Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/twilio-to-lay-of-11percent-of-workforce.html
509 comments
This creates three problems. The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. The second is that minorities who were not affected may be assumed to have been kept because of their minority status.
But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off. That signals that they were really subpar, even more than the average laid off person.
It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people. Some would say that's a disparate effect on minorities, and the policy is therefore racist. /s
edit: these are just the perception problems. There's also the fact that it is possibly illegal and unethical.
But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off. That signals that they were really subpar, even more than the average laid off person.
It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people. Some would say that's a disparate effect on minorities, and the policy is therefore racist. /s
edit: these are just the perception problems. There's also the fact that it is possibly illegal and unethical.
But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?
I'm pretty sure if you are white and laid off, you will have a pretty strong case for a lawsuit. I can't believe someone in legal wouldn't warn the leadership that putting out a press release stating this was a good idea.
This is San Francisco. When I worked there (2015-2020), most of my co-workers openly endorsed hiring bias against demographics that aren't considered "diverse". I'd be highly skeptical that a jury would side with a plaintiff alleging anti-white discrimination, no matter how solid the proof. If a community widely thinks activity that is de jure illegal should be allowed then it becomes de facto permitted because even if a company engages in this behavior and gets sued they won't be held liable.
I worked in SF during the same time period, at a small startup. There would have extreme fury at the idea of hiring/firing based on anything but ability.
Again, this was a small company. Every person mattered. Every talented hire advanced the company, and every talented departure put us at risk.
Even now at the big company I work for, the small team sizes mean each dev either contributes or drains. We even have an informal budget of how much we expect contributors go drain/gain (junior devs can drain for a while, senior devs make up for it, etc).
The sort of “anti-racist” methodology suggests a mindset I don’t quite get.
Every company I know of has an extemee backlog. Product isn’t getting shipped because there aren’t enough devs.
Are people seriously saying it’s ok their company doesn’t ship as much product if it benefits historically oppressed devs?
Again, this was a small company. Every person mattered. Every talented hire advanced the company, and every talented departure put us at risk.
Even now at the big company I work for, the small team sizes mean each dev either contributes or drains. We even have an informal budget of how much we expect contributors go drain/gain (junior devs can drain for a while, senior devs make up for it, etc).
The sort of “anti-racist” methodology suggests a mindset I don’t quite get.
Every company I know of has an extemee backlog. Product isn’t getting shipped because there aren’t enough devs.
Are people seriously saying it’s ok their company doesn’t ship as much product if it benefits historically oppressed devs?
By contrast, I was at two successful unicorns. They were both large (1,000 and 2-3,000 employees). We had the luxury of having significantly more applicants than headcount. I think the mentality is more that the product is already successful, and we have a responsibility to ensure that that oppressed people don't miss out on that success.
The irony is that most "oppressed" people hired at the companies we very well off. I'm Latin myself (a fact I don't advertise in my workplace precisely because of this discrimination) and I had a very privileged upbringing. Same with another Trinidadian engineer I spoke with. So in the end, it was a bunch of privileged white people patting themselves on the back for hiring privileged Latin and Black people.
The irony is that most "oppressed" people hired at the companies we very well off. I'm Latin myself (a fact I don't advertise in my workplace precisely because of this discrimination) and I had a very privileged upbringing. Same with another Trinidadian engineer I spoke with. So in the end, it was a bunch of privileged white people patting themselves on the back for hiring privileged Latin and Black people.
> So in the end, it was a bunch of privileged white people patting themselves on the back for hiring privileged Latin and Black people.
While whites and Asians born into poverty, who struggled all their lives against overwhelming odds, were deprived of these opportunities due to the color of the skin they were born in.
This is ugly, ugly stuff.
While whites and Asians born into poverty, who struggled all their lives against overwhelming odds, were deprived of these opportunities due to the color of the skin they were born in.
This is ugly, ugly stuff.
It’s beyond ugly and the irony will be that progressives who are so concerned with how history will judge them will be judged harshly by these positions.
That's why the key point for me isn't that it's illegal (though it is): it's immoral, even if it was legal.
Discrimination against blacks in the South was legal. Plenty of people defended racism on these grounds back then: "it's legal, the courts have approved it, and therefore it must be right."
These are not the people progressives are celebrating today. In fact, they'll cancel you for being at all similar to these people. Yet they are just like them.
Discrimination against blacks in the South was legal. Plenty of people defended racism on these grounds back then: "it's legal, the courts have approved it, and therefore it must be right."
These are not the people progressives are celebrating today. In fact, they'll cancel you for being at all similar to these people. Yet they are just like them.
I think of this as the Left having lost its way (in its own sort-of marxist terms). It's overly obsessed with identity and forgets the much more important discriminant of class. A cynical analysis is that the upper classes are using this as a successful divide and conquer tactic...
It’s a communist tactic to sow division in society by raising tension along identity lines like race, etc. Of course schools usually cover this part of history as “McCarthyist nonsense.”
this assumes that you’re making a lesser hire and that a parallel skill level hire of a minority isn’t possible
That is jury nullification.
Legal probably approved the word "lens". And if this ends up in court they will say that "lens" means that we are aware of the impact layoffs have on our society, but does not change who we fire during a layoff, meaning even if we didn't do this through a lens the person suing would have still been let go.
If the layoff was done through the lens of racist consideration, and minority races were given preference, then the odds of a white or Asian person getting fired were higher.
That's already illegal. Even if you can somehow prove in court that "white worker X" would still be fired had he been black (already a dicey and likely impossible feat), just the fact that the employer already admitted that this worker was under more risk for getting fired due to his race, a-priory creates a cause of action against the employer.
If I say "I give preference to hiring men over women", and a woman is rejected and then sues, trying to show that I would not have hired her even if she was a man is arguing from a losing position.
The policy itself is racist and illegal.
That's already illegal. Even if you can somehow prove in court that "white worker X" would still be fired had he been black (already a dicey and likely impossible feat), just the fact that the employer already admitted that this worker was under more risk for getting fired due to his race, a-priory creates a cause of action against the employer.
If I say "I give preference to hiring men over women", and a woman is rejected and then sues, trying to show that I would not have hired her even if she was a man is arguing from a losing position.
The policy itself is racist and illegal.
As an aside, the Latin words you wanted are a priori, but you're right that race is a protected category and putting out a statement saying "we made firing decisions based on a protected category" is a bad idea for that reason.
Then the laid off employees should organize as a class action so that "this specific person would have been let go" is no longer an acceptable defense and the question can be focused on whether using a "lens" to fire people based on race is illegal. If they argue that the lens means something else or that they didn't use the lens then Twilio has potentially just filed a materially false statement with the SEC.
> but does not change who we fire during a layoff
what does 'carried out through a lens' mean. Through means it was put through that lens?
what does 'carried out through a lens' mean. Through means it was put through that lens?
a lens translates things to a different view. so they either justified it somehow, or it changed the outcome. not a hair I'd want to be splitting in court.
Yeah the comment means nothing if it did not impact their decision.
Exactly my point. White Male CEOs are afraid of an article in a major newspaper showing them being rich next to a picture of a poor minority that they just fired. So they put a PR spin on the firings.
Unfortunately, mostly not. Courts have so far been extremely unwilling to consider cases of that sort.
It's so vague and weasel-wordy - if it's genuinely 'anti-racist' then (why mention it‽ and) it doesn't disproportionately affect white people, or anyone (race-based).
I agree the implication seems very much like an intended 'affirmative'/'positive' action role-selection policy though. (I think such things are stupid - whether hiring/firing/anything - and bad for everybody, but I am white, so I try to keep that a 'lightly held' opinion.)
In the UK the law is similar to your description, but large companies also have to publish stats, and the implication seems pretty much like quotas are good/the law, it's hard to imagine anyone/entity being found guilty of (as-written) illegal discrimination on the 'positive' side that tilts you more towards balance, IMO. (IANAL.)
I agree the implication seems very much like an intended 'affirmative'/'positive' action role-selection policy though. (I think such things are stupid - whether hiring/firing/anything - and bad for everybody, but I am white, so I try to keep that a 'lightly held' opinion.)
In the UK the law is similar to your description, but large companies also have to publish stats, and the implication seems pretty much like quotas are good/the law, it's hard to imagine anyone/entity being found guilty of (as-written) illegal discrimination on the 'positive' side that tilts you more towards balance, IMO. (IANAL.)
Isn't affirmative action in hiring legal? Seems like this is just the same thing but for layoffs.
It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which:
> outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc.
Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.
> outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc.
Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.
I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
You are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned:
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co...
Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action".
If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant.
Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co...
Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action".
If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant.
Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
Men actually do benefit from soft affirmative action in college admissions because of this disparity.
You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates.
[0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates.
[0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
It depends on the university, engineering-oriented schools admit women at higher rates (over 2x in the case of MIT and Harvey Mudd): https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
Yes, as mentioned above, there is (unfortunately) a controversial ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) that allows for a form of discrimination in college admissions specifically. This is wrong and should stop. It's an example of SCOTUS judges allowing their political views to to override a clear interpretation of the law.
Affirmative action is not illegal. If you take action to prevent adverse impact to any protected class, that is not discrimination. If a company hires only white men and rejects every Asian candidate they have ever interviewed, or only fires Asian employees, what is your proposed remedy? Status quo?
Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3]
[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action
[2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan...
[3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...
Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3]
[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action
[2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan...
[3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...
A company (Twilio) is executing a mass layoff, and is implying that it will protect certain racial minorities from this layoff. Doing this, they are necessarily discriminating against any employee who does not belong to these racial groups.
If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions.
Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians:
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid...
The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions.
Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians:
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid...
The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy.
You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.
You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.
> Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action
Change the framing from "a victim was robbed of $1,000" to "a poor person gained $1,000" and the clear crime of armed robbery becomes a positive event!
Fortunately, playing these types of games with language doesn't change the facts, or else there would be no justice; you can always "change the framing" to make any crime sound positive, by emphasizing its positive impacts and ignoring the adverse impacts.
As a matter of law, the SCOTUS unfortunately let their political views override a clear reading of the law in one case (Grutter v. Bollinger), and allowed a very limited form of affirmative action in a very specific context.
Discrimination based on race or sex in hiring and firing is still very much illegal. It's not hard to see why it's both immoral and destructive if we allow it in our society.
Change the framing from "a victim was robbed of $1,000" to "a poor person gained $1,000" and the clear crime of armed robbery becomes a positive event!
Fortunately, playing these types of games with language doesn't change the facts, or else there would be no justice; you can always "change the framing" to make any crime sound positive, by emphasizing its positive impacts and ignoring the adverse impacts.
As a matter of law, the SCOTUS unfortunately let their political views override a clear reading of the law in one case (Grutter v. Bollinger), and allowed a very limited form of affirmative action in a very specific context.
Discrimination based on race or sex in hiring and firing is still very much illegal. It's not hard to see why it's both immoral and destructive if we allow it in our society.
Your example doesn’t work because you’re just pointing out some positive aspect, it doesn’t make it not robbery. In my case the difference between firing a white person and retaining a black person changes the nature of the act as it’s viewed by the law. What is in the mind of the person carrying out an act that affects different races disproportionately matters. And if we’re we following precedent this would probably be allowed as another narrow case.
So I don’t disagree with your overall point but I also don’t think anyone is going to win a lawsuit over this without a huge case that makes it to scotus because the practice of diversity hires is common and currently tolerated. And “we looked at all our employees and chose who to retain” is isomorphic to regular affirmative action.
So I don’t disagree with your overall point but I also don’t think anyone is going to win a lawsuit over this without a huge case that makes it to scotus because the practice of diversity hires is common and currently tolerated. And “we looked at all our employees and chose who to retain” is isomorphic to regular affirmative action.
> I don’t disagree with your overall point but I also don’t think anyone is going to win a lawsuit over this without a huge case that makes it to scotus because the practice of diversity hires is common and currently tolerated.
According to this pessimistic viewpoint, there was no point in the civil rights movement of the 1960s that led the to revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Black people would look around, and realize that discrimination against them is "common and currently tolerated", especially in the South, and just throw their hands in despair and live with it.
Fortunately, they didn't. And if even a single Twilio employee was fired for his race, I hope he doesn't, either. Not just for his sake, but for our sake as a society.
I don't want to live in a society where people are judged and treated according to the color of their skin.
According to this pessimistic viewpoint, there was no point in the civil rights movement of the 1960s that led the to revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Black people would look around, and realize that discrimination against them is "common and currently tolerated", especially in the South, and just throw their hands in despair and live with it.
Fortunately, they didn't. And if even a single Twilio employee was fired for his race, I hope he doesn't, either. Not just for his sake, but for our sake as a society.
I don't want to live in a society where people are judged and treated according to the color of their skin.
Affirmative action in the private sector is 100% illegal.
No it isn’t, in fact private companies are encouraged (and in some cases required) to have an affirmative action policy in place.
The thing you think affirmative action means “hiring less qualified employees because of their race” is illegal. You can’t base your hiring decision on someone’s protected characteristics but you are totally free to base other things on that.
Here are some anti-* takes that are totally legal.
* Someone you’re interviewing is Latino that has only worked on small projects or small features and when asked about it they expressed that they always asked to be given bigger projects but was always turned down. You get the feeling that this was likely due to his race and so you don’t hold it against him.
* You’re interviewing a trans woman who recently quit her job while not having anything lined up. She describes the last few months as suddenly having her workload increase, her code reviews getting more critical, and her pto being denied that never had before. By your estimation it seems like she was quiet fired because of her gender alignment and so you don’t consider it a red flag.
* You have the unfortunate task of needing to drastically cut payroll expenses and finance says it will be around 20% of the workforce. You talk to your senior staff and managers to recommend low performing candidates and collect metrics like cards worked and performance reviews. You’re reviewing a woman selected for termination and notice that she seems to be closing more cards than some of her male teammates which is odd, and when you dig into the PRs they’re fine, she’s seemingly not taking on easier work, and from the comments her teammates seem to love her. So you ask the manager’s manager and find out that she’s very much a girls girl and usually passes on the “boyish” team building activities that always get voted on like doing a work fantasy league and fishing. You think it’s pretty clear what’s going on and pick someone else from that team.
The thing you think affirmative action means “hiring less qualified employees because of their race” is illegal. You can’t base your hiring decision on someone’s protected characteristics but you are totally free to base other things on that.
Here are some anti-* takes that are totally legal.
* Someone you’re interviewing is Latino that has only worked on small projects or small features and when asked about it they expressed that they always asked to be given bigger projects but was always turned down. You get the feeling that this was likely due to his race and so you don’t hold it against him.
* You’re interviewing a trans woman who recently quit her job while not having anything lined up. She describes the last few months as suddenly having her workload increase, her code reviews getting more critical, and her pto being denied that never had before. By your estimation it seems like she was quiet fired because of her gender alignment and so you don’t consider it a red flag.
* You have the unfortunate task of needing to drastically cut payroll expenses and finance says it will be around 20% of the workforce. You talk to your senior staff and managers to recommend low performing candidates and collect metrics like cards worked and performance reviews. You’re reviewing a woman selected for termination and notice that she seems to be closing more cards than some of her male teammates which is odd, and when you dig into the PRs they’re fine, she’s seemingly not taking on easier work, and from the comments her teammates seem to love her. So you ask the manager’s manager and find out that she’s very much a girls girl and usually passes on the “boyish” team building activities that always get voted on like doing a work fantasy league and fishing. You think it’s pretty clear what’s going on and pick someone else from that team.
> You get the feeling that this was likely due to his race and so you don’t hold it against him.
What would cause someone to get this feeling? Does a candidate just have to indicate that he wanted bigger projects but didn't get them? Seems like the exact same thing that would happen to someone who was not ready for bigger projects.
Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent who worked at a company with mostly left leaning employees?
What would cause someone to get this feeling? Does a candidate just have to indicate that he wanted bigger projects but didn't get them? Seems like the exact same thing that would happen to someone who was not ready for bigger projects.
Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent who worked at a company with mostly left leaning employees?
> Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent...
