4 ms·

The article implies that a number of the Black people who left did so because the compliance division was relocated and they didn't want to relocate with it. It

The article implies that a number of the Black people who left did so because the compliance division was relocated and they didn't want to relocate with it. It doesn't say how many people's decisions were influenced by annoying work crap that they interpreted as discrimination. This is a really dishonest article. It tries to lead one to believe things (e.g. that 15 Black people left Coinbase because they were belittled in meetings) without stating it outright or making a case for it. Just insinuation spun up from a few concrete situations that themselves are mostly vague or not obviously discrimination (the gun and drugs thing being the obvious exception).

whakim 6y ago
Well, the article starts from the premise that an abnormally large percentage of Coinbase's black employees left over a short period of time. It then uses a large body of circumstantial evidence to (pretty convincingly, in my opinion) portray the culture at Coinbase as hostile to employees of color. Not really sure how that's dishonest.
- edbob 6y ago
  The article fails to mention the generous 4-6 month severance package that was being offered at the same time as the relocation of the division. Of course a bunch of employees will take the 6 months paid vacation over moving. This is the level of dishonesty that I've come to expect from the NYT. Any fact that does not fit their narrative basically doesn't exist. Better treatment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25233702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25233702
  - whakim 6y ago
    Do you have inside information that this was the case? Because I'm sure that would be quite compelling to hear. To clarify, I assume the generous severance you're referring to is not the generous severance Coinbase offered employees as part of their no-politics-at-work approach, because the timelines don't match.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - athriren 6y ago
    as others have pointed out when this is brought up, this seems out of order to me. the relocations required in the story that caused the team’s exodus occurred prior to the severance package tied to coinbase’s new corporate stance on workplace social justice advocacy. however, i am not sure that is relevant given the immediate example of a team member who was allowed to work remote. also, i am not sure it is relevant given the fact that there are many other underpinnings for the story’s thesis.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
It didn't come across as dishonest at all, but your post did. > The article implies that a number of the Black people who left did so because the compliance division was relocated and they didn't want to relocate with it. It doesn't say how many people's decisions were influenced by annoying work crap that they interpreted as discrimination. And mentions the one white person was allowed to stay remote. Pretty dishonest to leave that detail out, no? > This is a really dishonest article. It tries to lead one to believe things (e.g. that 15 Black people left Coinbase because they were belittled in meetings) without stating it outright or making a case for it. Just insinuation spun up from a few concrete situations that themselves are mostly vague or not obviously discrimination (the gun and drugs thing being the obvious exception). After reading it it seems a lot left because of constant issues of discrimination - being told to be in meetings in front of cameras to pretend to be diverse, but being ignored in meetings of consequence. Being told to relocate, but applied unequally. Having meetings about BLM and a month later the boss says "leave it at the door." The guns and drugs comment, the black inferiority comment, those are absolutely damning. This is how racism/discrimination thrive - by playing in the margins, doing things that aren't provable (they never have an email that says "we're discriminating against you!" so therefore it didn't happen or other arguments of that type), giving bad performance reviews after complaints are made, etc. Much like saying "oh it was a joke!" And finally the icing on the cake: > Ms. Sawyerr said she had talked with four other Black employees about bringing a discrimination lawsuit against Coinbase, but the others backed out after being offered hefty severance payments in exchange for confidentiality agreements. These are multiple people's experience with this company - and there are clearly others who were paid not to say anything. The article clearly does what it set out to do - show the experiences of people who lived in what they believed to be a toxic work culture. I'm inclined to believe them.
- cbthrow91 6y ago
  You are omitting the fact that the one white employee switched to working out of the NYC office. There's no mention of a black employee making the same request and it being denied, just the request to wfh being denied for both white and black employees. And then you are extrapolating two uncorroborated anecdotes of inappropriate comments as evidence of widespread discrimination.

whakim 6y ago

Well, the article starts from the premise that an abnormally large percentage of Coinbase's black employees left over a short period of time. It then uses a large body of circumstantial evidence to (pretty convincingly, in my opinion) portray the culture at Coinbase as hostile to employees of color. Not really sure how that's dishonest.

edbob 6y ago
The article fails to mention the generous 4-6 month severance package that was being offered at the same time as the relocation of the division. Of course a bunch of employees will take the 6 months paid vacation over moving. This is the level of dishonesty that I've come to expect from the NYT. Any fact that does not fit their narrative basically doesn't exist. Better treatment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25233702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25233702
- whakim 6y ago
  Do you have inside information that this was the case? Because I'm sure that would be quite compelling to hear. To clarify, I assume the generous severance you're referring to is not the generous severance Coinbase offered employees as part of their no-politics-at-work approach, because the timelines don't match.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- athriren 6y ago
  as others have pointed out when this is brought up, this seems out of order to me. the relocations required in the story that caused the team’s exodus occurred prior to the severance package tied to coinbase’s new corporate stance on workplace social justice advocacy. however, i am not sure that is relevant given the immediate example of a team member who was allowed to work remote. also, i am not sure it is relevant given the fact that there are many other underpinnings for the story’s thesis.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

It didn't come across as dishonest at all, but your post did. > The article implies that a number of the Black people who left did so because the compliance division was relocated and they didn't want to relocate with it. It doesn't say how many people's decisions were influenced by annoying work crap that they interpreted as discrimination. And mentions the one white person was allowed to stay remote. Pretty dishonest to leave that detail out, no? > This is a really dishonest article. It tries to lead one to believe things (e.g. that 15 Black people left Coinbase because they were belittled in meetings) without stating it outright or making a case for it. Just insinuation spun up from a few concrete situations that themselves are mostly vague or not obviously discrimination (the gun and drugs thing being the obvious exception). After reading it it seems a lot left because of constant issues of discrimination - being told to be in meetings in front of cameras to pretend to be diverse, but being ignored in meetings of consequence. Being told to relocate, but applied unequally. Having meetings about BLM and a month later the boss says "leave it at the door." The guns and drugs comment, the black inferiority comment, those are absolutely damning. This is how racism/discrimination thrive - by playing in the margins, doing things that aren't provable (they never have an email that says "we're discriminating against you!" so therefore it didn't happen or other arguments of that type), giving bad performance reviews after complaints are made, etc. Much like saying "oh it was a joke!" And finally the icing on the cake: > Ms. Sawyerr said she had talked with four other Black employees about bringing a discrimination lawsuit against Coinbase, but the others backed out after being offered hefty severance payments in exchange for confidentiality agreements. These are multiple people's experience with this company - and there are clearly others who were paid not to say anything. The article clearly does what it set out to do - show the experiences of people who lived in what they believed to be a toxic work culture. I'm inclined to believe them.

cbthrow91 6y ago
You are omitting the fact that the one white employee switched to working out of the NYC office. There's no mention of a black employee making the same request and it being denied, just the request to wfh being denied for both white and black employees. And then you are extrapolating two uncorroborated anecdotes of inappropriate comments as evidence of widespread discrimination.