5 ms·

> Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business ne

by belval 4y ago

> 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. Kill two bird with one stone, fire white/asian to rebalance your "diversity" metrics. I just don't understand how people can be onboard with this.

rafale 4y ago
Exactly, diversity (as practiced in the US) and meritocracy are incompatible.
ivraatiems 4y ago
If it can be proven that that's what they did, it's likely illegal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- belval 4y ago
  How would you even begin to prove something like that? No exec would be dumb enough to send an email that says "we see that the bottom 11% in your organization is mostly marginalized groups, we can't let you fire them". It will be a wink-wink nudge-nudge during a 1-1 meeting.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    IANAL, but, it'd be tough for sure. You'd need to compare who was fired to who wasn't and contextualize with metrics that made it clear it wasn't coincidence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - boredumb 4y ago
    "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." Any one who isn't asleep at the wheel is well aware that corporate/institutional newspeak terms like "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means anti white and asian.
  - staticautomatic 4y ago
    The legal process itself opens the door to proving it. You sue them, and if you survive a motion to dismiss among probably some others, you’ll get to go into discovery.
- pastor_bob 4y ago
  Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. If 90% of the people who work at Twilio are white, and 90% of the laid off people are white, that isn't discrimination.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    If the decision to fire is based on the demographic makeup rather than the individual's performance, it would still be discrimination (in a purely ethical sense)
sergiotapia 4y ago
I'm not white I'm latino. I can't imagine what I would feel like if my company said something like this and I was a white guy. I guess I would be really sad, offended and discriminated.
- belval 4y ago
  To be clear, I am 100% onboard with diversity and inclusion, I do believe in giving a fair chance to under-represented groups and I'd be happy to report discrimination in my organization to HR so that we can all build a more positive work environment for my coworkers. But this is something else, instead of saying "we will fire the bottom 11% of performers in the team" or "we fire the bottom 11% based on seniority", they come outright and say that when choosing between two "similar" employees they will fire the least "diverse" person. It's madness.
  - lkbm 4y ago
    > they come outright and say that when choosing between two "similar" employees they will fire the least "diverse" person. They don't come outright and say that. They come outright and say something that could mean that, but could also mean "when choosing between two "similar" employees, we ensured we didn't always fire the most "diverse" person." When faced with multiple possible interpretations, you're treating the one you find offensive as the only possibility. It's not. It might be the case, but there's no way to know from the text.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- pookha 4y ago
  I've seen hispanics from Mexico that look like Henry the 8th. Theoretically I'm assuming that they'll be singled out by this cult too. Being a latino won't help.
- pastor_bob 4y ago
  Latino isn't a race.
ctvo 4y ago
Or you know, you could put down your I'm offended hat for a second and read it as: "We ensured we didn't fire just blacks, browns, and pregnant women. Because sometimes that does happen -- where a downsize disproportionately targets a minority group."
- belval 4y ago
  > Because sometimes that does happen -- where a downsize disproportionately targets a minority group. Why would a downsize disproportionately target a minority group unless you directly admit that part of your management is racist?
  - kazinator 4y ago
    What is the definition of "disproportionately"? If 12% of purple-skinned employees were laid off but only 10% green-skinned ones, is that disproportional, confirming racism?
  - d23 4y ago
    What? I can't invert my mind enough to understand this phrasing. There doesn't have to be an admission. It could be overt and conscious, or it could be subconscious (e.g. associating minorities with having less competence without even realizing it).
  - ctvo 4y ago
    Because the people in charge are often in the majority group and when they're going down a list of names, their biases come into play.
  - jakevoytko 4y ago
    It can happen for tons of reasons. Some coincidental, some were initially benevolent. Imagine a company with an office in Atlanta, that hires a disproportionately large number of black employees relative to the rest of the company due to the proximity to more diverse engineering talent. Then they close the whole Atlanta office and lay everyone off. Or Imagine a minority tech influencer that does a great job of recruiting underrepresented people to the part of the company they work for. Or "We're staffing up our test engineering group, and we're making a new junior test engineer program that targets career switchers." => "Hey, we're getting especially good employees from underrepresented groups in this career switching program, let's double down the advertising to these groups." => "Times are tough, engineers can test their own code. Let's axe the whole entire test engineer group." I'm sure you can come up with your own examples also.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