Abso-fucking-lutely. In fact I've actually done something similar, when you work in the somewhat affluent urban blue specs on the political map you will find genuinely talented engineers, usually self-taught too, who grew up in a small town/village and just don't have the usual pedigree of a CS degree from a random college and tech internships. I felt so bad for this one guy we hired, dude was and still is a fucking wizard at networking -- he literally runs his own ISP now as a side hustle but in the interview he didn't even have to say it, it was clear from how defensive he was saying stuff like "I know you would be taking a chance on me", "I would be fine with a probationary period" that he was getting rejected other places. So we had to interview him differently to set him up to show off what he was good at because random whiteboard algo problems wasn't it.
So it's not exactly textbook discrimination, but it is recognizing the systematic disadvantages this guy had as a result of who he is.
Abso-fucking-lutely. In fact I've actually done something similar, when you work in the somewhat affluent urban blue specs on the political map you will find genuinely talented engineers, usually self-taught too, who grew up in a small town/village and just don't have the usual pedigree of a CS degree from a random college and tech internships. I felt so bad for this one guy we hired, dude was and still is a fucking wizard at networking -- he literally runs his own ISP now as a side hustle but in the interview he didn't even have to say it, it was clear from how defensive he was saying stuff like "I know you would be taking a chance on me", "I would be fine with a probationary period" that he was getting rejected other places. So we had to interview him differently to set him up to show off what he was good at because random whiteboard algo problems wasn't it.
So it's not exactly textbook discrimination, but it is recognizing the systematic disadvantages this guy had as a result of who he is.
They're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.
Because the chessboard has been moved and all the pieces rearranged.
Imagine being a minority applying for a job after being laid off from twilio... Like you said this is awful as hiring managers will assume they must really suck. Horrible. Horrible. It would have been fine for twilio to do the layoff the way they did but they should have just kept their mouth quiet about it instead of virtue signaling. They have done more harm than good.
However, it avoids a perception problem which may be far worse: the hypothetical perception that the people drawing up the layoffs were racist and that they disproportionately affected minorities. They wrote "Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused.." on making sure they did not.
If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random, there's a chance that someone later would say "Twilio employees are 35% female, 33% Asian, 9% Latino, and 6% Black, but the laid-off employees were 11% Latino! Racism!" and turn a mob against them. Once the media/Twitter/mob believe that Twilio HR and Twilio executives are racist, those execs might try to defend themselves by saying: "We weighted based on performance reviews, added a bit of statistical noise, and then did a random selection. We believe those performance reviews to be objective and free of racial bias. We didn't even realize that Latinos were slightly over-represented in the layoffs until you mentioned it, but it looks to be merely statistical chance. We actually fired slightly more white people and more men than the statistics would suggest, we're not bigots."
...Do you think that would work?
It's far easier to defend against the accusation of being overly woke than it is to defend against the accusation of being racist, so while you'd rather be neither, it's better to overtly and publicly fail in the safer direction.
If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random, there's a chance that someone later would say "Twilio employees are 35% female, 33% Asian, 9% Latino, and 6% Black, but the laid-off employees were 11% Latino! Racism!" and turn a mob against them. Once the media/Twitter/mob believe that Twilio HR and Twilio executives are racist, those execs might try to defend themselves by saying: "We weighted based on performance reviews, added a bit of statistical noise, and then did a random selection. We believe those performance reviews to be objective and free of racial bias. We didn't even realize that Latinos were slightly over-represented in the layoffs until you mentioned it, but it looks to be merely statistical chance. We actually fired slightly more white people and more men than the statistics would suggest, we're not bigots."
...Do you think that would work?
It's far easier to defend against the accusation of being overly woke than it is to defend against the accusation of being racist, so while you'd rather be neither, it's better to overtly and publicly fail in the safer direction.
> If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random
This is a false dichotomy. They could have done layoffs based on the company's needs and the performance of the employees. That isn't random.
Your big picture point amounts to a heckler's veto. The more you cater to the heckler, the more powerful the heckler becomes.
This is a false dichotomy. They could have done layoffs based on the company's needs and the performance of the employees. That isn't random.
Your big picture point amounts to a heckler's veto. The more you cater to the heckler, the more powerful the heckler becomes.
>it avoids a perception problem which may be far worse: the hypothetical perception that the people drawing up the layoffs were racist
No, it kind of cemented that perception.
No, it kind of cemented that perception.
The EEOC will have something to say if your layoff disproportionate effects a protected group. The right thing here is for management to keep their mouth shut and point people to the EEOC if they believe this layoff was disproportionate.
The issue is that the layoff will disproportionately affect protected groups. Engineering is disproportionately male, east asian, south asian, and white. Companies with explicit diversity targets make up for this by compensating in other company orgs (HR, marketing, sales, admin) making them disproportionately female, black, and hispanic.
This means when you keep good engineers but lay off HR, marketing, sales, and admin employees, the layoffs look really bad in terms of affected protected groups.
This means when you keep good engineers but lay off HR, marketing, sales, and admin employees, the layoffs look really bad in terms of affected protected groups.
Bingo. This is the double-edged sword of heavy affirmative action in hiring. If things get tough and you have to make cuts to save the company, the people who you should let go are disproportionately from affirmative action groups.
Obviously the answer is to fire the expensive engineers (keep a skeleton crew for maintenance and bugfixes) and keep the sales & marketing folks. If 20 years working in engineering has taught me anything it's that sales and marketing is where the real money is made.
From what I’ve seen sales works off commission.
For the company, this is a curse in good times, and a blessing in bad times.
For the company, this is a curse in good times, and a blessing in bad times.
> f they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random, there's a chance that someone later would say "Twilio employees are 35% female, 33% Asian, 9% Latino, and 6% Black, but the laid-off employees were 11% Latino! Racism!"
It's not a chance, it's a guarantee. Every layoff gets lawsuits claiming discrimination and has so for decades. Which is why virtually every company does this analysis as a normal part of executing a layoff... and has done so for decades.
It's not a chance, it's a guarantee. Every layoff gets lawsuits claiming discrimination and has so for decades. Which is why virtually every company does this analysis as a normal part of executing a layoff... and has done so for decades.
Is the first problem not the immediate implication of laying people off through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens? You have to assume that the lens selected not exclusively on merit, but also on factors like race, gender, orientation, or creed, in some measure, or in at least one instance. Otherwise, the lens could be said the exist, ever vigilant in its purpose, and yet was not required in this particular batch of layoffs, thank God. The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, orientation, gender, or religion, may be far more pervasive due to the framing than is actually warranted; that I concede.
They say anti-racist but they really just mean racist. They are taking race into account when making staffing decisions. It's as illegal as the extra "side pot" of raise money my company has for diverse employees.
Companies care about diversity numbers when they have a lot of cheap funding.
When funding is tough, pure capitalism takes over woke values and it is up to whether your monetary value to the company>your monetary cost to the company.
When funding is tough, pure capitalism takes over woke values and it is up to whether your monetary value to the company>your monetary cost to the company.
There are lots of studies claiming that diversity makes companies more successful. But all that I've seen are correlational studies. And those are equally explained by the idea you mentioned. When companies are flush, they spend money on affirmative action. Therefore companies that have heavy affirmative action tend to be more successful.
My employer has specifically called out ESG investments as one of the reasons they have gone super woke.
[deleted]
All the 3 are immediate implications of that statement.
The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, etc will almost certainly be pervasive because the upper management claimed that it's what happened. And that will be despite the fact that upper management is almost certainly not competent enough to decide on the competence of the people they are laying off (they never are).
The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, etc will almost certainly be pervasive because the upper management claimed that it's what happened. And that will be despite the fact that upper management is almost certainly not competent enough to decide on the competence of the people they are laying off (they never are).
Everyone who was laid off here has strong grounds to sue for racial discrimination. White people and non-white people alike.
The CEO pretty confirmed race is a factor, it is not believe, he said it.
Would this be legal even?
Would this be legal even?
> It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people.
Yeah, but the minorities who kept their jobs even it out to 1 point for whites and 1 point for minorities.
Cause that's who this shit works, as a zero-sum game.
Yeah, but the minorities who kept their jobs even it out to 1 point for whites and 1 point for minorities.
Cause that's who this shit works, as a zero-sum game.
> The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race.
It literally was because of their race.
> But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off
srs?
It literally was because of their race.
> But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off
srs?
It also makes the company a political lightning rod, making whatever their business situation is worse. Irresponsible move by a CEO.
>some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race
But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?
But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?
They apparently laid off white people at a higher rate than they would have. Otherwise the statement about using an anti-racist lens would be incredibly misleading.
"Than they would have" if what though? They just allowed subconscious racist biases to affect their decision making?
It's not like we lack evidence that this does in fact happen.
If an "anti-racist lens" means anything other than "processes to help avoid the effect of subconscious racial bias" I'd agree it's a problem.
If an "anti-racist lens" means anything other than "processes to help avoid the effect of subconscious racial bias" I'd agree it's a problem.
The opposite of anti-racist isn't racist.
You are assuming the decision makers have subconscious racist biases. And you are assuming those biases favor white people, men, etc.
In the world I live in there is a good chance that each of these is false. The fact that they made this statement indicates as much.
You are assuming the decision makers have subconscious racist biases. And you are assuming those biases favor white people, men, etc.
In the world I live in there is a good chance that each of these is false. The fact that they made this statement indicates as much.
There are actual studies showing 95-99% of us have subconscious racist biases.
And so what which races they favour? I'd call it a massive fail for any "anti-racist lens" if, say, only whites were fired.
(You also mention "men" - subconscious sexist biases are just as universal. For highly skilled roles unfortunately they very much typically favour men.)
The field of subconscious biases suffers from several fatal defects. The scores people get on subconscious bias tests vary wildly over time, even short periods of time. This is a fundamental flaw and should be the end of the inquiry. If we can't measure the thing, we can't draw any conclusions about it.
Also, there has never been a linkage drawn between scores on subconscious bias tests and real world actions. Are racists probably "subconsciously biased"? Sure. But the reverse has never been shown.
Also, there has never been a linkage drawn between scores on subconscious bias tests and real world actions. Are racists probably "subconsciously biased"? Sure. But the reverse has never been shown.
Actually we can and do measure it and such linkages have been demonstrated. There are probably more succinct references, but here was one of the first I found:
http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20...
http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20...
Can you share a section reference? Looks like it's 90 pages long.
Chapter 4 (pp. 44-) is a good place to start, particularly "UNCOVERING BIAS BY USING FICTITIOUS RESUMES" (p. 47).
Another study found that anonymizing resumes actually hurt minority candidates. [1] This is because the companies were trying hard to help people with minority sounding names and no longer could.
Anonymizing seems like an appropriate way to handle layoffs as well. It may be hard to do because some managers know the people involved. But they could force all decisions to be justified and externally reviewed by others who don't know the demographics.
No one would have had a problem if they described a rigorous process of anonymizing the layoff decisions. It swings the pendulum too far to go full on anti-racist. Others point out it's also illegal.
1: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/case-study/unintended-effec...
Anonymizing seems like an appropriate way to handle layoffs as well. It may be hard to do because some managers know the people involved. But they could force all decisions to be justified and externally reviewed by others who don't know the demographics.
No one would have had a problem if they described a rigorous process of anonymizing the layoff decisions. It swings the pendulum too far to go full on anti-racist. Others point out it's also illegal.
1: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/case-study/unintended-effec...
true or not, those statements would create that perception.
Unless they lied in their statement, yes.
As a Latino, I too am growing tired of the way some leadership and HR departments in tech callously, carelessly push and promote these diversity initiatives in a way that creates resentment. Combating racial bias is a sensitive topic. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that. And yet companies continue to make statements like this without the tact it deserves.
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that they really were trying to fight inequity in the system. Instead of saying something like "Historically layoffs in tech have disproportionately affected minorities, pregnant women, and older employees. Here's a link to a study showing that data. With these layoffs we ensured that no group was affected unfairly", they just throw out the term anti-racist, and let the audience draw their own conclusions.
Because at the end of the day, making sure their layoffs don't unfairly target X or Y disadvantaged group--or really any group--is just doing the right thing. Why brag about the fact that your HR policies are not systemically flawed? It's as if you came home to your partner and proudly stated that on your drive back home you did NOT run over any elders or toddlers with your car. You're expected to do that. If anything taking credit makes people wonder.
In this case, it comes across as virtue signaling by Twilio's leadership. The same desire to curry favor when laying off people that makes CEOs tell their employees how hard the decision was for him or her. Trying to pat yourself in the back while announcing layoffs seems wildly tone-deaf to me. And at the expense of the groups they're allegedly trying to protect.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that they really were trying to fight inequity in the system. Instead of saying something like "Historically layoffs in tech have disproportionately affected minorities, pregnant women, and older employees. Here's a link to a study showing that data. With these layoffs we ensured that no group was affected unfairly", they just throw out the term anti-racist, and let the audience draw their own conclusions.
Because at the end of the day, making sure their layoffs don't unfairly target X or Y disadvantaged group--or really any group--is just doing the right thing. Why brag about the fact that your HR policies are not systemically flawed? It's as if you came home to your partner and proudly stated that on your drive back home you did NOT run over any elders or toddlers with your car. You're expected to do that. If anything taking credit makes people wonder.
In this case, it comes across as virtue signaling by Twilio's leadership. The same desire to curry favor when laying off people that makes CEOs tell their employees how hard the decision was for him or her. Trying to pat yourself in the back while announcing layoffs seems wildly tone-deaf to me. And at the expense of the groups they're allegedly trying to protect.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
Curious how you feel about the term LatinX that all tech companies are embracing? Reason I ask is I have a few really good friends who are Hispanic(Nicaraguan, Dominican, Mexican) and they all despise that term. I don't know why its used and it seems strange as its been forced on us the past few years with no consulting or buy-in from any of the Hispanic employees at these companies. Even outside polls found that a huge majority (96%) of Hispanic people dislike this term but its still being used.
[1] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-prefere...
[1] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-prefere...
While I appreciate the sentiment behind LatinX, my main issue with it is that it's mostly a distraction. I can't speak for women, but I imagine their top worries are things like the amount of violence against women [1] (at least in Mexico where my family is originally from), unequal pay, how much the burden of having children rests on their shoulders and limits their careers, etc. You know, stuff that has a significant impact on their lives. Spanish defaulting to male form of words is an archaic reflection of how male-centered the culture is, but it's not the wheel that needs greasing. Trying to change the language to make it less male-focused is both awkward and also seems like a consolation prize that moves the needle for women exactly zero amount. It creates an illusion of progress, while not solving any of the big problems.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/world/americas/mexico-wom...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/world/americas/mexico-wom...
The people that tend toward terms like Latinx treat non-white folks like children, constantly getting offended on their behalf and denying them agency. It's ironic that many "anti-racists" act in a racist manner.
Most of the people I've heard self-identify as LatinX are queer Hispanic people who grew up in an English-speaking country (ie. second-generation immigrants).
Their primary language is English, so any difficulty pronouncing LatinX in Spanish doesn't matter as much to them. They're not necessarily looking to solve the gendered nature of Spanish overall, and may not even speak it fluently. Also, similar early English terms for gender-equality/non-binary identities were equally difficult to pronounce (the title Mx., neo-pronouns like xie/zer).
I'm curious how the data would look split by gender/country of origin/LGBTQ+ or not.
Their primary language is English, so any difficulty pronouncing LatinX in Spanish doesn't matter as much to them. They're not necessarily looking to solve the gendered nature of Spanish overall, and may not even speak it fluently. Also, similar early English terms for gender-equality/non-binary identities were equally difficult to pronounce (the title Mx., neo-pronouns like xie/zer).
I'm curious how the data would look split by gender/country of origin/LGBTQ+ or not.
I’m Spanish and have friends all over Latin America. we often laugh about the term. Some people in the US decided to put a rich variety of cultures and historical backgrounds in the same bag.
Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico… all have fascinating cultures and histories on their own. All erased and stereotyped by a bland externally imposed term like Latinx that is not even pronounceable in Spanish. It feels like the colonialism that some are supposedly trying to fight against.
Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico… all have fascinating cultures and histories on their own. All erased and stereotyped by a bland externally imposed term like Latinx that is not even pronounceable in Spanish. It feels like the colonialism that some are supposedly trying to fight against.
It's believers in the cause (either genuinely or performatively) trying to rise above one another in moral status. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it backfires as it did with Twitch: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56251452
I find the whole Latino/Latinx switch attempt especially shortsighted, because it is commonly just used as a catch-all term for "person from Central/South America".
