant to spread around risk from
random events, such as a car accident, unexpected disease, act of nature, or
in the most extreme case, an engineering or manufacturing mistake that causes
a rocket to blow up. Except in cases of fraud, these situations arise randomly
or due to systemic problems that can be quantified within the context of the
insured parties. With arbitration, especially when mandated by an employer,
the process is easily used to make possible behavior that the legal system
would otherwise never allow, by people who fully _intend_ to do so, just like
when someone buys insurance with the intent of burning their own house down
for the cash payout. Unlike the insurance company, however, the employee has
no remaining legal recourse outside of a predetermined (and possibly biased)
arbitration process just because it is in the contract.

If an employer is explicitly trying to minimize their risk and costs by
mandating arbitration how can you ever trust them to pick an unbiased arbiter?
If an agent is trying to maximize their outcomes by forcing arbitration, why
would they then chose any arbiter that isn't more likely to side with them?

You can argue that allowing arbitration is a trust signal, but at the same
time it can send a signal that the employer is planning on, or at least thinks
it a possibility, that they will violate some terms of the contract, whether
those terms are explicit or implicit (i.e. due to legislation or court
precedent). The problem is that the information assymetry between an employer
and employee is so vast such that arbitration is a tool easily used to further
exploit workers.

~~~
nickff
> _" The thing is, insurance is almost always meant to spread around risk from
> random events..."_

Health 'insurance' covers many predictable issues, such as eye glasses and
continuing care issues, but I will grant you that insurance is generally best
used to hedge against risk. A number of national US insurance providers offer
policies which cover employee suits, so it must be a large, insurable
market.[1]

> _" If an employer is explicitly trying to minimize their risk and costs by
> mandating arbitration how can you ever trust them to pick an unbiased
> arbiter? If an agent is trying to maximize their outcomes by forcing
> arbitration, why would they then chose any arbiter that isn't more likely to
> side with them?"_

There are many kinds of risk which one might try to minimize; one of these
risks might be that of a long, drawn-out civil jury trial which can take a
long time to be seen, and have a completely unpredictable outcome. Having an
arbitrator decide against you for a reasonable sum might be preferable to
devoting time and resources to a trial and investor relations disaster over
many years (even if the verdict is in your favor). In addition, having a
defined process from the outset may help the damaged party get their issue
resolved quickly and easily; as a long civil suit can be ruinous to an
individual (even if they win). In short, real people are not risk-tolerant
robots.

[1] [https://www.nationwide.com/employment-practices-liability-
in...](https://www.nationwide.com/employment-practices-liability-
insurance.jsp)

------
eigenvector
While I completely agree that the behaviour described by the author is totally
unacceptable and must be rooted out from the workplace, I also find the
context ironic: Bear Stearns just before the 2008 financial crisis.

As we aspire to a better society, is this really the goal we want to reach
for? Better female representation in a corrupt enterprise that precipitated a
global financial crisis which caused hardship for hundreds of millions of
people?

I hope the author, a member of senior management, was troubled by more than
just sexism at pre-collapse Bear Stearns.

~~~
Kluny
Sexism may have been one of the problems that contributed to the problem. The
collapse originated in that frat boy echo chamber of insanity. Maybe if Wall
Street was a place where responsible adults of both genders thrived, it could
have been prevented. Just as many men as women feel alienated by that
environment.

~~~
Dr_tldr
I usually find arguments about how "underrepresented group X in upper
management will somehow make the company better" unconvincing, but the
downfall of Bear Sterns is a great and decisively convincing example of how a
monoculture with a lack of multiple perspectives and backgrounds created a
really corrupt and toxic environment. At the very least, the sexism towards
women in the corporate culture should've been seen as warning indicator for
their business practices as well.

In this case, I think sexism was as much a symptom as a cause, and the larger
cultural problems were very destructive to women, men, and the US economy.

------
jedberg
I never understood why mandatory arbitration is ever allowed. Someone should
be able to decide if they want arbitration _after_ the incident has occurred.
The default should be court and arbitration should only happen if both parties
agree it is a better course of action.

------
rrauenza
> I thought of the guy known for dropping Band-Aids on women’s desks when the
> trading floor was cold because he didn’t “want to be distracted,”

...I don't understand. Can anyone explain?

~~~
jedberg
Since all the other comments here seem to be afraid to fully explain...

Cold makes the skin hard, especially the nipples. This happens on men and
women, but it tends to have a bigger effect on women, in part because their
nipples are larger and in part because they tend to wear thinner fabrics.

If a woman is going to go out in a thinner fabric and she knows that where she
is going might be cold, she'll put band aids on her nipples to help smooth it
out under her clothing to prevent them from poking out, which can draw
unwanted attention.

