What the #EllenPao Verdict Actually Means About the ‘Rights’ You Don’t Have

Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 135 Comments

A California jury on Friday rejected the claim by Silicon Valley executive Ellen Pao that her rights had been violated by her former employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer. And this verdict is a teachable moment.

The modern concept of employee “rights” is antithetical to economic liberty. Employment in a free-market system is always a matter of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. You need a job. You apply to an employer. Among many applicants for the job, the employer chooses you. This is the basis of a contractual agreement: You do the work, the company pays you. It’s simple.

If you subsequently become dissatisfied with your job, you can quit and go work someplace else. If the company becomes dissatisfied with your work, they can fire you. This is also simple.

Oh, but you’ve got “rights,” you say. So if you don’t get a promotion you want, or you don’t think you’re treated fairly otherwise, you’re going to file a discrimination lawsuit.

Might as well get the word LOSER tattooed on your forehead.

Winners don’t file lawsuits. Winners don’t whine about “discrimination.” You know why? Because winners win. Even if, in the course of a lifelong career of winning, the winner suffers an occasional defeat, the winner just grins and moves on with his life. Company X doesn’t treat him right? They don’t appreciate his valuable skills? Fuck Company X.

The winner will find a job at Company Y or, perhaps, he’ll walk out and start his own company. Life’s too short to waste time working for a bunch of losers who don’t appreciate quality work.

If Ellen Pao was such a hotshot in the venture capital field, don’t you think there would have been other companies eager to hire her away from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer? It’s a very lucrative field, and if Ellen Pao was such a goddamned rising star, it stands to reason that some other firm would have jumped at the chance to hire her. So if she felt she was a victim of discrimination, all Ellen Pao would have had to do is to talk to somebody at a rival VC company, “Hey, Kleiner passed me over for promotion. You guys hiring?” Boom — they’d leap at the opportunity to have this young genius Ellen Pao on their payroll.

That’s didn’t happen, did it?

Hell, no, it didn’t happen, because Ellen Pao is a loser.

The world doesn’t owe you a living. No employer is obligated to hire you or give you a promotion. Ellen Pao’s claim that she was a victim of “gender discrimination” was just a typical loser’s way of rationalizing her own failure. And the lawyers who thought they could get rich off her case are nothing but greedy parasites exploiting “equal opportunity” nonsense. Pao and her lawyers sued for $16 million and they’re walking away without a nickel, and if they’d gotten a nickel that would have been five cents more than what they deserved. Fuck you, losers.

UPDATE: David Graham at the Atlantic:

The verdict is the culmination of a three-year case in which Pao said she’d been denied a promotion and then fired, and that she’d been retaliated against after complaining about discrimination. Her suit opened up a range of questions about the culture of tech investing and Silicon Valley more broadly. . . .
She says she was pressured into an affair with a colleague, and when she broke off the affair, was punished. She was denied a promotion and then fired.
The case she later brought was seen as an important moment for tech, long a place where men got ahead by default and women were outnumbered and often felt marginalized. . . .
Pao couldn’t convince a jury to side with her, but the case forced Silicon Valley’s widespread gender inequality out into the open, and put specific instances of harassment into the court record. As my colleague Olga Khazan wrote, the system as it stands is stacked against women.

How many ways can I say “bullshit”? Any high-stakes, highly competitive business environment is likely to be male-dominated and if women feel “marginalized” in such an environment, whose fault is that? There are nevertheless females who flourish in such environments, however much they may be disadvantaged and outnumbered. To talk about “gender inequality,” to claim that men get ahead “by default” in such environments, is a misleading waste of words. The company is competing in a market; if the company is successful — and Kleiner has been vastly successful — that success justifies its policies, and the wise employee is the one who adapts best to the company’s policies.

If you don’t like the policies at Kleiner, don’t work for Kleiner.

Also, don’t tell me you were “pressured into an affair.” That’s another typical loser rationalization. Ellen Pao rolled the dice — gambling that she could fuck her way to a promotion — and she lost that bet. Period. End of sentence.

UPDATE II: Phil McG in the comments links to a Vanity Fair profile of Pao and her husband and comments:

Meet the new Affirmative Action elite. They go to Princeton and Harvard, then earn millions of dollars. But as soon as some minor setback happens to them, it turns out that they were poor wretched victims of racist or sexist discrimination all along!

The Ivy League elite of Special Snowflakes.

UPDATE III: Here is a Business Insider profile of the major personalities involved in the Pao lawsuit. The man with whom Pao had an affair in 2006, Ajit Nazre, also allegedly hit on another woman at the firm. All in all, this story is worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel.

Category: Economics

Comments

135 Responses to “What the #EllenPao Verdict Actually Means About the ‘Rights’ You Don’t Have”

Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 8:43 am

I’ve been an employer. In the legal environment that has existed in this country for the last 40 years, there is no way what you are saying is anything close to typical. It isn’t just my experiences. I’m a long way from being provincial.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 8:46 am

Bosses seem to be the last to acknowledge they’ve unconsciously surrounded themselves with sycophants. Very,very often- they actually believe they’re as wonderful at they’re being told.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 8:49 am

we should do away with law enforcement.
Fred Beloit
March 28th, 2015 @ 8:50 am

When an employee “loser’, as described by Robert, is fired, they have little to lose by going to an ambulance chaser, and go they will.
Adobe_Walls
March 28th, 2015 @ 9:38 am

What is it you think ”business” is? Is there another amorphous entity made up of about 7 billion beings that you find more socially conscious or perhaps even virtuous?
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 9:49 am

Virtue and social consciousness have nothing to do with what i’m addressing. Neither do “7 billion beings”.

I’m referring to the double-talk business people seem to enjoy throwing around. Out of one side of their mouths they espouse a meritocracy and environment where results are rewarded. — In real life, it’s often very different. An environment where mediocrity is preferentially rewarded.
M. Thompson
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:05 am

How about eliminating the hyperbole? Then the people would actually understand the point you’re trying to make.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:10 am

My bad.
It hadn’t occured to me that “cock gargling” and nutsack licking would be taken literally.
M. Thompson
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:13 am

Or just understand this is a forum that has come to expect a certain amount of decorum from posters.
RS
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:16 am

Don’t stick your pen in office ink.
Adobe_Walls
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:19 am

Very few enterprises created or run by man live up to their ideals because people are flawed and some of us are dicks. ”An environment where mediocrity is preferentially rewarded.” has got to be a failing business model except in large and highly bureaucratized institutions. Sounds like a perfect description of government.
JadedByPolitics
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:22 am

”
An environment where mediocrity is preferentially rewarded.”

Union member or Democrat or both?
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:30 am

Decorum? You mean, as opposed to what is expected from the author of the article?

— “Company X doesn’t treat him right? They don’t appreciate his valuable skills? Fuck Company X.”

— “and if they’d gotten a nickel that would have been five cents more than what they deserved. Fuck you, losers.”

— “gambling that she could fuck her way to a promotion — and she lost that bet. Period. End of sentence.”
Adobe_Walls
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:33 am

No doubt.
RS
March 28th, 2015 @ 10:45 am

Any high-stakes, highly competitive business environment is likely to be male-dominated and if women feel “marginalized” in such an environment, whose fault is that? There are nevertheless females who flourish in such environments, however much they may be disadvantaged and outnumbered. (Emphasis Added)

I happen to have a close female relative who is in the tech field. She has attended a number of high profile tech conferences and is sickened by what she sees among females at such things. A few women dress and comport themselves professionally during the networking opportunities. The vast majority dress like hookers, drink themselves into oblivion and act like idiots.

Then the latter group complain about discrimination, glass ceilings and so forth. All the while, my relative laughs her way to the bank.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:06 am

You, on the other hand, seem to be implying you have that recipe (for success) down pat.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:07 am

Don’t shit where you eat
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:07 am

Neither of those is required for a simple observation.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:09 am

It’s close to a description of government. In many respects, there’s not much difference between the two.
Suing an Employer: The Only Winning Move is Not to Play…Mizz Ellen Pao loses lawsuit against former employer | Constantinople (Not Istanbul)
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:09 am

[…] Street Journal I also recommend reading Robert Stacy McCain’s writeup on this because I agree with his […]
JadedByPolitics
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:22 am

back in the real world, mediocrity is not rewarded which is why not only was that terrible woman fired but lost her case.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:29 am

I think it’s generally the opposite of what you claim. And most of the rhetoric here seems to give credence to that.
Squid Hunt
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:33 am

That’s a load of crap. The “winners” are the people that do what they’re paid to do without causing problems. If you see that as some vulgar sexual act, that’s probably why you have a hard time committing and doing your job properly and being seen as a benefit to your workplace. In which case you are likely argumentative and prone to delays and excuses. And I’m sure it’s never your fault, but you’re creating your own vortex of suckery.
ConstantineX1
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:43 am

I’ve been following this lawsuit for the last week or so. I am shocked she walked away with nothing. Biggest loser here? Reddit. She is the “interim” CEO. Guess what happens if they don’t make it permanent?