But, there are millions of native people from those places who don't view themselves as Latino, and, if anything, see the Latins as invaders/colonizers/oppressors. For example, if you're a K’iche’ speaker from Guatemala, you may not even speak Spanish, and you probably don't self identify as "Latino".
But, there are millions of native people from those places who don't view themselves as Latino, and, if anything, see the Latins as invaders/colonizers/oppressors. For example, if you're a K’iche’ speaker from Guatemala, you may not even speak Spanish, and you probably don't self identify as "Latino".
> they just throw out the term anti-racist, and let the audience draw their own conclusions.
It's pretty clear what antiracist means:
> The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
- Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be an Antiracist"
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-def...
It's pretty clear what antiracist means:
> The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
- Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be an Antiracist"
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-def...
I don't get why they had to make that public statement in the first place. They could have kept that to themselves and complete the layoff just fine without the inflammatory statements, while still practicing whatever fashionable principles they choose. Is this a way to signal piety to the tech community in the hopes that more people aligned with those politics will apply there in the future?
I think your religious metaphor is exactly on point and it makes perfect sense if you take it seriously. Why do Christian companies talk about God when they make business decisions? They're not implementing some complex sociopolitical strategy, they just think God is important so they like to spread His message whenever they get the opportunity. It's the same phenomenon.
> Why do Christian companies talk about God when they make business decisions? They're not implementing some complex sociopolitical strategy, they just think God is important so they like to spread His message whenever they get the opportunity. It's the same phenomenon.
I find that equally obnoxious. If I wanted to hear about "God", I'll go to a local church/fellowship/insert whichever place of worship for any religion...not from a soul-less business.
I find that equally obnoxious. If I wanted to hear about "God", I'll go to a local church/fellowship/insert whichever place of worship for any religion...not from a soul-less business.
I think hardly anything should be conflated with diversity tbh. About 5 years ago nothing was really attributed to diversity, except maybe in some remote areas. The new push to call everything anti-racist is making everyone very racist. It's a very weird moment.
>If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are.
I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.
I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.
> If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.
Take it up with your lawyers. I can't believe they admitted it in an official filing. It's like they're begging to be sued.
Take it up with your lawyers. I can't believe they admitted it in an official filing. It's like they're begging to be sued.
Racial discrimination is perfectly legal (and sometimes mandated) as long as the group harmed is the right one.
Not under American Federal law.
Why is diversity hiring fine then? Can't see the difference
It isn’t. The law is race neutral on this; and hiring/firing discrimination on the basis of race, against any race, is a good way to open yourself up to lawsuits. It’s up to HR departments and ultimately their bosses if they want to play with fire or not.
In large part because the argument has been, from Judges like Justice Ginsberg, that you aren't taking away anything from anyone by offering "marginalized people" special privilege. Which is an awful rationale since seats at a university or at a job via affirmative action are in fact using a limited resource, but the argument has some semblance of logic in that the position is virtual until it is filled. In this case, you are literally taking a thing away from people based on their race and there's no possible argument when the CEO states it in plain text.
At least in the United States, this is not true. Please do not spread inflammatory disinformation: https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination
From your link:
> The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
This makes it sound like affirmative action is illegal. But it is currently allowed and many companies brag about doing it.
What Twilio is doing is basically the same. It's like affirmative action for layoffs.
I agree that GP was wrong to say that discrimination is mandated, which it is not.
> The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
This makes it sound like affirmative action is illegal. But it is currently allowed and many companies brag about doing it.
What Twilio is doing is basically the same. It's like affirmative action for layoffs.
I agree that GP was wrong to say that discrimination is mandated, which it is not.
Affirmative action in hiring for jobs in the US is illegal. University admissions are different, but it is straightforwardly illegal to say, "I'm hiring a software engineer, I have two candidates, I prefer the one who is black because of his race."
Affirmative action is required for government contractors. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact Even to the extent of training someone in the right category so you can hire them.
I don't think that link is using the term the same way you are. It's more focused on making sure there's a wide recruiting funnel and having boring mandatory diversity trainings. Not taking race into consideration for hiring/firing decisions.
Companies sure don't seem to be following that law in hiring.
Consider: It is illegal but very difficult and expensive to prove in court. Not even your average software dev could easily eat the legal fees required, and therefore they are incentivized to shut up and look for another job.
"Allowed"
It is still a question. There could people who are clearly not performing and then are let go that just so happen to not be a part of the "protected group". People are not being let go because of who they are, it's just a part of the calculus. It may not be the significant factor.
> People are not being let go because of who they are
This is a common tactic from progressive in that they flat out deny the reality that everyone else see. They just say "it doesn't happen" when the CEO in a letter that was filed stated they specifically did this.
This is a common tactic from progressive in that they flat out deny the reality that everyone else see. They just say "it doesn't happen" when the CEO in a letter that was filed stated they specifically did this.
Dude, I don't know why you're trying to paint me as something when I'm the OP of the thread that has taken umbrage with the layoffs. First, go outside and breathe.
Second, the statement clearly says that it is a part of the calculus. Nobody is fired because they are white or black or whatever. The statement is just that it is taken into consideration (which is something that I have issue with).
Please (and I mean this in the most considerate way because you're on the internet just randomly labeling people) touch grass.
Second, the statement clearly says that it is a part of the calculus. Nobody is fired because they are white or black or whatever. The statement is just that it is taken into consideration (which is something that I have issue with).
Please (and I mean this in the most considerate way because you're on the internet just randomly labeling people) touch grass.
"Part of the calculus" is just a euphemism indicating that race was a criteria that was possibly the reason someone was layed off. Let's be honest shall we instead of trying to play mental gymnastics.
Imagine if the response to the Civil rights movement was "its okay stop complaining, race is just part of the calculus we use to determine who gets to go on the front of the bus, no one is forced to sit in the back because of race, it's just part of the calculus". No one would fall for that lame excuse to cover discrimination.
We're not falling for it
Imagine if the response to the Civil rights movement was "its okay stop complaining, race is just part of the calculus we use to determine who gets to go on the front of the bus, no one is forced to sit in the back because of race, it's just part of the calculus". No one would fall for that lame excuse to cover discrimination.
We're not falling for it
First, you're responding negatively to me about something that I ORIGINALLY said that I didn't like. So I'm not sure where the energy is coming from, but that's fine.
Secondly, busing does not compare to at will employment? The analogy also ignores the power dynamic behind racism (and all -isms), but that's a longer discussion than I'm willing to have here.
Lastly, I'm not sure who the "we" was there... but whoever the in-group that you're associate with is, I would suggest they look more at the socioeconomic conditions that we are all living through that lead us to these conversations filled with baseless accusations and labeling rather than making minorities the targets of your fears of replacement.
Whoosah.
Secondly, busing does not compare to at will employment? The analogy also ignores the power dynamic behind racism (and all -isms), but that's a longer discussion than I'm willing to have here.
Lastly, I'm not sure who the "we" was there... but whoever the in-group that you're associate with is, I would suggest they look more at the socioeconomic conditions that we are all living through that lead us to these conversations filled with baseless accusations and labeling rather than making minorities the targets of your fears of replacement.
Whoosah.
I cannot think of another reasonable interpretation of what the CEO said than "we considered race/class/some other attribute as part of a person's performance and suitability for continued employment at the company". If two people were otherwise equal int heir performance, but one was black, and the other white, I woudl expect that to be the determining feature.
I don't have any insight into what they are actually doing.
I don't have any insight into what they are actually doing.
That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
They said it was a factor. Twilio I'm sure had said they've been trying to diversify their workforce for years and you didn't care (which is the same thing, just through hiring instead of firing).
It is you parachuting in to be offended that is the disingenuous thing here.
It is you parachuting in to be offended that is the disingenuous thing here.
To me (someone from a former socialist country), both hiring and firing, based on race, seems very very racist.
Replace all the groups with "white men", and if it seems racist then, well, it's also racist when it's any other group except "white men".
Replace all the groups with "white men", and if it seems racist then, well, it's also racist when it's any other group except "white men".
Serious question: Are you aware of the historical context of the United States as it concerns race?
Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.
Without looking anything up tell me what you know about it.
Are you talking about slavery? Since i'm a slav, I'd know, considering the similarity of the words is not a coincidence.
But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.
But since neither I nor any of the employees there were ever a slave, I have no idea why a histy so old has to be taken in consideration.
The US Civil Rights Movement's hard-won successes in the 1960s were essentially the beginning of something resembling equality-before-the-law for black folks in the US, and it's still well within living memory.
Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later.
And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.
Mind, I'm also not particularly comfortable with racist hiring practices, no matter who's being targeted. Just pointing out that widespread de jure inequality based on race, plus various extremely-racist practices that were carried out and weren't illegal (as distinct from the law calling for racial discrimination explicitly, which was also still a thing then) were major factors in the US until not that long ago, including, crucially, housing and financial discrimination that left black people behind in the post-WWII economic boom—the short version is that they were flat-out banned from many of the best up-and-coming neighborhoods, and if they could find a good neighborhood that'd let them buy a house, they'd have, all else being equal, a much harder time securing a loan than a white person. This had measurable and pronounced effects on poverty rates and general financial well-being for them and their families, decades later.
And even the US Civil War wasn't that long ago. There were still a handful of former slaves alive in the 1960s when the civil rights movement was going on, IIRC. The US Civil War was the early and mid 1860s, about 100 years earlier—there were no combatants left alive by the 1960s ("fun fact": a few married-later-in-life widows of soldiers were still alive and receiving Civil War pensions, though!) but there were surely at least a few born-into-slavery-in-1865 slaves still alive 95-100 years later. The war freed them from slavery but they spent basically their whole lives under regimes of legally endorsed racial discrimination, with the tide only turning as the last of them died.
Thank you, this is very well written.
I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre.
I mean just look at Ahmaud Arbery, whose 3 white male murderers were initially not arrested or charged with a clearly obvious murder. In 2020!
I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre.
I mean just look at Ahmaud Arbery, whose 3 white male murderers were initially not arrested or charged with a clearly obvious murder. In 2020!
> Thank you, this is very well written.
Thanks! Was trying to keep it concise and tight enough to be both informative and interesting to someone who's not American, while still hitting the "highlights", especially the relative recency of outright racist laws and of how recently private and public racial discrimination was legal (if not always required by law) and normal.
> I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre.
... which is why I didn't even try to cover these instances of what I guess could be grouped together as something like "civil strife", which actions were or are explicitly outside the law, not simply not-illegal, but have been or are often tolerated or overlooked, but you're absolutely right to bring them up.
In the case of the Civil Rights Movement it wasn't only (though, to be clear, it was mostly) black people being killed by racists, often with no consequences for the perpetrators—several white participants in civil rights marches and rallies were also targeted and murdered. Often Quakers or (IIRC?) Catholics, participating in part due to their religious convictions—the whole "social justice" angle held greater sway in US Catholicism then than it does now, I gather, which was also evident in the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. These killings weren't legal, of course, and I expect they'd have been quite unpopular if you'd polled the whole US population, but such actions had enough support locally, including among public officials, that many of the killers escaped justice anyway, so long as the killings were in the name of preserving white supremacy, even if that meant killing some white people, too.
A read over a Wikipedia timeline of 1960s US history is pretty wild—the entire decade was batshit crazy, not to put too fine a point on it.
Thanks! Was trying to keep it concise and tight enough to be both informative and interesting to someone who's not American, while still hitting the "highlights", especially the relative recency of outright racist laws and of how recently private and public racial discrimination was legal (if not always required by law) and normal.
> I'd also just like to highlight how much extrajudicial violence there was perpetrated by white men against minorites, which while technically illegal was just completely overlooked by the white male dominated political and judicial system. For example the Tulsa Race Massacre.
... which is why I didn't even try to cover these instances of what I guess could be grouped together as something like "civil strife", which actions were or are explicitly outside the law, not simply not-illegal, but have been or are often tolerated or overlooked, but you're absolutely right to bring them up.
In the case of the Civil Rights Movement it wasn't only (though, to be clear, it was mostly) black people being killed by racists, often with no consequences for the perpetrators—several white participants in civil rights marches and rallies were also targeted and murdered. Often Quakers or (IIRC?) Catholics, participating in part due to their religious convictions—the whole "social justice" angle held greater sway in US Catholicism then than it does now, I gather, which was also evident in the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s. These killings weren't legal, of course, and I expect they'd have been quite unpopular if you'd polled the whole US population, but such actions had enough support locally, including among public officials, that many of the killers escaped justice anyway, so long as the killings were in the name of preserving white supremacy, even if that meant killing some white people, too.
A read over a Wikipedia timeline of 1960s US history is pretty wild—the entire decade was batshit crazy, not to put too fine a point on it.
The person you are responding to didn't mention slavery, and knowing the etymology of a word doesn't mean that you know how the phenomenon may have historical echoes.
The etymological relationship between "slav" and "slavery" (which is a contested relation at best) doesn't answer the question about your depth in American race relations?
The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
The answer also shows a lack of knowledge about anything other than the headline "slavery".
serious question - instead of debating the issue, why do you quiz them on their personal knowledge of history? If you'd like to make a point, make it. but demanding they justify their knowledge of history isn't a point in your favor, it rather appears you're incapable of providing a logical argument so will ad hominem their knowledge of history instead.
Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical context, and what does that have to do with the legality of hiring or firing based on race?
It seems to me like you're trying to justify institutionalized systematic racism on the basis of 'historical context'.
Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical context, and what does that have to do with the legality of hiring or firing based on race?
It seems to me like you're trying to justify institutionalized systematic racism on the basis of 'historical context'.
Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context. If somebody is not aware of the relevant context as it relates to the US (they specifically said they were not from the US) then of course it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies.
Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
>Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context
race plays a role in college admissions, and now in this layoff, and maybe hiring at the same company. so clearly it has relevance today in its current context.
>it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies.
which policies? making hiring and firing decisions based on race is illegal in the USA.
>Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
You didn't make any arguments at all, you just started quizzing them on their knowledge.
Again, it just seems like you're trying to legitimize systemic institutional racism on the basis of 'historical context' of a 'social construct'.
race plays a role in college admissions, and now in this layoff, and maybe hiring at the same company. so clearly it has relevance today in its current context.
>it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies.
which policies? making hiring and firing decisions based on race is illegal in the USA.
>Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.
You didn't make any arguments at all, you just started quizzing them on their knowledge.
Again, it just seems like you're trying to legitimize systemic institutional racism on the basis of 'historical context' of a 'social construct'.
race "the social construct" is still closely related to genetic history. Pretending there is no relationship isn't very useful. In making your response, assume I am a scientists who knows facts.
I’m sorry, but present racism is not absolved by last racism. There is no “historical context” that excuses a society from promoting race based discrimination. Period.
The historical context makes it all even more unfavorable towards Americans as a group. They come out as fundamentally incapable of not being racist or xenophobic. They are only able to fight discrimination with discrimination, and „antiracism” is racism because no matter what sign you put to it, you’re moving along that bloody axis, and it’s being on that axis at all that is the problem, and that you are incapable of derailing yourself from it. It’s just what you do.
But I bet you’ll say that I don’t make sense and that I don’t understand anything, and that history this and context that. So be it. Proves my point, in a way. Dragonslayers turning into the dragons they’ve slain and all that.
But I bet you’ll say that I don’t make sense and that I don’t understand anything, and that history this and context that. So be it. Proves my point, in a way. Dragonslayers turning into the dragons they’ve slain and all that.
And what do you imagine the effect of that "factor" would be?
Taking offense to unfair firing practices also doesn't mean one doesn't take offense to unfair hiring practices. But the topic at hand is layoff, not hiring.
Taking offense to unfair firing practices also doesn't mean one doesn't take offense to unfair hiring practices. But the topic at hand is layoff, not hiring.
> it's just a part of the calculus
The argument seems to be "a little discrimination is okay". So, I guess the question would be, what is an acceptable coefficient for the race variable, for it to be okay?
"Part of the calculus" implies there is a specific point at which racial discrimination stepwise goes from bad to not-bad, and I'm curious what that weighting value is.
Obviously if I institute a total no-blacks policy, that's a problem. But what if I only mark down black people, say, 20%? Are EEOC investigators going to rubber-stamp my racist employment decisions then?