The implication here is that the man can not control himself and wants them to
cover up because he will stare at their breasts if they don't.

~~~
yarou
This is such a distinctly American(tm) problem that I can't help but chuckle.

Why are we so puritanical about sex, gender, etc?

I'm not absolving the guy doing this really creepy thing, but I sort of
understand it.

If you were raised in a society that was very sexually repressed, then it's
only natural that you'd develop these strange behaviors around the opposite
sex. I can only shudder trying to imagine how warped that individual is.

~~~
rayiner
It's highly unlikely that someone would leave bandaids because they were
uncomfortable around nipples. It's a power play, a way of signaling.

~~~
yarou
I could understand the power play angle if it was something more mundane, like
a slap on the ass.

But this whole band-aid jibe requires a certain amount of premeditated
thought. It looks more like sexual deviance to me, rather than simple power
play.

~~~
rayiner
Even at a bank a slap on the ass will get you in hot water with HR. Bandaids
have plausible deniability.

------
rifung
> My candidate took the job, and while she was passionate about her work, she
> was uncomfortable with the raucous trading floor environment, and lasted
> only five years.

I'm surprised five years is considered short.. I imagine people in the tech
industry don't get treated nearly as badly but we seem to switch jobs way more
often.

Why is that?

~~~
ksenzee
Sounds to me like she lasted only five years in the entire industry. That's
short for tech too.

------
zekevermillion
Wall Street has a bigger problem, that many financial professionals are able
to rationalize doing work that harms others. So let's say we can make the big
evil banks a better place for women and other people with real life interests
to work. Should we encourage our daughters to go work on Wall St? Or should we
discourage them, not b/c they can't do the work, but b/c doing the work is
harmful to others?

Yes I know banks are necessary, some do good. But I'm talking about the
speculative operations at TBTF institutions that continue to add fragility and
risk to our economy. These same institutions also tend to be the worst places
to work for women (or anyone who has outside interests other than making
money). I don't think that is a coincidence, but rather a consequence of the
same underlying worldview.

------
amagumori
This is what happens when frat boys get jobs. I think one piece of the puzzle
is fostering less misogynistic environments in college, before these dudes
enter the workforce.

But seriously, how fucking disgusting. This article ruined my morning, I'm
pissed off now.

~~~
Archio
> This is what happens when frat boys get jobs

Why do you think it is OK make a massive generalization about a group of
people like that? While I wasn't personally involved in Greek life during
college, I have very good friends that were upstanding and principled members
of fraternities that would certainly abhor the horrific and abusive behavior
described in this article.

If you met a nice person today and later found out they were in a fraternity
during college, would you immediately make judgements about their morals and
conduct just based on that association?

~~~
amagumori
Yeah. Yeah i would, honestly. There's always the exception to the rule, but
we're talking about systemic issues, not playing the "but not all men..!"
game. Refer to my other reply but when you put people who have grown up in a
racist and sexist society into a racially and sexually homogeneous group where
they spend most of their time, racist and sexist attitudes will be fostered in
the absence of accountability. (Which u don't have, because racially and
sexually homogeneous.)

~~~
MaxScheiber
You know, I've had people assume I was an inferior software developer solely
because I was in a social fraternity and therefore must not have spent any
time studying for my exams or working on my problem sets. That's not really a
nice prior to have about an individual, sort of how it would be considered
quite offensive to assume that a woman were an inferior software developer due
to her gender.

Additionally, I'm not going to pretend that Greek life is 100% free of
douchebaggery. Some people in fraternities do bad things to other people, or
harbor bigoted worldviews. I feel that you grossly overestimate the proportion
of people who do. To address the racial and sexual homogeneity point, I'm
fairly confident that every single fraternity at my alma mater had individuals
of color and homosexual individuals. My own certainly did.

I'd also like to point out the obvious blanket statements you've made about
the demographics and attitudes of fraternity members. However, I really don't
think anyone or anything can budge your opinion.

------
pearjuice
"..you don't believe what's next, bankers hate him!" would make this title
complete. I am absolutely full of clickbait fluff. I really hope someone takes
on the content filtering space on the internet. I would happily pay xx dollars
per month for a service which can accurately filter all the noise coming in
and mark or even completely remove all the shit that content creators feed us
just so we click on it. Arguably, the technology needed isn't sexy but at
least it is a challenge compared to the 1000th CRUD startup. Why isn't anybody
battling this problem?

I am sick to the stomach of it.

~~~
Kluny
I'm familiar with the type of articles you're complaining about and agree with
the complaint, but I don't believe this is one of them. The title was
interesting, the article was also, and it contained concrete examples and
actionable requests. I thought it was pretty good honestly.