Absolutely a shocking thing to say. But the implementation details are sparse. Even if this is something like "ABC skin color gets a larger separation package", that's functionally equivalent to "XYZ people get a smaller one because they don't need it, due to the inherent benefits of their skin color." At the end of the day, skin color should not factor into WHO gets laid off, or HOW they are laid off.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  Assuming positive intent, when you say "At the end of the day, skin color should not factor into WHO gets laid off, or HOW they are laid off." Maybe Twitter is just agreeing, and they're reviewing the layoffs to make sure particularly skin colors and other groups are not overrepresented, all else being equal. There is a lot of opportunity for conscious and unconscious bias when someone is looking at their team or organization for who has to be let go.
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    Neutrality is not the principle of antiracism. I cannot assume positive intent, because anti racism explicitly excludes merely ensuring post-hoc that discrimination did not occur. Anti-racist policies, are by definition (per Ibram X Kendi), not neutral. A neutral policy that does not intentionally benefit minority racial groups, is classified as racist under Kendi. Edit: Further more, per DiAngelo, investigations should not see IF racism took place, but HOW. Neutrality is not an option. And per Kendi again: > 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. How ANYONE ever took these principles seriously is beyond me.
    - caseysoftware 4y ago
      Dr Kendi has spoken at Twilio and their policies have been shaped based on his thinking, as per: https://www.twilio.com/blog/commemorating-celebrating-juneteenth-at-twilio https://www.twilio.com/blog/commemorating-celebrating-junete...
otikik 4y ago
I find there’s a leap there from “we are trying to make our firings not racist or oppressive” to “they are firing all the whites and Asians”. It’s clear that you think is true, but I don’t see it as clear-cut. Can you back that claim with anything solid? > how people can be onboard with this? I think people are not and you might be jumping to conclusions from the previously mentioned leap.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I cannot wait for the supreme court to strike down affirmative action. It is coming and it will be a glorious day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... This needs to be discussed openly and without bigotry. We need to confront the issues of racism on both fronts that includes reverse racism.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Reverse racism doesnt exist. Its just racism.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Absolutely. The case is going to be labeled as 'racist' despite of doing exactly the opposite. Asian community in USA is waking up to this reality and it is causing strain in the society. Fairness/Competitiveness is deeply rooted in humans (and primates): https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html If you go against it, you're asking for societal upheaval.
pastor_bob 4y ago
Honestly, I don't get the hate for this. If the layoffs are NOT based off of performance, as the CEO says: > By no fault of the Twilions impacted today, Why not ensure they are equitably distributed? Is it racist somehow to ensure that black people aren't the only people laid off?
- Ironlikebike 4y ago
  > If the layoffs are NOT based off of performance, as the CEO says: Performance motivated layoffs are where a company decides they're going to do a reduction solely to cull underperformers (like what IBM has done historically with their "up or out" yearly staff reductions). When it comes to a economically forced reduction, management is 100% going to first cut the underperformers or those whose roles are no longer needed due to a change in business direction.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Bakary 4y ago
  The debate then has to do with whether ethnicity is the most salient feature of individuals and whether equitability should focus on it as the main criteria.
fumar 4y ago
This is not how I understood the phrasing. Layoffs can include a mix of randomization, removal of non-critical areas or groups, and quantitative low performers (reviews). The initial output of the layoffs may have skewed in one direction incorrectly representing marginalized communities or maybe not. Twilio says they would attempt remove a bias to baseline.
- pc86 4y ago
  Removing bias is an objectively good thing. "You fired too many ________ people, and not enough ________ people" is not attempting to remove bias, it's attempting to hit a quota, virtue signal, or just being outright racist. Without seeing internal company data (that a lot of the execs probably don't even have as it's across several teams), it's impossible to say for sure which one Twilio did, but "anti-racist" is going to be a dog whistle for a lot of people who will assume it is the latter.
Ekaros 4y ago
Wouldn't actually anti-oppressive lens be that the lowest paid would get highest compensation for being fired or being kept and the highest paid would be kicked out and given least? After all money is the only true metric of oppression in capitalist free market society.