The argument seems to be "a little discrimination is okay". So, I guess the question would be, what is an acceptable coefficient for the race variable, for it to be okay?
"Part of the calculus" implies there is a specific point at which racial discrimination stepwise goes from bad to not-bad, and I'm curious what that weighting value is.
Obviously if I institute a total no-blacks policy, that's a problem. But what if I only mark down black people, say, 20%? Are EEOC investigators going to rubber-stamp my racist employment decisions then?
Perhaps when you do layoffs naively, you can accidentally adversely affect certain groups. For example, if your policy was last in - first out, you would likely be letting go a disproportional number of young workers.
I can't say wether anything like that was the case, nor would I counter the experience of responders here saying that they as minorities find actions like Twillio's harmful. Nor do I comment on whether the messaging was done well. Only that the situation can have nuance.
I can't say wether anything like that was the case, nor would I counter the experience of responders here saying that they as minorities find actions like Twillio's harmful. Nor do I comment on whether the messaging was done well. Only that the situation can have nuance.
I agree with you but it's nothing new. The same thing happens all the time during hiring and college admission decisions. I think the unintended consequence of all such programs will be resentment and mistrust.
"I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping."
How do they know who is what race though? If I am 50% latino / 50% asian what does that mean? Do you get to pick? Or do they test my skin color? Do they have forms to fill out what race you are? Do they do genetic testing? Depressing racism is back.
How do they know who is what race though? If I am 50% latino / 50% asian what does that mean? Do you get to pick? Or do they test my skin color? Do they have forms to fill out what race you are? Do they do genetic testing? Depressing racism is back.
I work at a Bay Area tech company with over 10k employees and we are asked to log our ethnic and gender identity in Workday.
Latino gives +1 point while Asian in tech gives -0.90 not quite the -1 for white but pretty close. Good news is you come out net positive.
[deleted]
Soon after George Floyd, my manager came under immense pressure from HR to inquire me about my race. I declined to comment. So they decided to mark me as a minority based on my ethnic name. It still bothers me to this day that my race is so outright asked in the office to used to determine my employability, recognition, bonuses, and promotion. It was a turning point in my career. I thought to myself, "wow, here we are. I didn't think we'd get here, but I now work for a racist company and society at large."
When I refused to log my race in our HR system they said they would use “perceived race” to report my race to the government. I specifically asked them to not guess my race and they said tough luck they are doing it anyway. It’s outrageous.
Mindblowing ... they think they do something good, but they make it worse for everybody.
your race is saved in HR system once you apply for the job
Making an assumption, so far I have only read the CNBC article.
Many of the recent tech layoffs included entire departments not entirely related to the operation of the business, the core product. For example: recruiting departments. When entire diversity departments were terminated, many considered the move racist. Perhaps Twilio found themselves in this scenario?
Many of the recent tech layoffs included entire departments not entirely related to the operation of the business, the core product. For example: recruiting departments. When entire diversity departments were terminated, many considered the move racist. Perhaps Twilio found themselves in this scenario?
i think everyone's point is taking race into account in any shape or form is illegal, so not firing black people but still needing to fire 11% means in turn you are firing more non-black people to fill the gap, meaning those people were fired based on race and not performance, which IANAL is illegal
A Minnesota public school district created a plan to prioritize laying off white teachers. https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-pla...
And in doing so, they almost perfectly matched what a school district did back in 1985 and got wrecked by SCOTUS over: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/267.html
A bold move, especially since the court looks even less favorably on affirmative action than it did 40 years ago.
A bold move, especially since the court looks even less favorably on affirmative action than it did 40 years ago.
The problem is not just the letter of the law, it's the culture that would even create such a policy in the first place. The law can help some, assuming SCOTUS knocks this down, but it doesn't address the root cause. The people who came up with this will still be in positions of power.
Every layoff I've seen is analyzed for a disparate impact against protected classes. This is straightforward defense against a discrimination lawsuit, where the demographics of the layed off population and the retained population will be compared as exhibit 1.
I suspect this is just Twilio trying to get social justice credit for standard HR practices.
I suspect this is just Twilio trying to get social justice credit for standard HR practices.
I'd quit if I were working at a company which announced its layoffs like that and I somehow failed to get laid off.
When one looks at the industry as a whole, one might conclude that the aim is to turn the working class against each other. It's almost as if the thing corporate America is most afraid of is a unified workforce.
The issue is that it becomes necessary as marginalized candidates are given preferences during the hiring phase. So if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.
> if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.
By unfairly you mean fairly.
By unfairly you mean fairly.
It is brutally unfair to hire by one standard and then suddenly hold them to a higher one. And fairness aside, if you do not look through an anti-racist/anti-oppression lens you would destroy years of work of improving company diversity.
Does this imply that you think that minority candidates that were hired were not as qualified as non-minority candidates? That's the only way I can parse your statement that these affirmative action hires were hired by one standard and then held to a higher standard when fired.
>And fairness aside, if you do not look through an anti-racist/anti-oppression lens you would destroy years of work of improving company diversity.
Making "improving company diversity" a terminal goal is a problem in and of itself.
Making "improving company diversity" a terminal goal is a problem in and of itself.
To be marginalized is to be cheaper. All else equal, the cheaper worker will be given preference during hiring. So long as the worker remains cheaper, all else equal, the cheaper worker will also be given preference during layoffs. If the worker works their way up into a position that they are no longer cheaper, they won't be given preference, but they also aren't marginalized anymore so you would't expect preference.
They should clarify that race, gender, etc. was not a factor in their decision making process. Although then it would be hard to make sense of their statement.
You, sir, are 100% correct. And yet, I am happy, that if this kinda BS is to continue, that I am a mexican. I gotta family to feed.
Reading the post in context, I think it seems like they were trying to say that they went out of their way to ensure race was not a factor in the layoff decision process, but it does come across… as not a great look.
It reminds me a bit of the “asbestos free” xkcd comic. Like, I’m sure there are some companies still who would try to first fire the black folk or the Indian folk or whatever. But… is there really a big tech firm where that’s a possibility? I kinda doubt it.
It reminds me a bit of the “asbestos free” xkcd comic. Like, I’m sure there are some companies still who would try to first fire the black folk or the Indian folk or whatever. But… is there really a big tech firm where that’s a possibility? I kinda doubt it.
(White male, minority religion)
I read this just as "we were careful not to have our layoff unfairly impact minorities", not "we unfairly fired non-minorities".
Unfortunately, reading the comments here, it sounds like most people assumed the latter, which I found quite sad.
I read this just as "we were careful not to have our layoff unfairly impact minorities", not "we unfairly fired non-minorities".
Unfortunately, reading the comments here, it sounds like most people assumed the latter, which I found quite sad.
> "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"
People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.
I wouldn't work for these people in a million years, but I really do wonder how I'd fit into their shallow models (I'm mixed race b/w).
People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.
I wouldn't work for these people in a million years, but I really do wonder how I'd fit into their shallow models (I'm mixed race b/w).
That’s the creepiest thing to me - employers tracking your race seems … strange. And if they’re not tracking it it’s even worse because that means they’re deciding your race for you!
True. My race is listed on Workday. And that was determined by HR after I declined to declare what I am. They just decided to look at me, my name, and choose what they thought most suiting.
[deleted]
Well, where exactly are you on the RGB scale? This a strict 8 bit operation. If you expect HDR level fidelity here, just move along.
Depends on the time of year. During the winter I trend toward toasted marshmallow but during the summer with ample sun I'm somewhere between Obama and Denzel.
Sounds like you may have Seasonal Privilege Disorder - a strange, recently observed, condition where privilege waxes and wanes.
But seriously since we're talking about skin color, all kidding aside, (and you're probably already aware of this) skin cancer rates vary dramatically by race:
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/about/data-briefs/no9-melano...
But seriously since we're talking about skin color, all kidding aside, (and you're probably already aware of this) skin cancer rates vary dramatically by race:
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/about/data-briefs/no9-melano...
i think this is really a problem of the CEO living in a bubble (hard to imagine i know) and not running that by legal. I think the CEO really stepped in it with that statement. I can hear the clanging of all the attack lawyers coming out of their cages.
Seems pretty typical PR language. Ever been on LinkedIn?
This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments:
> Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.
Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.
But so many comments are making the leap to they are targeting white people for layoffs and claiming this layoff is racist against white people.
For example this comment:
> People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.
and this:
> I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.
You can find more.
> Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.
Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.
But so many comments are making the leap to they are targeting white people for layoffs and claiming this layoff is racist against white people.
For example this comment:
> People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.
and this:
> I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.
You can find more.
> Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.
that would have been illegal either way. Really there are two options here: Either they did something questionable and want to deflect (like being racist against white people. I'm not saying this is the case but it is a possibility), or they want to get a pat on the back for not breaking the law.
It's one of those sentences that immediately puts your mind to why it was placed in there: "[..] so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out without clubbing any seals."
Why would one say that? Why does one explicitly mention this? To what gain?
Either you want brownie-points for something that should be a given, or you want to get ahead of something.
that would have been illegal either way. Really there are two options here: Either they did something questionable and want to deflect (like being racist against white people. I'm not saying this is the case but it is a possibility), or they want to get a pat on the back for not breaking the law.
It's one of those sentences that immediately puts your mind to why it was placed in there: "[..] so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out without clubbing any seals."
Why would one say that? Why does one explicitly mention this? To what gain?
Either you want brownie-points for something that should be a given, or you want to get ahead of something.
> Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.
Doing so is illegal and makes little sense to put it in a public announcement. Might as well state that they don't intend to murder anyone.
Doing so is illegal and makes little sense to put it in a public announcement. Might as well state that they don't intend to murder anyone.
See what Dr. Kendi is advocating for and his "anti-racist" ideas. I think it will make sense to you why some people write things like "People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism."
Kendi is one person with one interpretation and doesn't work for nor represent the policies of Twilio, a completely separate institution.
I read the statement the same as the GP comment.
I read the statement the same as the GP comment.
Given that Kendi has spoken at Twilio and they Reference him in several of the DEI Annual reports it should be assumed that Twilio shares Kendi's view of "Anti-Racism"
oh, that's interesting. I'm not from Twilio, but Dr. Kendi has spoken at our company as well.
“We avoided firing people who aren’t white” vs “we preferred firing people who are white.”
This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.
They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.
This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.
They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.
Or, more charitably, "We avoided laying off racial/oppressed minorities for racist/bigoted reasons"
Why not say "we ensured our layoffs were not affected by racist or gendered bias."? Why exclude non-minorities from the policy of non-discrimination?
Imagine a company writes, "We avoided laying off Latino men for racist or bigoted reasons." But not Latino women? But not African Americans? What is the message behind limiting this assurance of non-discrimination to a particular group?
I agree that people interpreting this as Twilio announcing that it explicitly discriminated against non-oppressed groups are reading way too deep into it. But it was a pretty dumb thing to put in a layoff note.
Imagine a company writes, "We avoided laying off Latino men for racist or bigoted reasons." But not Latino women? But not African Americans? What is the message behind limiting this assurance of non-discrimination to a particular group?
I agree that people interpreting this as Twilio announcing that it explicitly discriminated against non-oppressed groups are reading way too deep into it. But it was a pretty dumb thing to put in a layoff note.
In a lot of parts of the US, "non-minorities" ARE the minority. Somehow, that doesn't matter.
That should be a given. Why even bring it up?
It's like saying "I'm not racist" before doing something unrelated.
It's like saying "I'm not racist" before doing something unrelated.
> That should be a given. Why even bring it up?
It should be; but I think it's naive or disingenuous to imply that hiring/layoff decisions are usually fair and unbiased, especially in multiple departments in a large organization.
It should be; but I think it's naive or disingenuous to imply that hiring/layoff decisions are usually fair and unbiased, especially in multiple departments in a large organization.
I really need to make a HN bingo board one of these days, though it'll have to be like 12x12 or it'll be way too easy.
I'm tempted to build a filter that automatically ignores any comment on HN with the word 'woke.' It is, legitimately, the most annoying culture war I have seen on any forum.
There is good reason to believe that white people will be the primary targets of this layoff. I work for an employer in the Bay Area and the messaging echos many others in the region. We have been subjected to lectures and presentations for the past two years telling us that white people are a problem in society. That white people are privileged, are biased, and are oppressors. Management openly suggests to us through broadcasts that we should read the books, "How to be an anti-racist" and "White fragility". Leaders in the organization have these quasi-struggle sessions where they publicly confess their white privilege via broadcast. Management also openly states that race will be a factor in bonuses and promotions to help uplift minorities. They proudly state in their marketing that they will increase hiring of colored people and give charitable donations to black organizations.
Given this pattern of messaging, how else can someone conclude that white people are not the primary targets of a layoff of a San Francisco based company? Especially when the statement contains, "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens".
Given this pattern of messaging, how else can someone conclude that white people are not the primary targets of a layoff of a San Francisco based company? Especially when the statement contains, "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens".
HN is full of reactionaries who are easily triggered by any sort of diversity-related language and seem to lose their ability to think critically. Everyone complaining about that line is making a whole lot of assumptions about what it actually means.
FWIW I would be interested to know what the CEO actually meant by that. My assumption is it's more lip service than anything else.
FWIW I would be interested to know what the CEO actually meant by that. My assumption is it's more lip service than anything else.
I agree the statement is ambiguous. However, it does seem to be hinting at something.
What do you think "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means?
Like, what concrete actions do you think they took to justify that statement?
Do you think it's purely window-dressing? That they did absolutely nothing different, and just included the statement?
I don't know if it's an authoritative source, but here's one of the top Google results for "what is anti-racisim":
"Anti-racism is also a system – a system in which we create policies, practices, and procedures to promote racial equity."
and
"Anti-racist policy creates systems that center the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color"
and
"We refer to ‘racism’ as an interpersonal display of prejudice toward Black, Indigenous, and People of Color."
Given the above understanding of the term "anti-racist", if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.
What do you think?
(Link to anti-racist information: https://www.nlc.org/article/2020/07/21/what-does-it-mean-to-...)
What do you think "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means?
Like, what concrete actions do you think they took to justify that statement?
Do you think it's purely window-dressing? That they did absolutely nothing different, and just included the statement?
I don't know if it's an authoritative source, but here's one of the top Google results for "what is anti-racisim":
"Anti-racism is also a system – a system in which we create policies, practices, and procedures to promote racial equity."
and
"Anti-racist policy creates systems that center the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color"
and
"We refer to ‘racism’ as an interpersonal display of prejudice toward Black, Indigenous, and People of Color."
Given the above understanding of the term "anti-racist", if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.
What do you think?
(Link to anti-racist information: https://www.nlc.org/article/2020/07/21/what-does-it-mean-to-...)
> I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.
I would bet that your average "blind" layoff is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company. If they did anything at all here it was probably taking some sort of active role in preventing that outcome.
I would bet that your average "blind" layoff is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company. If they did anything at all here it was probably taking some sort of active role in preventing that outcome.
Well, I'd take that bet. Perhaps one of the laid-off employees will sue and we'll get to find out.
(Meta/off-topic: Someone flagged your comment, so I vouched for it. Viewpoint moderation is dumb and inhibits good conversation.)
(Meta/off-topic: Someone flagged your comment, so I vouched for it. Viewpoint moderation is dumb and inhibits good conversation.)
I love seeing people defend this statement by basically saying “it actually meant nothing”… as if that is a really strong defense.
I don't think it's reactionary to oppose choosing who to fire based on their race.
This, and HN in aggregate is pretty right wing, so anything "woke" is bound to trigger a lot of people. I suppose there's always been a libertarian bend here in line tech workers in general, but ever since Trump (and especially Trump's loss), topics vaguely supporting progressive ideas are home to tons of comments airing right-wing grievances.
> The cloud communications software builder has been striving for profitability in 2023, and the restructuring plan aims to improve operating margins, create a better selling capacity and reduce operating costs.
If you look at all the layoffs we had this year, the vast majority are by companies that are VC funded and unprofitable. It would be a scary time to work for a VC backed company, because you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb, and VC's seem to be clutching the funds in this economy.
If you look at all the layoffs we had this year, the vast majority are by companies that are VC funded and unprofitable. It would be a scary time to work for a VC backed company, because you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb, and VC's seem to be clutching the funds in this economy.
