Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and r

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2016, at 6:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
> <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
>
> That was not the point. Let me explain again:
>
> Your work requires you go to a given place for a business meeting. That place 
> will not allow you to go with your family because sexual discrimination. You 
> can’t refuse to go to that place because you only want to go there if you can 
> bring your family.
>
> You still can go there and fulfil your job according to the work laws in your 
> country, even if you don't bring your family. Right?
I agree with Cullen. My employer would also support an employee not going in 
that circumstance.  They take diversity seriously and continue to work to 
improve it.  We have a chief diversity officer and every employee has to have 
something on their annual review about how they helped with diversity.  

I was booked to go to BA and my employer was fine with me canceling the trip 
because my son was a bit too young, a family related reason as I could not go 
without him for a week with breastfeeding.  So no, I couldn't still go.

I'm sure they Would support someone who felt it wasn't possible for them to 
travel safely with their family for fear of discrimination as well.  If there 
is some reason why the family needed to accompany them, there wouldn't be an 
issue.  

Remote access is an option and I used that for BA.

Kathleen 

> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Cullen Jennings 
> <fluffy(_at_)iii(_dot_)ca>
> Responder a: <fluffy(_at_)iii(_dot_)ca>
> Fecha: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016, 22:56
> Para: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward 
> and request for input
>
> > > On May 24, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Melinda Shore 
> > > <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/24/16 2:20 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > > > I said this already a few messages ago. If instead of the IETF is a
> > > > business meeting that your boss tell you need to go (at least in my
> > > > country, and here comes what you said about different cultures), you
> > > > will have no choice: a) Go there b) You’re fired, maybe unless a
> > > > colleague can make it for you and your boss accept it But
> > > > definitively, you will not be able to argue in front of a court to
> > > > defend your job that you can’t go there because your family need to
> > > > go there with you and that country don’t allow it.
> > > Allow me to suggest that you know no such thing, and that
> > > you're presenting a strawman argument that may, in fact,
> > > be completely false.  US companies tend to come down on the
> > > side of supporting diversity and rejecting bigotry - take
> > > a look at the response to North Carolina's HB2.
> > My employer has in their code of business conduct strong support for exactly 
> > what Melinda is saying. I do not believe anyone at my employer would be 
> > fired for being unwilling to put themselves in a position of sexual 
> > discrimination. My experience is that most large international companies 
> > have similar policies. 
> >
> > > It's fine to make conjectures, but please couch it in
> > > terms of "I think this is what would happen."  I believe
> > > that in this case you'd be incorrect.
> > >
> > > Melinda