by belval 4y ago

rafale 4y ago

Exactly, diversity (as practiced in the US) and meritocracy are incompatible.

ivraatiems 4y ago

If it can be proven that that's what they did, it's likely illegal.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
belval 4y ago
How would you even begin to prove something like that? No exec would be dumb enough to send an email that says "we see that the bottom 11% in your organization is mostly marginalized groups, we can't let you fire them". It will be a wink-wink nudge-nudge during a 1-1 meeting.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  IANAL, but, it'd be tough for sure. You'd need to compare who was fired to who wasn't and contextualize with metrics that made it clear it wasn't coincidence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- boredumb 4y ago
  "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." Any one who isn't asleep at the wheel is well aware that corporate/institutional newspeak terms like "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means anti white and asian.
- staticautomatic 4y ago
  The legal process itself opens the door to proving it. You sue them, and if you survive a motion to dismiss among probably some others, you’ll get to go into discovery.
pastor_bob 4y ago
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. If 90% of the people who work at Twilio are white, and 90% of the laid off people are white, that isn't discrimination.
- Bakary 4y ago
  If the decision to fire is based on the demographic makeup rather than the individual's performance, it would still be discrimination (in a purely ethical sense)

sergiotapia 4y ago

I'm not white I'm latino. I can't imagine what I would feel like if my company said something like this and I was a white guy. I guess I would be really sad, offended and discriminated.

belval 4y ago
To be clear, I am 100% onboard with diversity and inclusion, I do believe in giving a fair chance to under-represented groups and I'd be happy to report discrimination in my organization to HR so that we can all build a more positive work environment for my coworkers. But this is something else, instead of saying "we will fire the bottom 11% of performers in the team" or "we fire the bottom 11% based on seniority", they come outright and say that when choosing between two "similar" employees they will fire the least "diverse" person. It's madness.
- lkbm 4y ago
  > they come outright and say that when choosing between two "similar" employees they will fire the least "diverse" person. They don't come outright and say that. They come outright and say something that could mean that, but could also mean "when choosing between two "similar" employees, we ensured we didn't always fire the most "diverse" person." When faced with multiple possible interpretations, you're treating the one you find offensive as the only possibility. It's not. It might be the case, but there's no way to know from the text.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pookha 4y ago
I've seen hispanics from Mexico that look like Henry the 8th. Theoretically I'm assuming that they'll be singled out by this cult too. Being a latino won't help.
pastor_bob 4y ago
Latino isn't a race.

ctvo 4y ago

Or you know, you could put down your I'm offended hat for a second and read it as: "We ensured we didn't fire just blacks, browns, and pregnant women. Because sometimes that does happen -- where a downsize disproportionately targets a minority group."

belval 4y ago
> Because sometimes that does happen -- where a downsize disproportionately targets a minority group. Why would a downsize disproportionately target a minority group unless you directly admit that part of your management is racist?
- kazinator 4y ago
  What is the definition of "disproportionately"? If 12% of purple-skinned employees were laid off but only 10% green-skinned ones, is that disproportional, confirming racism?
- d23 4y ago
  What? I can't invert my mind enough to understand this phrasing. There doesn't have to be an admission. It could be overt and conscious, or it could be subconscious (e.g. associating minorities with having less competence without even realizing it).
- ctvo 4y ago
  Because the people in charge are often in the majority group and when they're going down a list of names, their biases come into play.
- jakevoytko 4y ago
  It can happen for tons of reasons. Some coincidental, some were initially benevolent. Imagine a company with an office in Atlanta, that hires a disproportionately large number of black employees relative to the rest of the company due to the proximity to more diverse engineering talent. Then they close the whole Atlanta office and lay everyone off. Or Imagine a minority tech influencer that does a great job of recruiting underrepresented people to the part of the company they work for. Or "We're staffing up our test engineering group, and we're making a new junior test engineer program that targets career switchers." => "Hey, we're getting especially good employees from underrepresented groups in this career switching program, let's double down the advertising to these groups." => "Times are tough, engineers can test their own code. Let's axe the whole entire test engineer group." I'm sure you can come up with your own examples also.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