While you’re not directly stating that Twilio is VC-funded, that implication can easily be drawn by the adjacency in these two statements. Twilio was VC funded, but they’re a public company now and have been for some time. These layoffs have nothing to do with missing a funding round.
How much did Twilio grow from 2020-2022?
Over 200%: from 2,800 staff to 8,510 ...
This means this 11% reduction leaves them at... 292% growth since 2020, while its not amazing news, this is a small reduction given the growth they've had.
These layoffs were inevitable IMO, everyone doubled their team (or more!) and then asked where the money was going to come from.
Over 200%: from 2,800 staff to 8,510 ...
This means this 11% reduction leaves them at... 292% growth since 2020, while its not amazing news, this is a small reduction given the growth they've had.
These layoffs were inevitable IMO, everyone doubled their team (or more!) and then asked where the money was going to come from.
How the **CK are these companies training and onboarding and managing all these new hires in such short a time frames?
That is why we see layoffs like these. You just layoff the people that didn’t successfully self onboard and/or are unqualified but slipped through your screening.
This is almost all of it. Anyone (even incompetent managers) can identify productive employees after working with them for a few months/year. And all the interview processes in the world aren't entirely effective in finding them before.
So if you're flush with cash just wildly overhire and then let go those you couldn't find a place for. And that won't even necessarily be all the "bad hires" because most people can do some job well, you just need to transfer them to it. (Otherwise you have to admit that there are people not fit for working at all, and they must starve in the street or something.)
So if you're flush with cash just wildly overhire and then let go those you couldn't find a place for. And that won't even necessarily be all the "bad hires" because most people can do some job well, you just need to transfer them to it. (Otherwise you have to admit that there are people not fit for working at all, and they must starve in the street or something.)
I thought you couldn't lay someone off for performance reasons.
Really dehumanizing hiring practices. I recently interviewed with Twilio and they wanted me to do an online coding challenge before I even got to speak to a hiring manager to know if I wanted the job. Same thing Amazon does.
Companies that do this are waving a big red parachute in your face.
Companies that do this are waving a big red parachute in your face.
I work in finance and every finance employer requires some sort of pre-req or onsite test during a serious 1st/2nd round interview.
By hiring additional 'resources' to train and onboard and manage all these new hires
It's *CKing crazy. Reminds me of government
It's *CKing crazy. Reminds me of government
The real problem in my mind is that it's difficult for employees to judge whether a company is making disciplined hires in the first place.
The ballpark method I've been using has been to ask for the ARR and divide that number by the employee count. I don't know that this is a real business indicator, but it seems to me that the closer that number is to a workable salary, the better.
Maybe all tech startups are all using VC funds, but they're not all created equal in terms of management quality. There are a handful of startups that boast never holding a formal layoff.
The ballpark method I've been using has been to ask for the ARR and divide that number by the employee count. I don't know that this is a real business indicator, but it seems to me that the closer that number is to a workable salary, the better.
Maybe all tech startups are all using VC funds, but they're not all created equal in terms of management quality. There are a handful of startups that boast never holding a formal layoff.
Startups are by definition young companies growing extremely fast. Never having had formal layoffs for young companies experiencing high growth should not be something particularly surprising.
Sounds more like you're one missed funding round away from having a 10% chance of being kicked to the curb, where "kicked to the curb" often means a fairly generous severance that covers more than the period you're likely to remain unemployed (12 weeks in this case). While I'm sure there are some legitimately bad outcomes, it seems like the median outcome is keeping your job, and the median outcome for those who don't is a several month paid vacation.
Oh no, imagine having to provide value to the world instead of being in the business of selling a dollar for 95c. So hard ;*(
Next you are going to tell me that a company is going to need to make a product going forward and can’t just expect to be supplied with literally endless free money forever.
I think this has been true regardless of the economy climate, but actually the climate has just resulted in more companies missing that funding round.
You can't just broadly look at all companies for patterns in layoffs. It's important to divide startups from IPO'd companies.
A common pattern for all of these is the inability to generate profit, but this is business-as-usual for a startup. Even in normal times it's okay for startups to lose money.
Startups typically perform layoffs because they are running out of runway and need to extend the life of the company. Their entire reason for existing is the liquidity event that is either acquisition or IPO, and it is essential for investors that they survive long enough to see such an event.
For publicly traded companies, which we've seen a lot of layoffs in recently (which in the last 30 days includes: Twilio, Rent the Runway, Uber, Shopify, Snap, Wayfair, New Relic). The common theme for almost all of this is negative net earnings and B2C. This is what makes Twilio interesting, they're the first B2B IPO with major layoffs.
One thing that I keep hearing at my IPO'd startup is that "we won't have layoffs since we have a long runway", but runway matters way less for IPO'd companies. The key aim for IPO'd companies is to please your investors, and if you're shares keep taking a hit because interest rates go up and your net earnings remains steeply negative, then layoffs are coming.
If this continues it will start to impact profitable companies, but not before doing much more damage to the non-profitable ones. This feels like a slow motion re-enactment of the dot com burst.
A common pattern for all of these is the inability to generate profit, but this is business-as-usual for a startup. Even in normal times it's okay for startups to lose money.
Startups typically perform layoffs because they are running out of runway and need to extend the life of the company. Their entire reason for existing is the liquidity event that is either acquisition or IPO, and it is essential for investors that they survive long enough to see such an event.
For publicly traded companies, which we've seen a lot of layoffs in recently (which in the last 30 days includes: Twilio, Rent the Runway, Uber, Shopify, Snap, Wayfair, New Relic). The common theme for almost all of this is negative net earnings and B2C. This is what makes Twilio interesting, they're the first B2B IPO with major layoffs.
One thing that I keep hearing at my IPO'd startup is that "we won't have layoffs since we have a long runway", but runway matters way less for IPO'd companies. The key aim for IPO'd companies is to please your investors, and if you're shares keep taking a hit because interest rates go up and your net earnings remains steeply negative, then layoffs are coming.
If this continues it will start to impact profitable companies, but not before doing much more damage to the non-profitable ones. This feels like a slow motion re-enactment of the dot com burst.
>It would be a scary time to work for a VC backed company, because you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb, and VC's seem to be clutching the funds in this economy.
VC-backed companies that aren't profitable are risky places to work for anyways. At least in these layoffs, the whole company doesn't go bust.
But if you work at a VC-backed company, and you don't feel essential, then maybe keep your resume updated.
VC-backed companies that aren't profitable are risky places to work for anyways. At least in these layoffs, the whole company doesn't go bust.
But if you work at a VC-backed company, and you don't feel essential, then maybe keep your resume updated.
>you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb
Isn't that always the case?
Isn't that always the case?
Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?
That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious (https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73...) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted".
I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. Oh well, I guess we'll never know.
That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious (https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73...) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted".
I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. Oh well, I guess we'll never know.
> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on
marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an
Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.
Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked.
The civil rights act of 1964 should make racially-based decisions in workforce hiring/firing illegal, but here we are, nearly 60 years later.
Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked.
The civil rights act of 1964 should make racially-based decisions in workforce hiring/firing illegal, but here we are, nearly 60 years later.
[deleted]
Most state civil rights laws that list protected classes, specifically only minorities are protected - not white people.
That's how it is in NY state.
That's how it is in NY state.
You are wrong.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page
New York state not New York City. Big difference.
Nope, same thing for NY State: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page
The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
> Nope, same thing for NY State: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page
Really? I still don't see any state law text.
> The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
Didn't comment on that. Just that New York City was being used as proof of New York state.
Really? I still don't see any state law text.
> The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
Didn't comment on that. Just that New York City was being used as proof of New York state.
I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.
Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.
They were explicitly "anti-racist" which is just racism done differently.
No it's just regular old racism.
But we are all fine with racist hiring...
I am fine with hiring that enforces equality of opportunity (where nobody is denied an opportunity because of their race).
I am NOT fine with hiring that enforces equality of outcome (where some people, who would otherwise be considered unqualified, are granted an opportunity because of their race).
Race should account for ZERO percent of a hiring decision.
I am NOT fine with hiring that enforces equality of outcome (where some people, who would otherwise be considered unqualified, are granted an opportunity because of their race).
Race should account for ZERO percent of a hiring decision.
The fundamental misconception of today's "anti-racist" movement is that every unequal outcome is the direct result of past or present racism, without stopping to examine the validity of that assumption.
A great many eggs have been and will continue to be broken in service of equality of outcome, and we will all be worse off for it.
A great many eggs have been and will continue to be broken in service of equality of outcome, and we will all be worse off for it.
Believing race should account for zero percent of a hiring decision is what any decent person should believe.
Acknowledging it has, and does, and that it is more often than not to the detriment of minority groups is what any informed person should recognize.
Acknowledging it has, and does, and that it is more often than not to the detriment of minority groups is what any informed person should recognize.
Who the hell is the "we" you're talking about here? I've been opposed to considering race in hiring (and college admissions, etc.) since I was old enough to understand it (which was in elementary school).
I don't think that's a true statement.
Agreed. I don't consider myself to have moved politically right at all, but progressives are moving drastically left. Stuff like this, and the modern gender politics that is resulting in the erasure of women and lesbians in particular, has resulted in me no longer referring to myself as a leftist.
The Republicans left me a while ago. This kinda stuff is way too left for me and I fear the Democrats are going to do the same. I’d say I’m a moderate who votes Democratic. Both sides are going too far left and right.
I would argue the 'mainstream' right is being pulled left due to its gravity, and is quite moderate these days.
No one is erasing lesbians or women.
There's a whole ideological movement in vogue that has a really hard time defining what a woman even is.
I always enjoyed that attempt at a definition that led to people pointing out it made women out of chairs and horses. Some of them do manage to be ideologically consistent and exclude vast swathes of cis women from womanhood just to get at trans women, but most just fall back on "but science!" even as actual scientists point out science doesn't support anti-trans ideology.
"Actual scientists point out science doesn't support anti-trans ideology" -- unfortunately, "actual science" is defined by who speaks for it and what is permitted to be published and any criticism of the sexualization or surgical/therapeutic treatment of vulnerable minors is automatically "transphobia". Right now, we are in a very dark place with powerful lobbies dictating things unimaginable in prior eras and which would and should be illegal in a sane society/world.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There are appropriate, consistent definitions for what a woman is. The fact that there are somewhat vague boundary cases is true of any definition of real world things and not an indictment of its utility.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As others have already mentioned, you can keep considering yourself liberal in your living room. But if you go out on social media with these views, it could be construed as a rabid racist persona.
Wild? Seems pretty standard leftist position these days.
[deleted]
taurath(4)
anonym29(1)
They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle for hating white people, basically. Now I know this is super trendy right now but I don't want to get emails from your organization about how woke and bigoted you are. Just sell me the damn SaaS tool we signed up for and keep your politics to yourself. We moved all our business away.
Clearly a Civil Rights violation. I hope everyone impacted that isn't "marginalized" sues them for millions of dollars.
We either have equality codified as Civil Rights law and respect that or we don't have it all and we are free to associate with people we want to in every respect. But you need to pick one.
We either have equality codified as Civil Rights law and respect that or we don't have it all and we are free to associate with people we want to in every respect. But you need to pick one.
The ideal person to sue would be a "marginalized" person who was laid off, since the "anti racist" bs could impact this person twice: it means they got laid off even when the bar was higher for people of color, which will disproportionately affect them in their next job search (and feelings, etc).
Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.
Pretty easy to come up with ways this could work that are not ridiculous. Let's say you come up with a list of people to lay off. Let's say someone slices that list by demographics. Let's say someone compares that demographic distribution with the overall demographic distribution of the company and is embarrassed by what they see.
Then the CEO revisits, and changes the decisions or overrules an underling on a few cases about who to lay off to make things less embarrassing.
I don't know that that's what happened here, but is that really so unthinkable for a woke tech company in 2022 to do? For a company clearly concerned with how it's publicly perceived on this front?
Then the CEO revisits, and changes the decisions or overrules an underling on a few cases about who to lay off to make things less embarrassing.
I don't know that that's what happened here, but is that really so unthinkable for a woke tech company in 2022 to do? For a company clearly concerned with how it's publicly perceived on this front?
> better, more fair
Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
> it's not better, it's not fair
It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.
It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.
Your post is pure speculation and just kind of excuses this behavior. We should be asking why this corporate entity feels the need to casually dip into racism to virtue signal about the perceived positives of this layoff.
Does it matter if it's not true?
You sue for being let go due to racism, show the document, where they say exactly that, and they have to prove that they didn't take race in consideration after saying (in their own document) that they did.
You sue for being let go due to racism, show the document, where they say exactly that, and they have to prove that they didn't take race in consideration after saying (in their own document) that they did.
This does fit with layoffs I've went through. Decide who to lay off first, and then the framing is done later.
My guess is the sex/race/etc metrics of the layoff "looked OK" by coincidence, and someone wrongly thought it was a good idea to call out
My guess is the sex/race/etc metrics of the layoff "looked OK" by coincidence, and someone wrongly thought it was a good idea to call out
Do you have any data or references to support your argument? I'm open to considering your hypothesis, but right now, it's merely an assertion.
I suppose the EEOC could subpoena emails relating to selection.
Perhaps the next administration might. The current one is more likely to offer a pat on the back.
For how much Republicans hate woke politics, I'm surprised Trump didn't have the EEOC look into hiring practices of tech companies. I'm not sure what would come of it (though I suspect there are illegal practices in order to hit diversity targets), but the announcement would have been a political win because Republican's don't trust big tech, don't trust coastal liberals, and don't like that this might be taking place.
Christ you're right, would have been brilliant.
>Oh well, I guess we'll never know.
Until the discovery phase
Until the discovery phase
>I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that.
What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?
What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?
That's still racist!! The only way for it not being racist is not having anything to do with race at all!
+1. Race shouldn't be brought up in (or factored into) layoffs.
Unfortunately that’s not what happens a lot of times. When managers are asked to cut people, in homogeneous teams, if there are people who are different based on some criteria are often the ones who are cut. Not saying any particular race or gender does it, but that’s what happens. And that is what is being avoided here.
Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~.
All CEOs are bastards.
All CEOs are bastards.
> Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~.
> All CEOs are bastards.
Imagine turning a perfectly valid criticism into some weird anti-capitalist thing?
> All CEOs are bastards.
Imagine turning a perfectly valid criticism into some weird anti-capitalist thing?
It’s true though
It's just so weird, though. If you honestly have that opinion, that means one of two things is true.
1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directing Apple early on and instilling a certain culture (for better or worse). Maybe you think that employee-owned co-ops would produce things of higher value for lower cost, but that hasn't really been the cast so far in human history. Employee-owned companies exist and none of them are producing world-class products, and most of them still have CEOs.
2. You think we should have CEOs, maybe because they're a necessary evil or something, but you still want to bitch about it online, in which case ... :shrug:?
What's the third option?
1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directing Apple early on and instilling a certain culture (for better or worse). Maybe you think that employee-owned co-ops would produce things of higher value for lower cost, but that hasn't really been the cast so far in human history. Employee-owned companies exist and none of them are producing world-class products, and most of them still have CEOs.
2. You think we should have CEOs, maybe because they're a necessary evil or something, but you still want to bitch about it online, in which case ... :shrug:?
What's the third option?
> 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist.
There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs.
Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief?
I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashion-attributes who makes a lot of money.
[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of... [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm
There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs.
Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief?
I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashion-attributes who makes a lot of money.
[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of... [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm
So of the 29,800,000 other businesses "without a CEO," how many of them still have one person making the majority of the decisions? I'd venture to say 80-90% of them. And how many of the largest, most economically successful companies have no CEO? Zero.
> 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist.
I was just responding to this. Sounds like you agree we'd have "most" of the 30M businesses left.
I was just responding to this. Sounds like you agree we'd have "most" of the 30M businesses left.
They're saying that even though small business owners may not technically be CEO, they are the business owner which is just another title for CEO. lol. You're being too technical. Their point is sound.
> Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief?
It's quite difficult to imagine one that works for most large companies, at the very least. Name a couple if it's so easy.
It's quite difficult to imagine one that works for most large companies, at the very least. Name a couple if it's so easy.
