I don’t care how liberal a company culture is, the “ratings system” that they all follow is whether a division or product is making money. If it isn’t the people who work there get fired. So this sounds like BS to me.
It seems fair to me that a company with executives that supported all that labor law expansion (as well as other "democratic" causes) on the backs of everyone else should be hoist by their own petard. People who think that business should be in bed with the government should have a chance to enjoy all the benefits of the same.
Do you really want to root against Yahoo and Marissa Meyer receiving their justly deserved comeuppance? Especially after all the dirty double dealing?
You obviously do not know how ratings systems were developed or how they were used. In short, ratings systems were designed as zero sum games. On a scale of 1-5 (1 being best), you had to have an equal number of 1’s and 5’s, and an equal number of 2’s and 4’s. Then, once a year, regardless of unit profitability all 5’s get fired.
This year’s 4’s are on notice that they are now at the bottom of the pile, and may very well be next year’s 5’s. New hires get sprinkled in, and you do it all over again.
This type of rating system leads to a dysfunctional company because employees sabotage one another to make sure that their peers get lower evaluations than them. It is referred to often times as “stack ranking”, and by now most MBA programs point out the fallacy of the system and most companies are moving away from it.