Absolutely a shocking thing to say. But the implementation details are sparse. Even if this is something like "ABC skin color gets a larger separation package", that's functionally equivalent to "XYZ people get a smaller one because they don't need it, due to the inherent benefits of their skin color." At the end of the day, skin color should not factor into WHO gets laid off, or HOW they are laid off.

throwaway5752 4y ago
Assuming positive intent, when you say "At the end of the day, skin color should not factor into WHO gets laid off, or HOW they are laid off." Maybe Twitter is just agreeing, and they're reviewing the layoffs to make sure particularly skin colors and other groups are not overrepresented, all else being equal. There is a lot of opportunity for conscious and unconscious bias when someone is looking at their team or organization for who has to be let go.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  Neutrality is not the principle of antiracism. I cannot assume positive intent, because anti racism explicitly excludes merely ensuring post-hoc that discrimination did not occur. Anti-racist policies, are by definition (per Ibram X Kendi), not neutral. A neutral policy that does not intentionally benefit minority racial groups, is classified as racist under Kendi. Edit: Further more, per DiAngelo, investigations should not see IF racism took place, but HOW. Neutrality is not an option. And per Kendi again: > 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. How ANYONE ever took these principles seriously is beyond me.
  - caseysoftware 4y ago
    Dr Kendi has spoken at Twilio and their policies have been shaped based on his thinking, as per: https://www.twilio.com/blog/commemorating-celebrating-juneteenth-at-twilio https://www.twilio.com/blog/commemorating-celebrating-junete...

otikik 4y ago

I find there’s a leap there from “we are trying to make our firings not racist or oppressive” to “they are firing all the whites and Asians”. It’s clear that you think is true, but I don’t see it as clear-cut. Can you back that claim with anything solid? > how people can be onboard with this? I think people are not and you might be jumping to conclusions from the previously mentioned leap.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I cannot wait for the supreme court to strike down affirmative action. It is coming and it will be a glorious day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... This needs to be discussed openly and without bigotry. We need to confront the issues of racism on both fronts that includes reverse racism.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Reverse racism doesnt exist. Its just racism.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Absolutely. The case is going to be labeled as 'racist' despite of doing exactly the opposite. Asian community in USA is waking up to this reality and it is causing strain in the society. Fairness/Competitiveness is deeply rooted in humans (and primates): https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html https://phys.org/news/2017-02-animals-unfairly-dont.html If you go against it, you're asking for societal upheaval.

pastor_bob 4y ago

Honestly, I don't get the hate for this. If the layoffs are NOT based off of performance, as the CEO says: > By no fault of the Twilions impacted today, Why not ensure they are equitably distributed? Is it racist somehow to ensure that black people aren't the only people laid off?

Ironlikebike 4y ago
> If the layoffs are NOT based off of performance, as the CEO says: Performance motivated layoffs are where a company decides they're going to do a reduction solely to cull underperformers (like what IBM has done historically with their "up or out" yearly staff reductions). When it comes to a economically forced reduction, management is 100% going to first cut the underperformers or those whose roles are no longer needed due to a change in business direction.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Bakary 4y ago
The debate then has to do with whether ethnicity is the most salient feature of individuals and whether equitability should focus on it as the main criteria.

fumar 4y ago

This is not how I understood the phrasing. Layoffs can include a mix of randomization, removal of non-critical areas or groups, and quantitative low performers (reviews). The initial output of the layoffs may have skewed in one direction incorrectly representing marginalized communities or maybe not. Twilio says they would attempt remove a bias to baseline.

pc86 4y ago
Removing bias is an objectively good thing. "You fired too many ________ people, and not enough ________ people" is not attempting to remove bias, it's attempting to hit a quota, virtue signal, or just being outright racist. Without seeing internal company data (that a lot of the execs probably don't even have as it's across several teams), it's impossible to say for sure which one Twilio did, but "anti-racist" is going to be a dog whistle for a lot of people who will assume it is the latter.

Ekaros 4y ago

Wouldn't actually anti-oppressive lens be that the lowest paid would get highest compensation for being fired or being kept and the highest paid would be kicked out and given least? After all money is the only true metric of oppression in capitalist free market society.