I think it's the best strategy, but it's not hard to imagine another one. If CEOs were outlawed tomorrow, we would still have large companies. They would adapt with a new structure.
I think not having so wide gap in salary between employees and C-level people would be a good start. I'm not saying people higher on the ladder should not be getting more money (I'm still undecided on what my opinion on this as general rule is), but the wage gap between C-level and regular employees is... unhealthy. And it's growing.
I'm an anti-capitalist, so that's just how it goes :)
I believe democracy is a pretty good way of doing things. It's a pretty mainstream boring opinion to think democracy is good. I just want to see democracy applied to workplace.
To be clear, I'm not saying we should just copy what we do in civil governments over to corporations. The United States' government at all levels is pretty anemic in being democratic, imo, and not a model to be envied. But there are other models for groups of people to collectively work together where they share decision making power and share in the fruits of their labor. There's stuff like worker-owner cooperatives, sociocracy, and open source software, for example. These different models for building things exist despite being within a capitalist society. I believe that under a different economic model, or even just powerful policy changes, people could be empowered in other ways to work together to create things for society.
And looking at your other post, it's true, I don't think Apple could exist as it does today in any society besides a capitalist society. That's not so bad, though, is it?
To be clear, I'm not saying we should just copy what we do in civil governments over to corporations. The United States' government at all levels is pretty anemic in being democratic, imo, and not a model to be envied. But there are other models for groups of people to collectively work together where they share decision making power and share in the fruits of their labor. There's stuff like worker-owner cooperatives, sociocracy, and open source software, for example. These different models for building things exist despite being within a capitalist society. I believe that under a different economic model, or even just powerful policy changes, people could be empowered in other ways to work together to create things for society.
And looking at your other post, it's true, I don't think Apple could exist as it does today in any society besides a capitalist society. That's not so bad, though, is it?
[deleted]
wow, you would think saying that would be against some discrimination law but they'll probably get away with it.
I really couldn't say because I can see how that language can be used to defend whatever decision you want to make.
Whether you fire star-bellied sneetches or non-star-bellied sneetches, you can just blame the algorithm. "Yes, the star-bellied sneetches were disproportionately affected and while that is tragic, we did carry it through a lens, so you know, we're good, right?"
Whether you fire star-bellied sneetches or non-star-bellied sneetches, you can just blame the algorithm. "Yes, the star-bellied sneetches were disproportionately affected and while that is tragic, we did carry it through a lens, so you know, we're good, right?"
In addition to wishing that he could use "affected" instead of "impacted", I'm curious how the lens works. Is there a database with the races or colors of all their employees? And what query do you use to implement the lens?
What is the race field in their HR database and what range of values does it possess? What is the sorting algorithm?
You can probably derive this data based on who they laid off.
peter422(2)
It feels like you're trying to flamebait rather than have a discussion about this. I encourage people to read comments on the other related thread [1] that seems to have disappeared from the front page for some reason.
[1] Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
[1] Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
Bunch of new accounts commenting doing it too.
Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come off as racist even if on paper you were just focusing on QA.
In practice it probably just means some EA looked over the layoffs and made sure the optics wouldn't be horrible. I see this as more of a blow-hard CYA statement that they made sure there is no potential for a class action lawsuit. Putting it in the press release as a bullet point is pretty silly to me though.
In practice it probably just means some EA looked over the layoffs and made sure the optics wouldn't be horrible. I see this as more of a blow-hard CYA statement that they made sure there is no potential for a class action lawsuit. Putting it in the press release as a bullet point is pretty silly to me though.
We have no idea what it means and you can rationalize it all you like. Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color. Or it’s just cheap talk and means nothing, those are the only two options.
> Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color.
Again, that would be racist. 'Anti-racist' is more likely that they made sure the white (or Indian, or whatever) manager didn't just fire all his non-white (or non-Indian, or whatever) reports, without good reason.
Getting hurt over people trying to be racially equitable ignores the fact that the default is racial inequity. 11% of the staff had to be fired, why not make sure it is done more fairly/randomly than racially? Because the latter is the default (or at least sadly common) whether you like it or not.
Again, that would be racist. 'Anti-racist' is more likely that they made sure the white (or Indian, or whatever) manager didn't just fire all his non-white (or non-Indian, or whatever) reports, without good reason.
Getting hurt over people trying to be racially equitable ignores the fact that the default is racial inequity. 11% of the staff had to be fired, why not make sure it is done more fairly/randomly than racially? Because the latter is the default (or at least sadly common) whether you like it or not.
"Trying to be racially equitable" is a loaded, political term. They don't appear to be "trying to", they appear to be actively enforcing racial equity.
Equality of opportunity (equality) is good. Equality of outcome (equity) is only possible if you deliberately handicap the most competent and most productive people of the group, because humans are differently abled.
I am not mad that the NBA hires a massively disproportionately large number of African Americans, for instance, because small differences in average height (African Americans are taller, on average, than Caucasian Americans) result in much larger discrepancies at the extremes. If you're playing a game where you need extreme height, you'd expect an overrepresentation of African Americans relative to whites.
If you're playing a game that benefits players with a different extreme stat that Asian Americans score better in, on average, than Caucasian Americans, you'd expect the highest levels of that game to have an overrepresentation of Asian Americans relative to Caucasian Americans there too.
And the result is good. Watching a bunch of pudgy, (comparatively) short Caucasian Americans playing basketball interests me a lot less than a bunch of 6'6"+ African Americans who are objectively superior at the sport playing.
I'd rather listen to music made by the world's best band than by the world's most racially equitable band.
I'd rather get surgery at the world's best hospital than the world's most racially equitable hospital.
This is why we have social hierarchies stratified by competence, rather than by racial equity.
We should never be denying anyone the opportunity to try their best at something just because of their skin color, but we shouldn't expect perfect equality of outcome on that front either.
Note this also applies to gender. I'm a fat, heavy person, if I'm in a burning building, I want my firefighter to be able to carry 300 pounds. I'd make an educated guess that there are a lot more men than women who can carry 300 pounds.
I read a study a while ago that said women are 77% less likely to die in a car accident. By that same logic (and personal anecdote), I much prefer female drivers to male drivers when I am a passenger.
That's not to say there aren't women who can carry me, or that there aren't men who drive responsibly, but equity in either of these fields would probably lead to more deaths, because different types of people, on average, are better at different things, and an economy which encourages everyone to do what they are best at brings out the best in all of us.
An economy in which the most competent are artificially handicapped and the least competent are artificially boosted is worse for everyone.
Equality of opportunity (equality) is good. Equality of outcome (equity) is only possible if you deliberately handicap the most competent and most productive people of the group, because humans are differently abled.
I am not mad that the NBA hires a massively disproportionately large number of African Americans, for instance, because small differences in average height (African Americans are taller, on average, than Caucasian Americans) result in much larger discrepancies at the extremes. If you're playing a game where you need extreme height, you'd expect an overrepresentation of African Americans relative to whites.
If you're playing a game that benefits players with a different extreme stat that Asian Americans score better in, on average, than Caucasian Americans, you'd expect the highest levels of that game to have an overrepresentation of Asian Americans relative to Caucasian Americans there too.
And the result is good. Watching a bunch of pudgy, (comparatively) short Caucasian Americans playing basketball interests me a lot less than a bunch of 6'6"+ African Americans who are objectively superior at the sport playing.
I'd rather listen to music made by the world's best band than by the world's most racially equitable band.
I'd rather get surgery at the world's best hospital than the world's most racially equitable hospital.
This is why we have social hierarchies stratified by competence, rather than by racial equity.
We should never be denying anyone the opportunity to try their best at something just because of their skin color, but we shouldn't expect perfect equality of outcome on that front either.
Note this also applies to gender. I'm a fat, heavy person, if I'm in a burning building, I want my firefighter to be able to carry 300 pounds. I'd make an educated guess that there are a lot more men than women who can carry 300 pounds.
I read a study a while ago that said women are 77% less likely to die in a car accident. By that same logic (and personal anecdote), I much prefer female drivers to male drivers when I am a passenger.
That's not to say there aren't women who can carry me, or that there aren't men who drive responsibly, but equity in either of these fields would probably lead to more deaths, because different types of people, on average, are better at different things, and an economy which encourages everyone to do what they are best at brings out the best in all of us.
An economy in which the most competent are artificially handicapped and the least competent are artificially boosted is worse for everyone.
>African Americans are taller, on average, than Caucasian Americans
Not true. White American men are an inch taller than blacks. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/americas-...>
Not true. White American men are an inch taller than blacks. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/americas-...>
You say yourself we have no idea what it means but make a proposition on the meaning - why is your guess any more valid?
We don't know the implementation details (e.g. quota v not) but the net impact of an "anti-racist" process to ID layoff candidates v. a race-blind best-for-company process is either laying off white people due to their skin color or it's toothless BS.
[deleted]
peter422(6)
I'll believe this was actually racially blind when Twilio releases a count of each race that was laid off, and the sum of each race for employees in the company prior to the layoff. It's very simple for everyone to verify whether there was racial targeting outside the statistically probable bounds of random selection from the parent group.
I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards a provable shared reality with data rather than rhetoric.
Humans lie. Sufficient amounts of data analyzed by a suficient number of people do not.
Assuming it was possible to look at the data I call for above, would you be opposed to the public dissemination and analysis of it?
I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards a provable shared reality with data rather than rhetoric.
Humans lie. Sufficient amounts of data analyzed by a suficient number of people do not.
Assuming it was possible to look at the data I call for above, would you be opposed to the public dissemination and analysis of it?
Please enumerate all the races first and the criteria to distinguish each race from the other. It will be important for your statistical analysis.
No need. You can use whatever Twilio defines because they obviously must have defined something to be able to state they acted anti-racist.
(The reality of the whole thing is so obvious that they paid some contractor to say they’re antiracist without actually changing anything they did.)
(The reality of the whole thing is so obvious that they paid some contractor to say they’re antiracist without actually changing anything they did.)
Hell if you wanted to go full Machiavelli, you might say that's in there to distract from the layoffs themselves - seems to work in this thread for instance.
Let's just use hexadecimal RGB values for skin color.
>Twilio had 7,867 employees as of Dec. 31, 2021.
Every single layoff story stupefies me. Confuses. Flabbergasts.
What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks?
My employer has more people but we build nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Our revenue per employee is nearly double Twilio's and is low for a "tech" firm due to the extremely high capital costs and labor-intensive nature of our work.
Nearly 8,000 people (surely, 8,000 with contractors) to build an SMS and VOIP marketing spam, sorry, ahem, communications, platform?
Are they all in marketing or customer support?
It is incomprehensible.
Every single layoff story stupefies me. Confuses. Flabbergasts.
What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks?
My employer has more people but we build nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Our revenue per employee is nearly double Twilio's and is low for a "tech" firm due to the extremely high capital costs and labor-intensive nature of our work.
Nearly 8,000 people (surely, 8,000 with contractors) to build an SMS and VOIP marketing spam, sorry, ahem, communications, platform?
Are they all in marketing or customer support?
It is incomprehensible.
I am glad I'm not the only person who has had this thought, and I think it every time I see how many people some of these random tech companies employ. Those are the kinds of employee numbers I would expect from a much larger company than Twilio.
For reference, in the past I worked for an immensely profitable eCommerce business and I don't think our entire engineering department ever reached more than 40 people at its absolute largest.
I know all those employees aren't engineers, and I've been around long enough to know that what we see from the outside is just the tip of the iceberg. But if we assume even 25% of them are engineers directly working on the product, that is still nearly 2,000 people. That must be a huge iceberg.
So what on Earth are all those people doing? I am not being sarcastic or obtuse, I am genuinely curious because the only organization that I have ever worked for that was that size or larger was the US government. Is it administrative/managerial bloat? Are there a bunch of different pivot projects going on? What does Twilio have going on that needs nearly 8,000 employees?
For reference, in the past I worked for an immensely profitable eCommerce business and I don't think our entire engineering department ever reached more than 40 people at its absolute largest.
I know all those employees aren't engineers, and I've been around long enough to know that what we see from the outside is just the tip of the iceberg. But if we assume even 25% of them are engineers directly working on the product, that is still nearly 2,000 people. That must be a huge iceberg.
So what on Earth are all those people doing? I am not being sarcastic or obtuse, I am genuinely curious because the only organization that I have ever worked for that was that size or larger was the US government. Is it administrative/managerial bloat? Are there a bunch of different pivot projects going on? What does Twilio have going on that needs nearly 8,000 employees?
When I worked at a VC-backed firm, headcount was a bragging point and seemed to be a metric they were concerned about in the opposite direction you’d expect— that is, if I was a business owner, I’d be concerned about having too much headcount. They were always busy seemingly trying to maximize headcount. I never understood it.
Twitter has 7500 employees. Its absurd. You could fire 7000 of them and still run the infrastructure just fine.
"What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks?"
I don't know but I will say that I had the time of my life at the Signal 2018 conference where they rented out Bill Graham Arena and booked OK GO to play ... open bar and an arena full of indoor food trucks ...
... and earlier that day Tony Hawk was doing a halfpipe demo ... related to Twilio somehow ... ?
Hard to say where their business is going but it has all worked out very well for me.
I don't know but I will say that I had the time of my life at the Signal 2018 conference where they rented out Bill Graham Arena and booked OK GO to play ... open bar and an arena full of indoor food trucks ...
... and earlier that day Tony Hawk was doing a halfpipe demo ... related to Twilio somehow ... ?
Hard to say where their business is going but it has all worked out very well for me.
Silicon Valley was a documentary.
Twilio recentky acquired Segment and Sendgrid.
There is overhead per customer in each of their segments for compliance, revenue retention, contract growth, and support.
From a technical standpoint, engineers are required for each of these aspects as well.
Then there is overhead for employees, in terms of managers, human resources, and it.
There is overhead per customer in each of their segments for compliance, revenue retention, contract growth, and support.
From a technical standpoint, engineers are required for each of these aspects as well.
Then there is overhead for employees, in terms of managers, human resources, and it.
Based on my experience bloat causes more bloat. People get hired to work on fringe projects/products, those people cause work for other staff that are already at 100% capacity on higher priority work, so additional staff are hired.
I wrote about what drives this previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32171468
Maybe I should be able to guess but mind providing your employer, curious who makes reactors and space craft?
Many people are trying to rationalize the "anti-racist lens" remark as a simple post-hoc analysis to make sure there wasn't racial bias. (This seems plausible, and I don't think many people would have an issue with that, in theory.)
However, if this is what the CEO did, then he did not use an anti-racist lens -- merely a "not-racist" lens.
Kendi is explicit in his book, "How to be an Anti-Racist", that there is no neutrality. You simply cannot say "the layoff is not racist". You can either have the layoff be racist, or antiracist, there is no middle ground.
DiAngelo agrees in her assessment. She says that people should not ask, "Did racism occur", but rather, "How did racism occur?" When looking at the roster of layoffs, one must come to the conclusion that racism occurred, no matter how unbiased the results appear.
How does Kendi say anti racism rectifies past prejudice? Present prejudice. How to rectify present prejudice? With future prejudice.
If the CEO actually used an anti-racist lens in the layoff decisions, then by definition, he used prejudice based on race.
However, if this is what the CEO did, then he did not use an anti-racist lens -- merely a "not-racist" lens.
Kendi is explicit in his book, "How to be an Anti-Racist", that there is no neutrality. You simply cannot say "the layoff is not racist". You can either have the layoff be racist, or antiracist, there is no middle ground.
DiAngelo agrees in her assessment. She says that people should not ask, "Did racism occur", but rather, "How did racism occur?" When looking at the roster of layoffs, one must come to the conclusion that racism occurred, no matter how unbiased the results appear.
How does Kendi say anti racism rectifies past prejudice? Present prejudice. How to rectify present prejudice? With future prejudice.
If the CEO actually used an anti-racist lens in the layoff decisions, then by definition, he used prejudice based on race.
What's to stop everyone from declaring themselves hispanic or black when they are hired? First off, it's probably true to some degree (we're all mixed). Secondly, it's a self selected category. Third, your employer cannot question your selection.
Given that it's basically all downside to declare yourself white or asian, I'm expecting almost everyone to start electing black or hispanic in the coming months.