Added my own rant about this verdict http://www.constantinoplenotistanbul.com/2015/03/suing-an-employer-the-only-winning-move-is-not-to-play-mizz-ellen-pao-loses-lawsuit-against-former-employer/

My argument is there is no way to WIN a lawsuit with an employer…
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:43 am

You’re telling me that my *experience* is a load of crap?
ConstantineX1
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:44 am

Ellen Pao isn’t as good as she thinks she is. Then again, most of us probably aren’t…
JadedByPolitics
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:52 am

Yes next question.
JadedByPolitics
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:53 am

He owns the joint he can do what he wants you don’t like don’t come. Now man up!
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:57 am

IOW, he can be hypocrite?
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 11:59 am

In my business, surrounding myself with sycophants would be professionally lethal. I neither want, or need, yes men.
The Osprey
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:04 pm

Well, well, well. Look who occupies the professorial chair Pao’s husband’s endowment finances: “At Harvard, his alma mater, a $4.5 million gift finances the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor, which is held by the prominent critic and scholar Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr.”

Birds of a feather, etc.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:09 pm

I don’t know your business. I know the businesses where i’ve seen it though.

I’ll say this- The overwhelming tone of replies to my comments seem only to confirm my contempt for the self-serving, self-congratulatory mutual backslapping, denialist attitude of the echo-chamber-of-commerce. I relate my personal experience here, and i’m met with a storm of- “How dare you. That just doesn’t happen.”

But it does happen.
Adobe_Walls
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:12 pm

Actually, I did and then I didn’t.
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:38 pm

You’re being silly. No one has said it doesn’t happen. It is not widespread as you say. What you are seeing is contempt for someone that is trying to say their limited experience is the general rule. It is not.
ConstantineX1
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:43 pm

I just don’t see how you win a lawsuit against an employer. Even if you win, you lose. Ellen Pao has made herself unemployable.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:47 pm

I think you should take your charge – turn it around – and look in the mirror.

How is it that you know that my experience isn’t the general rule, or at least very,very common?
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:52 pm

I’ve been around far too long to believe your nonsense. I also showed your post to an Attorney friend and she laughed out loud at it.

Yes, ‘she.’ She’s a lady Attorney that is quite familiar with such issues and says exactly what I’ve said.

The legal climate in this country is such that it can not be common place.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

Now that’s shocking. Your attorney friend tells you the legal climate of this country would never permit ass-kissing, and sucking up to your boss?

This seems to me, to be going the extra mile to seek your approval (IOW, kiss your ass)
Adobe_Walls
March 28th, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

Quite.
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 1:27 pm

I showed her what you posted. You need to read what you posted. Or quit trolling. One or the other.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 1:33 pm

Really?
Then what, precisely, is it, in my posts, which the “legal climate” will not allow to be common place?
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 1:49 pm

Yep, you’re a troll. Adios.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 1:53 pm

I’ll tell what is in my posts that isn’t allowed by the “legal climate” — Nothing.

Either, you never showed this to your “attorney friend”. Or you did, but she never read this banal exchange.— I suspect the former is the case.

But that’s ok. I EXPECT to be lied to when i’m dealing with members of the business community. THAT is the norm.
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:04 pm

You’ve gone from sexual harassment to mere “ass kissing” and I’m supposed to take you seriously? Get real. You’re a troll and nothing but. I suggest you stop if you don’t want to be banned.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:06 pm

Could you please quote the text where i mentioned sexual harassment.
Quartermaster
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:24 pm

If you’re so stupid that you don’t see it, then you aren’t worth the time of day. Adios.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

you’ve proven my point. and that’s a shame. 🙁
Squid Hunt
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:55 pm

Hey. I just gave you the best and cheapest career advice you’ll ever get. Take it and move on with your life.
useless eater
March 28th, 2015 @ 2:56 pm

thanks, Dad.
Charles Martel
March 28th, 2015 @ 3:33 pm

Don’t you know to stay away from sleeping with single moms. If you slept with her she would feel entitled to call off more than women normally do.