Life threatening medical problems are obviously horrific and she has my full sympathies. But I'm having a tough time drawing a from that to "coercion" for someone who was a director at Facebook.
You're continuing your health insurance. You're paying for your insurance, not your medical care.
She was an executive at Facebook. If she hasn't saved enough for COBRA then I don't even know what to say.
If you're an executive at Facebook, I think you have the ability to plan things well. If you still can't save any money, at that point it's hard to see how it's not just your fault.
I don't know what other sense there is? And what possible relevance is there of the relationship between her role and what Zuck thought? I'm sure Zuck doesn't care much about accounting or HR either. Lots of well paid executives work in areas of corporations that aren't the founder's main focus. That's the kind of problem most people would love to have.
If you're surprised media articles don't ask questions and get basic facts wrong, go read any article about a topic you have direct experience with.
She had director in her title and reported directly to a vice president, Joel Kaplan, who is now a C-level officer. She managed staff.
That's seriously high up in the corporate hierarchy at Facebook. Feel free to read more:
"She managed a growing staff and oversaw government relations for entire continents, including Asia and South America. She reported to corporate vice presidents and had direct contact with Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, then the chief operating officer."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-alleges-h...
So again, I don't what you mean by "wasn't an executive in the sense you're thinking". She's seems to be exactly an executive in the sense that everyone thinks.
I once met with a person who used to be a vice president in a major US bank. I was impressed, until much later when I discovered that there were three thousand “vice presidents” in that bank.
The exact level hierarchy varies from bank to bank, but typically runs something like
Analyst - Associate - (Associate VP) - VP - Director/Executive Director/Senior VP - Managing Director
Zuck cares about growing into China. He cares about powerful people pretending they like him. He couldn't give less of a care about people dying, about his platforms being used to spread misinformation, about that misinformation corrupting elections and descending the world into authoritarianism, about the spread of hate speech, or anything else.
Ask your local nurse or schoolteacher how they feel about being "thanked" while everyone keeps voting against any meaningful change that would actually help them.
This is a powerful assumption given how expensive medicine is in the US - even with insurance - and how often people in their adulthood need medical treatment.
Just a few months ago a close friend was denied her diabetes medication because her bloodwork showed her levels (of whatever they were testing) were nominal. The problem is, those tests showing normal is the exact thing you'd measure if the medication is working (if she was somehow no longer diabetic and taking medication then the levels also wouldn't her nominal). Her and her husband both have medical degrees too, and it took weeks to get the insurance to agree to cover the costs. All because someone only knew how to look at some spreadsheet but not how to interpret that data... (a common occurrence, even in our (HN's userbase) own field)
I'm not sure why this is shocking to anyone. Did we forget Luigi Mangione so quickly? His actions speak to the level of frustration Americans have with this system. You do not need to condone his actions (which I do not) to recognize the plight he represents.
> The point is, you're not suddenly facing ruinous bankrupting medical expenses.
I'm not sure what issue she ha{s,d} but I'll say that when my mom had cancer my dad was a top salesman for a major insurance company, we had the best plan you could get, and despite that they paid well over a hundred grand in medical expenses. This was 2 decades ago, he was making over a quarter million a year, and we were living on a very tight budget. Even if we had a lot in the bank I'm certain my family would have been completely financially ruined had we added the expenses of COBRA and removed the loss of income.
I do not think you're looking at the reality of the situation clearly. Maybe you're right, but none of us know the full details. My point is that the explanation is far from an unreasonable one, so it cannot be dismissed so easily. We'll need to know more to determine if your intuition is correct. But as of now, it is certainly too hasty
Yes the original plan was great. No, we didn't need a plan that great. No we couldn't "downgrade". With the bigger income suddenly gone, coming up with $2800/mo in cash was a huge problem. COBRA is useless for many/most, unless your coverage is shite and the cost to the employer low.
As that became more important her role grew but she was never really promoted.
She also was not well informed about how tech compensation works and negotiated poorly (no stock) she came from an NGO background in New Zealand.
Her salary was probably quite a bit more than the average American but she was living in expensive areas (DC and SV) and interacting with extremely wealthy people. At one point Sheryl Sandburg got annoyed that she was leaving work for childcare and told her to hire a live-in nanny. She was living paycheck-to-paycheck on a high income with no wealth accumulation (many such cases).
If you're an executive at Facebook, you should know how to research negotiation and compensation, and figure out a living situation where you're saving money. You're in the big leagues. If Sheryl expected her to be able to hire a full time nanny, then that's an excellent time to renegotiate a salary than can afford that.
If you're an entry-level worker who can't make ends meet in San Fran then of course I sympathize greatly! But if you're an executive at Facebook making enough money that you can even consider a full time nanny... you're not facing any level of "hardship" by which an offer of even more money in exchange for non-disparagement could be considered "coercion". Nobody is in poverty here. Nobody is going to wind up hungry or on the street.
So yes, she was 1-3 months away of poverty while caring for a baby.
Poverty can come really quickly, you just need a few incidents to stack.
If I made, say, $300K/yr and was living paycheck-to-paycheck with zero savings after many years with the company, I'd say I was making highly irresponsible spending choices.
And she had a husband too, who sounds like he was working.
So something's just not adding up. It doesn't make any sense that a director-level executive at Facebook is 1-3 months away from "poverty".
when you don't mention or acknowledge this aspect, you are not making a convincing argument. perhaps they gave her a very attractive severance package, and you don't know that they didn't, so how can you draw a conclusion?
life threatening health problems is not a free pass to "i get whatever i want", not for me, not for you, and not for her, although we know that in the world of Karens it is an entitlement.