For those who cry it's unfair – there's presently no justice or transparency in how these "anti racist" aka affirmative action policies are being implemented. It's a black box, private committee selecting person A or person B , based on some criteria: likely a self-selected category or worse a stereotypical naming pattern. (and if you don't believe me, look into university admissions processes).
Given that it's basically all downside to declare yourself white or asian, I'm expecting almost everyone to start electing black or hispanic in the coming months.
For those who cry it's unfair – there's presently no justice or transparency in how these "anti racist" aka affirmative action policies are being implemented. It's a black box, private committee selecting person A or person B , based on some criteria: likely a self-selected category or worse a stereotypical naming pattern. (and if you don't believe me, look into university admissions processes).
You can be anything you want, look at Elizabeth Warren.
She pretended to be a Native American for more than 30 years. Trump called her Pocahontas and she challenged trump with a dna test. This test is kind of bogus but it proved that she is like 1/1024 Native American.
How can that fly.
She pretended to be a Native American for more than 30 years. Trump called her Pocahontas and she challenged trump with a dna test. This test is kind of bogus but it proved that she is like 1/1024 Native American.
How can that fly.
Of course she should have stopped that as a tenured professional / politician, but it's perfectly understandable she did that as a young applicant based on her family lore.
It goes to show these policies are clumsy and absurd. They will only make matters so much worse.
Is it reasonable to ask someone to make an election that will result in them not getting or getting fired prematurely ? We're talking about food on the table here.
It goes to show these policies are clumsy and absurd. They will only make matters so much worse.
Is it reasonable to ask someone to make an election that will result in them not getting or getting fired prematurely ? We're talking about food on the table here.
> but it's perfectly understandable she did that as a young applicant based on her family lore.
To be clear, she contributed as a Cherokee Indian on a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow, and sumbitted at least one completely plagiarized recipe… as an adult.
https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/pow-wow-chow-cookbook/
As to why Cherokee matters, the Cherokee have a well maintained registry. You do not claim to be Cherokee if you are not. She doesn’t care and never had anything in her youth to bring her up Cherokee. She’s a liar through and through.
To be clear, she contributed as a Cherokee Indian on a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow, and sumbitted at least one completely plagiarized recipe… as an adult.
https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/pow-wow-chow-cookbook/
As to why Cherokee matters, the Cherokee have a well maintained registry. You do not claim to be Cherokee if you are not. She doesn’t care and never had anything in her youth to bring her up Cherokee. She’s a liar through and through.
Yep. I doesn’t matter if you are left or right or something, this is a fact.
A liar and a pretty bad one too.
A liar and a pretty bad one too.
So, a company explicitly states that when push comes to shove, if you are white, you move to the front of the firing queue.
Remind me again, why would a white person (especially man) not put them on the back of the queue when deciding where to apply for a job?
Despite not living in the states (and in a country where this sh*t is illegal), I think I will make it my policy to never work for a (parent) company that has a diversity policy from now on.
Remind me again, why would a white person (especially man) not put them on the back of the queue when deciding where to apply for a job?
Despite not living in the states (and in a country where this sh*t is illegal), I think I will make it my policy to never work for a (parent) company that has a diversity policy from now on.
Indeed.
They may not realize it, but they will quietly lose business over time to folks who are not fans of the style of this layoff.
They may not realize it, but they will quietly lose business over time to folks who are not fans of the style of this layoff.
Strangely enough, it’s pretty darned illegal here too. I expect well see multiple lawsuits and some corporate backtracking on this.
In tech, Indians and East Asians are also not considered a minority.
+1. I bet Indians and East Asians were bucketed with white people.
Is there a list of employers that I can reference that reject DIE (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)? That way I know who to interview with.
Another company carelessly overhiring. OR maybe using opportunity to do some trimming?
edit: Where does one check hiring metrics for company before accepting contract?
edit: Where does one check hiring metrics for company before accepting contract?
They were overhiring. I talked to their recruiter last year. They had pretty aggressive hiring goals. Same story with Zillow, Upstart, Facebook and a bunch of companies. All of their stocks tanked by more than 50% since then.
Why would a business even have a "hiring goal?" Shouldn't you have business goals, and then look at those business goals and determine if hiring will contribute to them? Having an isolated "hiring goal" seems as pointless as having a "printer buying goal".
>Why would a business even have a "hiring goal?" Shouldn't you have business goals, and then look at those business goals and determine if hiring will contribute to them?
Sure! So, you've got your business goal(s), and within those goals you have sub-goals that achieve the main goals. One of your primary goals requires additional headcount, which then necessitates that one of your sub-goals is... wait for it... a hiring goal.
Sure! So, you've got your business goal(s), and within those goals you have sub-goals that achieve the main goals. One of your primary goals requires additional headcount, which then necessitates that one of your sub-goals is... wait for it... a hiring goal.
Bro, Apple makes like $2m or something per employee. They can hire a ton of developers to do whatever at like $300-400k/yr. It's win-win. They have talent, they keep talent from other people.
Apple is at the extreme, but the logic applies. There are massive budgets, so what do you do? You hire.
Startups do this, too. Give an engineering team $20m (or $200m....) and they will hire a lot of people. They aren't just going to sit on the money...
Apple is at the extreme, but the logic applies. There are massive budgets, so what do you do? You hire.
Startups do this, too. Give an engineering team $20m (or $200m....) and they will hire a lot of people. They aren't just going to sit on the money...
Funny. You could kill a company with too much money because they hired people they now need to spend time to manage. Instead if doing the thing.
I've seen it happen first hand.
Goals can change. Especially when your stock price gets cut in half and a recession is imminent.
Even in the world of StableCo annual budgets, by the time the budget is approved, I guarantee it reflects a number of goals that have been recently axed. Or, in times of growth, there’s other goals that have come up and claimed some resources that technically were earmarked for something else. Budgets and goals are fluid.
Also hiring goals are useful for measuring activities. They have an HR/talent acquisition team and that team needs goals. How would you frame those goals if not hiring? And , unfortunately, printer purchases is a real business goal if your the guy responsible for purchasing printers.
Even in the world of StableCo annual budgets, by the time the budget is approved, I guarantee it reflects a number of goals that have been recently axed. Or, in times of growth, there’s other goals that have come up and claimed some resources that technically were earmarked for something else. Budgets and goals are fluid.
Also hiring goals are useful for measuring activities. They have an HR/talent acquisition team and that team needs goals. How would you frame those goals if not hiring? And , unfortunately, printer purchases is a real business goal if your the guy responsible for purchasing printers.
Hiring people so that your competition can't is a business tactic, not a smart one going into a recession, but worked for decades for FAANG
Surely only works for the biggest companies. You would need to hire
millions of people to drain the global pool of developers. Maybe thousands to drain the best ones intersect US working rights.
Twilio is down 50% from their pre covid price. Ouch
What even causes "over hiring"?
People just building their resume for things like "managed a department of 200 people" ?
Otherwise over hiring sounds like a pain in the ass to deal with.
People just building their resume for things like "managed a department of 200 people" ?
Otherwise over hiring sounds like a pain in the ass to deal with.
I don't know about Twilio specifically but Covid is the biggest reason for most of the current layoff rounds.
Kind of the opposite of the beginning of the pandemic, when companies with in-person employees were laying off staff and moving to work-from-home and online companies like Zoom, Shopify, Teledoc, Twilio began booming. But now many of those brand new customers are returning to their old ways.
These internet companies "over hired" in the sense that they got a massive unexpected influx new demand they needed to scale out for, and no clue how long this would last. Will it fade out next month or be a decade long pandemic?
Many companies also expected higher customer retention after covid than they're actually keeping. If you look at trendlines for online shopping, work from home, etc related industries covid caused an instant jump in their growth equivalent to about 5 years on the trend line. Rather than staying "in the future", demand is declining back towards a trend line that otherwise ignores covid.
Kind of the opposite of the beginning of the pandemic, when companies with in-person employees were laying off staff and moving to work-from-home and online companies like Zoom, Shopify, Teledoc, Twilio began booming. But now many of those brand new customers are returning to their old ways.
These internet companies "over hired" in the sense that they got a massive unexpected influx new demand they needed to scale out for, and no clue how long this would last. Will it fade out next month or be a decade long pandemic?
Many companies also expected higher customer retention after covid than they're actually keeping. If you look at trendlines for online shopping, work from home, etc related industries covid caused an instant jump in their growth equivalent to about 5 years on the trend line. Rather than staying "in the future", demand is declining back towards a trend line that otherwise ignores covid.
Investors in high-growth companies like to see rapidly expanding headcounts.
And when you're growing fast there's a real impetus to fill seats FAST and there's not much discipline around making sure you're hiring well. So you end up having to collect more people than you need because not all of them are well suited to their roles and you've got a lot of new projects that everyone isn't fully spun up on so there's always a surprising proportion of people who are being spun up or wound down on random projects all the time without directly committing any code. Companies that grow like this tend to end up with a lot of dead weight and bad business processes that spontaneously appear to shift that dead weight around to where they don't drag things down.
And when you're growing fast there's a real impetus to fill seats FAST and there's not much discipline around making sure you're hiring well. So you end up having to collect more people than you need because not all of them are well suited to their roles and you've got a lot of new projects that everyone isn't fully spun up on so there's always a surprising proportion of people who are being spun up or wound down on random projects all the time without directly committing any code. Companies that grow like this tend to end up with a lot of dead weight and bad business processes that spontaneously appear to shift that dead weight around to where they don't drag things down.
> Where does one check hiring metrics for company before accepting contract?
LinkedIn company pages have those stats for Premium members.
Twilio is showing -- what do you know -- 13% headcount growth over the last 6 months and a median tenure of 1.3 years.
LinkedIn company pages have those stats for Premium members.
Twilio is showing -- what do you know -- 13% headcount growth over the last 6 months and a median tenure of 1.3 years.
Nasdaq shows their employment growth at 290% over the last 30 months. Absolutely wild.
That seems strongly bad-faith as an assumption. I'd assume they hired people for what seemed like good reasons at the time, but things have changed and now they need to have less payroll.
Any hiring or new initiative looks "careless" if it didn't work out, but it could have just been a calculated risk that didn't pay off, especially given how chaotic the last few years have been.
Any hiring or new initiative looks "careless" if it didn't work out, but it could have just been a calculated risk that didn't pay off, especially given how chaotic the last few years have been.
Dodged a bit of a bullet, I think; they were one of my top 2 choices in my last job hunt a few months ago, and ultimately I got a better feeling about the other choice. I've been loving the job I _did_ take, and don't regret my decision (especially now).
If you dont mind sharing, what company did you accept?
It seems to be profitability is next generation technology like Web 4.0 or something. We will be hearing a lot in coming years.
It used to be profitability was a core component of running a business.
It still is, hence the security and rewards of working at businesses like Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, etc. and the same for shareholders/owners too.
pepperidge farm remembers
While you are busy worrying about being woke there is a competitor getting ready to kick your ass.
Which one is that?
To what extent do companies announce layoffs (that they were preparing to do already) on the heels of other companies announcing layoffs? That way it becomes less memorable that 'Company X laid off 11% of their employees' and instead people remember that 'a few companies laid off some people last week'.
Perhaps this is too difficult to tweak the timing on, particularly at public companies. But at the very least, I'm sure some of the Twilio execs were glad to hear about Patreon's layoff yesterday.
Perhaps this is too difficult to tweak the timing on, particularly at public companies. But at the very least, I'm sure some of the Twilio execs were glad to hear about Patreon's layoff yesterday.
The layoffs take time to plan and get rolling, but the macro causes are often similar.
Once they start you may have a bit of PR adjusting things but I daresay this announcement was planned weeks in advance. I could see a company deciding to lay off a bit less to make their percentage look a tiny bit better but other than that, probably not.
Now some companies may have "perpetual layoff plans" where every manager has to identify X people he'd lay off if needed, even if they never use it, then I could see someone taking advantage of it.
Once they start you may have a bit of PR adjusting things but I daresay this announcement was planned weeks in advance. I could see a company deciding to lay off a bit less to make their percentage look a tiny bit better but other than that, probably not.
Now some companies may have "perpetual layoff plans" where every manager has to identify X people he'd lay off if needed, even if they never use it, then I could see someone taking advantage of it.
Twilio won’t fall out of the news cycle like the the rest because of their CEO’s “anti-racist” comments.
It’ll, ideally, become a class action lawsuit, which should keep this story in the news for a long time, providing cover for other companies to do layoffs
It’ll, ideally, become a class action lawsuit, which should keep this story in the news for a long time, providing cover for other companies to do layoffs
I recently had a preliminary phone screen with their HR and I told them to pound sand when they wanted me to do a coding challenge before even talking to the hiring manager to know if I wanted the job.
Even more happy with that decision now.
Even more happy with that decision now.
Well. Job cuts are a serious problem right now. A report from CouponBirds shows that the US unemployment rate rose to 3.7 percent in August of 2022, the highest since February and above market expectations of 3.5 percent. The number of unemployed people increased by 344 thousand to 6.014 million, while employment levels went up by 442 thousand to 158.732 million. And according to the survey, the District of Columbia had the highest unemployment rate in August at 5.2 percent, followed by Alaska and New Mexico, both at 4.5. Minnesota had the lowest unemployment rate, at 1.8 percent.
https://www.couponbirds.com/research-center/data/unemploymen...
https://www.couponbirds.com/research-center/data/unemploymen...
These virtue signaling needs to stop.
Sheesh. That's a pretty large chunk... ~865 people.
curious what % are software devs compared to sales/hr etc..
Yup IMO this is the most interesting question. While admittedly I haven’t been closely following the layoffs taking place this week; those I have read about talk primarily about downsizing non-engineering headcount.
A. [Don’t worry, we only fired whites!] is the an absolutely awful thing to do, and a worse pat yuorself on the back for. Racists. The term “anti racist” is a dog whistle that means racists for everyone, but justified for some.
B. I appreciate they made their idiocy public. I will make sure to 100 percent shut down any possibility of my company using their services. We’re still using Expensify which does upset me, cut from the same cloth as Twillio but they were more sneaky about it, will cut them asap.
B. I appreciate they made their idiocy public. I will make sure to 100 percent shut down any possibility of my company using their services. We’re still using Expensify which does upset me, cut from the same cloth as Twillio but they were more sneaky about it, will cut them asap.
Why do these companies blow their load and lay people off at the slightest sign of trouble? Layoffs should be a last resort because of the pain that they cause.
TWLO is down 80% from its 52 week high, even after today's 10% rise. Do you really believe that this is the "slightest sign of trouble"?
So I'm a big dummy, but I STILL don't understand how current stock price affects companies. They've already raised their money. How does the stock going down make them lose money other than lowering their chance at another seed round?
the stock price is a trailing indicator of the company’s health. in the case of headcount, you hire based on growth rate, to sustain and even further that growth. it works until it doesn’t. then you fire.
it’s no skin off the company’s back, so it is the correct strategy. when CEOs (the world over) say they overhired AND that it was a mistake, it’s a pitiful political lie. also a mandatory strategy. you can’t say, “employees are cogs. we planned this shit. this was plan A.”. you wouldn’t be able to hire again when you find your stride.
it’s no skin off the company’s back, so it is the correct strategy. when CEOs (the world over) say they overhired AND that it was a mistake, it’s a pitiful political lie. also a mandatory strategy. you can’t say, “employees are cogs. we planned this shit. this was plan A.”. you wouldn’t be able to hire again when you find your stride.
They use it for compensation and acquisitions so having a higher price makes these things cheaper.
Also if shareholders lose confidence they can oust the leadership.
Also if shareholders lose confidence they can oust the leadership.
Shareholders are looking at the next quarter, not the next decade. The entire system is optimized for extremely short-term gains.
>"so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs -- while a business necessity today -- were carried out through a Racist/Racially-Oppression lens."
Fixed that for you.. And oh boy would I not want to be one of this companies lawyers in the coming months and no doubt years! Yikes
Fixed that for you.. And oh boy would I not want to be one of this companies lawyers in the coming months and no doubt years! Yikes
Not nearly enough. Should have been 30%.
Seems like a good time to switch to Mailersend. They just introduces SMS:
https://www.mailersend.com/blog/introducing-transactional-sm...
