Mendoza 'sad to be used as a fundraising stunt'
Posted by Ian M on October 4, 2022, 6:50 pm, in reply to "Didn't KAM withdraw due to sickness/stress or some such? NM"
Hmmm, no denials here: |
'Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈 @TheMendozaWoman
Just wanted to say thankyou for the private & public messages of support.
I wonít be making public comment because Iíve done nothing but give my heart & soul to The Canary, at great personal cost.
Iím proud of the fight & sad to be used as a fundraising stunt. But life goes on' - https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1577322707460521984
Responds to nearly every comment except 'WeleaseWoderwick' who posts the co-op 'gross inequalities' article multiple times with pointed remarks such as: 'Read this. The whole time she was pretending to be a socialist she was actually the worst kind of capitalist'.
Also found this tweet from June which is rather ironic given what the co-op members are now saying (assuming it's true of course):
'One thing I learned during my time at The Canary is to consider carefully to whom I donate my time, energy and coaching.
The collective hours I spent supporting people who didnít value it or pay it forward is breathtaking.
But every lesson learned is a gift for tomorrow ❤️' - https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1537806847448690692
Seems to be true that she left for mental health reasons. Saw a few mentions of CPTSD (complex post-traumatic stress disorder), eg: this shortly before she left: https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1402187286473805826 On the other hand that wouldn't excuse behaviour like this:
'Directors would often give workers vague platitudes about mental health. They would regularly explain their own mental states in great detail to the whole team. Unfortunately, they did not possess the skills of self-awareness and empathy that were necessary for safe mental health disclosures in a hierarchical organisation. Added to this, workers were at times on 65% sick pay, and at others on statutory sick pay, while directors received 100% sick pay. In practice, this meant that when directors needed to take time off for their physical or mental health, they could do so comfortably without losing any money. The rest of us, however, were effectively financially punished for our sickness.
There was a similar pattern for holiday allowances. Directors were able to (and often did) take large chunks of time off without notice or cover. Editors, meanwhile, have had to juggle cover and severely restrict the time we were able to take off. Given that our editorial team is made up of three chronically ill people, this was yet another slap in the face. Editors and writers had a limited amount of holiday allowance. And, because of the lower rate of sick pay, they would often use their annual leave as sick days.' - https://www.thecanary.co/featured/2022/10/03/canary-workers-uncover-and-address-gross-inequalities-in-our-own-workplace/
A proper response called for IMO. Otherwise it's a big black mark against her name going forward. Shades of the Nathan Robinson / Current Affairs fiasco...
Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously