ABC’s John Stossel vs. Novartis’ Holly Waters: You Tell Us Who’s Right!
June 20, 2009 at 7:00 pm EST | Tags: Gossip & Rumors, Healthcare & Medicine, Legal, Politics, Scandals
It’s heating up!!!
Our post on John Stossel’s (pornstache) pregnant Novartis (NVS) rep scandal has been a big hit. Most importantly, it’s regaining media coverage. BNET Pharma just ran this piece on the Waters’ case and posted a few comments from NVS reps, who apparently are in the middle of a civil war.
Before we do the poll (at the end of the post), here’s the link to the full Holly Waters case filed on March 16, 2006 with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
It names NVS and Thomas Ebeling, ex-head of NVS’ Pharmaceutical business as the defendents and the following women as plaintiffs: Amy Velez, Penni Zelinkoff, Minel Hider Tobertga, Michelle Williams, Jennifer Waxman-Recht, Karen Liggins, Lori Horton, Holly Waters, Wendy Pinson, Roberta VonLintel, Ashley Narmour, Catherine White, Kelly Corbett, Sue Earl, Jamie Holland, Joan Durkin, Simona Lopes, Maryanne Jacoby and Marta Deyne.
Waters’ case starts on page 49.
Also, we don’t like to take sides, but check out what one woman rep posted on CafePharma (per BNET Pharma):
I agree with Stossel. I am a woman, I don’t want children I find it offensive a lot of times when women who are popping out kids like puppies are constantly taking off for one thing or another because of their children, at my last job (with a big pharma) they could take days off that were not counted as vacation because of “sick” kids therefore getting WAY mor time off than anyone else. It’s BS…just my opinon!
Okay, let say that you have a guy/girl team in a territory. The girl gets pregnant and goes out on pregnancy leave and takes additional time off to bond with the little rug rat. The guy is left in the field and has to handle the whole territory, sometimes for 6 months or more. Obviously half the share of voice is gone, the territories chance of performing up to par is diminished, she is exempt from evaluation due to being out on pregnancy leave and the guy is screwed re: bonus, etc. It’s not fair to the rep left in the field when one is out pregnant. When one partner is out, the requirements on the territory need to be adjusted downward to be fair, but no one is fair to the rep left working.
So you tell us…
Anonymous Tip? Comments? Contact us: hr AT iguanabio DOT com
![[Loading...]](http://www.iguanabio.com/wp-content/themes/IguanaBio/images/ajax-loader.gif){kind=small}
I think it’s absolutely appalling that a woman would say such a thing. I don’t have kids and I don’t agree one bit. I accept that you have a point of view, but you make me want to vomit.
I don’t have kids either but I’m flabbergasted at how completely unable she is to fully comprehend the situation.
A) It’s the company’s prerogative to grant extra or off the books “sick days” to someone with kids. A good employer will make sure its valued employees get what they need not what is outlined in some policy manual. I’m sorry she doesn’t think that’s fair.
B) I don’t think she realizes that a day spent at home with a sick kid is not a day “OFF” as she says. It’s more like trading one kind of work for another. You don’t need to be a mother to figure that one out.
C) I also think she has the confused notion that the law is fair. The law is about justice and equality–not fairness. There is a difference and it’s pretty big.
Wah, Wah! I don’t have kids and no one loves me! I hate the sound of laughter and happiness. I am an old, miserable shrew and will die lonely surrounded by cats. I am entitled and the world owes me something because my mother didn’t love me and now I have lots of issues with women who love their children.
P.S. I am also a flaming bitch!
Dear Mark:
What’s fair about women being oppressed for centuries? For being subjugated? For being denied the right and opportunity to work and earn a living because they – AND THEY ALONE – can carry offspring for the human race??????? Is that fair???
I had my kids BEFORE the workplace became ‘mother friendly’.
Whatever the workplace imbalance, the hand the rocks the cradle really does rule the world!
Geez, if women don’t have kids, there won’t be any more people. Someone has to have the kids, so why not cut them a break when they do. Also, let them stay with the kids for a while so they’ll be reasonably socialized and don’t grow up to be sociopathic monsters and serial killers.
Marriage and family are the backbone of society. If you just want to make lots of money, get a expensive car to park in the driveway of a large but empty mansion, and die an unhappy and unfulfilled person that is your choice. Pharmaceutical and business executives who try to screw over their workers who are parents to line their own pockets for their next vacation to the Bahamas need the kick in the ass that only a good lawsuit can give them. Can we outsource their jobs overseas?
Well, how far can this discrimination be allowed to go? I was just pfired from Pfizer in a clear age discrimination round of down-sizing. Apparently, employers can fire people based on salary, but not on age. Obviously, a 20+ year tenured employee would make more than a 0-5 year tenured employee in the vast majority of cases. So Pfizer said, lets save cost and fire the employees making the most money (read, older employees). So >50% of the employees over 50 years of age were severed, while only 10-15% (the poor performers) in the 30-25 year old range were let go.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Pfizer doesn’t learn from Novartis and start firing all the pregnant women.
Please lets stop all these forms of discrimination!
Dear Anonymous (if that IS your real name!),
NO I DON’T think it’s fair. And for the record, it’s been going on for millenia-not centuries. Please reread my post and you will see that we are on the same side–Ms. Waters’ side.
Clearly, I was responding to the CafePharma poster and not Ms. Waters’ case. This is pretty obvious since my post is plainly consistent with Ms. Waters’ view. You will also see that every single one of the other posts on here is in agreement with you. Please look elsewhere for a fight.
And please don’t respond with “Of course, ‘Anonymous’ isn’t my real name. Duh!” I was making a joke. You seem to have a habit of misreading me and I don’t want there to be any further misunderstandings.