I'm very happy with their support and email product.
https://www.mailersend.com/blog/introducing-transactional-sm...
I'm very happy with their support and email product.
Mostly in "Go-To-Market". Same as Patreon
I don't even know what that is, but sounds like a money pit.
I don't even know what that is, but sounds like a money pit.
Sales, Marketing, and Customer Success are the “Go-To-Market” team.
Go-To-Market or often referred to as GTM is a common term used within the B2B SAAS space. The term is thrown around quite a bit if you work in that sector. Like others said, it is primarily concerned with all things revenue (obtaining and retaining).
[deleted]
Well its true for me also. When I go to market and end up spending money on useless junk. These people go to market and probably try to sell something similar.
Here's the statement on the Twilio blog: https://www.twilio.com/blog/a-message-from-twilio-ceo-jeff-l...
This is not going to be a pretty thread. Hopefully we can keep this civil and maybe move the conversation forward, as this could be a big tipping point in the landscape wrt DEI.
> and maybe move the conversation forward
What does this actually mean, in the context of "when we fired people, we considered their race"?
What does this actually mean, in the context of "when we fired people, we considered their race"?
Or, "when we fired people, we tried NOT to consider their race" ... the idea that a layoff would, by default, be fair and not a racist or bigoted decision is a very privileged world view.
> is a very privileged world view.
I guess this is probably true. In every group I've worked for, it was obvious who the high and low performing people were. In the two companies I was at, with layoffs, there weren't really any surprises. Not surprisingly, this has remained a strong motivator for my work effort: if you're complacent or incompetent, you're the first to go.
I guess this is probably true. In every group I've worked for, it was obvious who the high and low performing people were. In the two companies I was at, with layoffs, there weren't really any surprises. Not surprisingly, this has remained a strong motivator for my work effort: if you're complacent or incompetent, you're the first to go.
Why are you trying to make it sound like most layoffs are race-based?
I'm not. Why are you assuming they are all fair and equitable?
There is more than enough racism and other bigotry in North America to make the assumption that the layoffs across all departments would be fair and equitable a suspect assumption.
There is more than enough racism and other bigotry in North America to make the assumption that the layoffs across all departments would be fair and equitable a suspect assumption.
[deleted]
If real evidence emerges/has emerged that race played a role in which people were laid off then there must be lawsuits. Otherwise, it will keep happening.
[deleted]
If any evidence emerges that race or lack of melanin played a role in who was laid off then there must be lawsuits.
[deleted]
Back in my time, we called "treating people differently, based on their race" racism.
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. It's against the site guidelines and your comment was a big step in that direction.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32838754.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32838754.
People are treated unequally because of their race everyday. My wife’s former boss (CEO of an education non-profit) was a black man. He was walking in downtown Paulo Alto, wearing a suit, on a way to a business meeting.
A cop stopped him at gunpoint and had him lie face-down on the ground and frisked him. Eventually, finding nothing, he let him go. “Mistaken identity.”
This is the kind of shit black people have to live with. None of my white bosses have ever had interaction with law enforcement - other than the time a cop helped one find his keys to his BMW after he’d accidentally tossed them in the bushes.
Our country is getting better. Most people don’t want to be racist. But this stuff still happens in the modern era. Acknowledging the problem and taking reasonable steps to try and improve it is not racist.
Now, as the GP pointed out, this particular incidence probably did more harm than good/looks like a PR stunt.
A cop stopped him at gunpoint and had him lie face-down on the ground and frisked him. Eventually, finding nothing, he let him go. “Mistaken identity.”
This is the kind of shit black people have to live with. None of my white bosses have ever had interaction with law enforcement - other than the time a cop helped one find his keys to his BMW after he’d accidentally tossed them in the bushes.
Our country is getting better. Most people don’t want to be racist. But this stuff still happens in the modern era. Acknowledging the problem and taking reasonable steps to try and improve it is not racist.
Now, as the GP pointed out, this particular incidence probably did more harm than good/looks like a PR stunt.
> None of my white bosses have ever had interaction with law enforcement
You must be very good friends with your bosses to know this. People I work with have no idea what interactions I've had with the police.
You must be very good friends with your bosses to know this. People I work with have no idea what interactions I've had with the police.
If any of my bosses had been ordered to the ground by the police without cause, they definitely would have told me. It’s a crazy story that sounds almost unbelievable. If you’re white, anyway.
Stopped for cause? Yeah, maybe not.
Stopped for cause? Yeah, maybe not.
What evidence do you have that it was because your boss was black? X happened and the target was black doesn't mean X happened BECAUSE the target was black. Did the cop use any sort of racial insult? I can share all kinds of negative interactions I've had and other white friends and family members have had with police for reasons unknown - including with black officers.
I don’t have any. But I can’t recall ever seeing or hearing of a white businessman in a suit getting ordered to the ground without cause.
It is fully possible this was random chance. It’s an anecdote, not statistics. But if you want to look at statistics, there are plenty of studies. From the first hit on Google for police stops: a black person in North Carolina is 95% more likely to get pulled over than a white person, over twice as likely to be searched, but less likely to be in possession of contraband or get a ticket.[1]
1: https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/racial_disparities_traffi...
It is fully possible this was random chance. It’s an anecdote, not statistics. But if you want to look at statistics, there are plenty of studies. From the first hit on Google for police stops: a black person in North Carolina is 95% more likely to get pulled over than a white person, over twice as likely to be searched, but less likely to be in possession of contraband or get a ticket.[1]
1: https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/racial_disparities_traffi...
I'm not claiming that there aren't some people in positions of authority that don't make prejudiced assumptions. What I'm saying is that you can't assume every time something like this happens it's due to race.
Statistics without context are often misleading. I read the article and it's hardly objective. I would prefer to see the dataset as well as other demographics and details of who was stopped, the kind of cars they drove and other such detail. Often, people don't analyze very deeply and start with preconceived notions, especially around race. In addition, how many of these cops actually saw the driver before making the stop - especially highway stops.
It is hard to think of any rational to stop a well-dressed person engaging in no shady behavior and immediately escalate to “lie face-down with your hands over your head.”
There are other news reports of similar incidents with black men. If race is not a factor, we would expect to see many more white than black men wrongly treated in this way, as they are a larger share of the population. I’m not aware of similar reports for white men, but would be interested to see them.
Re traffic stops: The idea that you can’t see the race of a driver while driving behind them is ludicrous. Next time you’re on the highway look in the rear view mirror of the car in front of you. You can see the person’s face.
If they’re actually stopping and searching people on some heuristic that just happens to be correlated with race, they should stop - it’s a bad heuristic. They’re searching black drivers at double the rate of whites, but finding contraband at a lower rate.
Clearly something they’re doing is broken, and it manifests as an undo burden on black drivers.
There are other news reports of similar incidents with black men. If race is not a factor, we would expect to see many more white than black men wrongly treated in this way, as they are a larger share of the population. I’m not aware of similar reports for white men, but would be interested to see them.
Re traffic stops: The idea that you can’t see the race of a driver while driving behind them is ludicrous. Next time you’re on the highway look in the rear view mirror of the car in front of you. You can see the person’s face.
If they’re actually stopping and searching people on some heuristic that just happens to be correlated with race, they should stop - it’s a bad heuristic. They’re searching black drivers at double the rate of whites, but finding contraband at a lower rate.
Clearly something they’re doing is broken, and it manifests as an undo burden on black drivers.
Now ask yourself why black traffic deaths are up a lot more than other races’ the past couple of years.
When you are hitting cars with a radar gun — that’s how most speeding tickets happen — you in fact cannot see the race of the driver.
When you are hitting cars with a radar gun — that’s how most speeding tickets happen — you in fact cannot see the race of the driver.
I used to think like you - Wheres the evidence? They don't have a swastika tatooed on their face and didn't call you a slur, how can you know they were racist?
But here's the thing, not all racism is overt. There's more subtle ways it plays out too - patterns of behavior and the like.
When I was in my early 20s I worked at a bar owned by a black man, and I'm a white man. His role was basically manager, and I was basically assistant manager - and in the small bar world that meant we both were jacks of all trades. We did janitorial work and bookeeping and serving and really all the jobs of a bar. Depending on what each of us was doing that day, we could be dressed down and dirty, or dressed up and looking like a million bucks. Some days i would look basically homeless and he would look like a well of guy, and some days it would be the opposite. Some days we'd both look the same in that respect.
Over time I noticed a pattern - independent of what task we were doing or how we were dressed, I would be approached by people wanting to do business first. Distributors, musical acts, promoters, maintenance workers, and even cops would approach me for manager intereactions more often than they would approach the owner. No matter what the outward appearances were, I was the first person approached 2/3-3/4 of the time.
Any one of those instances could easily be rationalized away - Oh the well dressed guy was approached as manager, or they didn't want to bother the manager to begin with so they approached the worker first, or they approached who they saw first, or ..., or...
But after a couple years of this, there really was only one pattern that was consistent: they approached the white guy first more often than anything else. Most of the people who came in to do business never said or did anything overtly racist. I suspect most of them wouldn't consider themselves racist and they likely have black friends and think the concept of racism is irrational. Yet the fact remains - in a 50-50 situation, the white guy was selected as likely to be the boss a lot more than 50% of the time.
Yes this wasn't real science and theres a multi-variable statistical analysis that would be needed and all that jazz, but it was enough for me to become aware of the pattern - as i said any one of those situations can be rationalized away, but the fact that each situation needed a different rationalization and the racial bias explanation was much more consistent throughout was enough for me to believe that maybe there's more to racism than wearing a hood.
Relating this back to the cop story above - sure you can rationalize this one incident however you want. But over time, pay attention - you'll find disproportionately more stories about such cases of 'mistaken identity' being applied to minorities than white folks in the US. This is what people are talking about with institutional racism or societal racism, the fact that it's assumed that a person is a criminal or a boss or whatever based on thier race (not the race of the assumer, that in and of itself is a racist notion - "oh the black cop assumed the black person was a criminal disproves racism because all black people are a single group and represent a single viewpoint").
Try it on yourself - walk into a high end or middle class establishment where most of the people are a different race than you and pay attention to your comfort level. Compare it to your comfort level in a similar establishment where most of the people are the same race. When you meet a person, pay attention to how surprised you are that they have some role, or some power level and if that matches what you expected first looking at them. Racial bias comes in part from how our society is set up wrt race - you probably aren't racist, but I bet you have racial biases anyway. I do - most people do, a lot of it is taught long before any experiences. The best we can do is acknowledge to ourselves the times we made stupid assumptions that had no merit, and update our priors - this can be upsetting sometimes, I know I would love to say I got where I am on my own, but my observed reality is: there's a lot of racism in the world, and I'm in the "easy mode" group.
But here's the thing, not all racism is overt. There's more subtle ways it plays out too - patterns of behavior and the like.
When I was in my early 20s I worked at a bar owned by a black man, and I'm a white man. His role was basically manager, and I was basically assistant manager - and in the small bar world that meant we both were jacks of all trades. We did janitorial work and bookeeping and serving and really all the jobs of a bar. Depending on what each of us was doing that day, we could be dressed down and dirty, or dressed up and looking like a million bucks. Some days i would look basically homeless and he would look like a well of guy, and some days it would be the opposite. Some days we'd both look the same in that respect.
Over time I noticed a pattern - independent of what task we were doing or how we were dressed, I would be approached by people wanting to do business first. Distributors, musical acts, promoters, maintenance workers, and even cops would approach me for manager intereactions more often than they would approach the owner. No matter what the outward appearances were, I was the first person approached 2/3-3/4 of the time.
Any one of those instances could easily be rationalized away - Oh the well dressed guy was approached as manager, or they didn't want to bother the manager to begin with so they approached the worker first, or they approached who they saw first, or ..., or...
But after a couple years of this, there really was only one pattern that was consistent: they approached the white guy first more often than anything else. Most of the people who came in to do business never said or did anything overtly racist. I suspect most of them wouldn't consider themselves racist and they likely have black friends and think the concept of racism is irrational. Yet the fact remains - in a 50-50 situation, the white guy was selected as likely to be the boss a lot more than 50% of the time.
Yes this wasn't real science and theres a multi-variable statistical analysis that would be needed and all that jazz, but it was enough for me to become aware of the pattern - as i said any one of those situations can be rationalized away, but the fact that each situation needed a different rationalization and the racial bias explanation was much more consistent throughout was enough for me to believe that maybe there's more to racism than wearing a hood.
Relating this back to the cop story above - sure you can rationalize this one incident however you want. But over time, pay attention - you'll find disproportionately more stories about such cases of 'mistaken identity' being applied to minorities than white folks in the US. This is what people are talking about with institutional racism or societal racism, the fact that it's assumed that a person is a criminal or a boss or whatever based on thier race (not the race of the assumer, that in and of itself is a racist notion - "oh the black cop assumed the black person was a criminal disproves racism because all black people are a single group and represent a single viewpoint").
Try it on yourself - walk into a high end or middle class establishment where most of the people are a different race than you and pay attention to your comfort level. Compare it to your comfort level in a similar establishment where most of the people are the same race. When you meet a person, pay attention to how surprised you are that they have some role, or some power level and if that matches what you expected first looking at them. Racial bias comes in part from how our society is set up wrt race - you probably aren't racist, but I bet you have racial biases anyway. I do - most people do, a lot of it is taught long before any experiences. The best we can do is acknowledge to ourselves the times we made stupid assumptions that had no merit, and update our priors - this can be upsetting sometimes, I know I would love to say I got where I am on my own, but my observed reality is: there's a lot of racism in the world, and I'm in the "easy mode" group.
More white people own businesses and there are more white people in the USA. It was likely an innocent assumption where no offense is intended. Not everything is as sinister as "anti-racists" claim. I refuse to subscribe to their conspiracy-based hidden racism theories.
I'm "glad" you were able to claim your "white privilege". Coming from a low class background, I was not afforded such and have had to struggle to get where I am. However, according to your own definition, you are now guilty of the racism you decry. You assume because you took advantage of "white privilege" every white person had the same. Not all white people are well connected or come from money. The percentage might be higher but that means zero to those of us that did not have an easy go like you.
But hey, do whatever you need to do to assuage your guilt. I have no such burden and I resent people like you for trying to lay one at my feet. It seems like most of your response is based on projection.
I'm "glad" you were able to claim your "white privilege". Coming from a low class background, I was not afforded such and have had to struggle to get where I am. However, according to your own definition, you are now guilty of the racism you decry. You assume because you took advantage of "white privilege" every white person had the same. Not all white people are well connected or come from money. The percentage might be higher but that means zero to those of us that did not have an easy go like you.
But hey, do whatever you need to do to assuage your guilt. I have no such burden and I resent people like you for trying to lay one at my feet. It seems like most of your response is based on projection.
I wonder what would happen if you replied to the post I wrote rather than the one you imagined?
I wonder what would happen if you weren't so condescending. Your opening statement was "I used to think like you" as if you have evolved and are somehow morally superior. I see no evidence of this assumed superiority. You made a ton of assumptions in your post and it was mostly about your own white guilt since you are on "easy mode" as you put it. You sound like you have some unresolved issues and I encourage you to get help.
My bad, I assumed that some amount of thought went into your response - I was clearly wrong, apologies.
Under that assumption I (again, the whole "you thought about your reaction" thing was a bad assumption on my part, sorry) related my own past thinking and how it changed. There was no moral superiority there, just my story about how my thinking changed and what I have observed. You seem to be reading a lot more into it than I wrote.
Under that assumption I (again, the whole "you thought about your reaction" thing was a bad assumption on my part, sorry) related my own past thinking and how it changed. There was no moral superiority there, just my story about how my thinking changed and what I have observed. You seem to be reading a lot more into it than I wrote.
Yes, quite an interesting magic trick that has been performed by people from certain political persuasions about how they now make everything about race, yet claim while patting us minorities on the head about how "they're not racist". It's barking mad.
Coincidentally, back then everyone in an important role was white, so one didn't even really have to think about race!
taeric(2)
And it will be just fine
I left a company just over two years ago that was aq
I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping.
If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are.
That then makes it harder for the minorities you claim to be "helping" to stay in the room anywhere else because of bad will generated by some company that wanted the headlines to include their diversity push.
Edit: In summation, do not conflate your layoffs with your "diversity".