14 ms·

(I am a black man) 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

(I am a black man) 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".

LegitShady 4y ago
>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.
- John23832 4y ago
  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.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    > 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.
    - John23832 4y ago
      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.
      - zo1 4y ago
        "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
        John23832 4y ago
        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.
      - dekhn 4y ago
        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.
        John23832 4y ago
        That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
    - peter422 4y ago
      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.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        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".
        peter422 4y ago
        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.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        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.
        John23832 4y ago
        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".
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        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.
  - caeril 4y ago
    > 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?
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > 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.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    Racial discrimination is perfectly legal (and sometimes mandated) as long as the group harmed is the right one.
    - SllX 4y ago
      Not under American Federal law.
      - weatherlite 4y ago
        Why is diversity hiring fine then? Can't see the difference
        SllX 4y ago
        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.
        nemo44x 4y ago
        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.
    - 4y ago
- sopooneo 4y ago
  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.
crackercrews 4y ago
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.
- blockwriter 4y ago
  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.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    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_doctah 4y ago
    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.
prottog 4y ago
Imagine that in 2022 we would be told that we're hired or fired on the basis of race! Unbelievable.
- vkou 4y ago
  - weatherlite 4y ago
    And a white man in the wrong neighborhood isn't viewed with suspicion?
    - mod 4y ago
      Yes, but by a different set of people. Not the authorities.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - CSMastermind 4y ago
    There's a difference between certain segments of society being racist and making racism your official company policy.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Yes, the difference is that responsibility is diffused in the former and nobody can be held accountable for it, despite a similar outcome. And there are plenty of institutions (law enforcement in particular, but there are many others) that actively behave in a racist manner. Again, since there's no policy, nobody in practice can be held accountable for it. So no, nobody should be surprised that racism is alive and well in 2022. It thrives in the intersection of personal bigotry and the wide open space of discretionary power exercised by figures of authority.
valboa 4y ago
donretag 4y ago
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?
- flatiron 4y ago
  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
enumjorge 4y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
- subsubzero 4y ago
  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-preference-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-prefere...
  - 4y ago
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
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?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  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.
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    > 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.
coding123 4y ago
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.
grapehut 4y ago
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.
- notch656a 4y ago
  > if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them. By unfairly you mean fairly.
  - grapehut 4y ago
    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.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      >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.
    - abduhl 4y ago
      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.
- randomdata 4y ago
  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.
Consultant32452 4y ago
A Minnesota public school district created a plan to prioritize laying off white teachers. https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-plan-to-ax-white-teachers-first/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-pla...
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  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 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.
  - Consultant32452 4y 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.
ransom1538 4y ago
"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.
- skrbjc 4y ago
  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.
- slt2021 4y ago
  your race is saved in HR system once you apply for the job
- peanuty1 4y ago
  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.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    [deleted]
- BonoboIO 4y ago
  Mindblowing ... they think they do something good, but they make it worse for everybody.
- foofoo4u 4y ago
  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."
silent_cal 4y ago
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.
kache_ 4y ago
https://imgur.com/a/FZRAMhf https://imgur.com/a/FZRAMhf
yesiamyourdad 4y ago
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.
Ozzie_osman 4y ago
(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.
christophilus 4y ago
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.
seer-zig 4y ago
drc500free 4y ago
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.
nonethewiser 4y ago
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.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
rdl 4y ago
I'd quit if I were working at a company which announced its layoffs like that and I somehow failed to get laid off.
mgarfias 4y ago
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.

LegitShady 4y ago

>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.

John23832 4y ago
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.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > 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.
  - John23832 4y ago
    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.
    - zo1 4y ago
      "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
      - John23832 4y ago
        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.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      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.
      - John23832 4y ago
        That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
  - peter422 4y ago
    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.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      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".
      - peter422 4y ago
        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.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        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.
        John23832 4y ago
        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".
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        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.
- caeril 4y ago
  > 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?
nemo44x 4y ago
> 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.
- djbebs 4y ago
  Racial discrimination is perfectly legal (and sometimes mandated) as long as the group harmed is the right one.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Not under American Federal law.
    - weatherlite 4y ago
      Why is diversity hiring fine then? Can't see the difference
      - SllX 4y ago
        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.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        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.
  - 4y ago
sopooneo 4y ago
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.

crackercrews 4y ago

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.

blockwriter 4y ago
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.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  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_doctah 4y ago
  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.

prottog 4y ago

Imagine that in 2022 we would be told that we're hired or fired on the basis of race! Unbelievable.

vkou 4y ago
- weatherlite 4y ago
  And a white man in the wrong neighborhood isn't viewed with suspicion?
  - mod 4y ago
    Yes, but by a different set of people. Not the authorities.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- CSMastermind 4y ago
  There's a difference between certain segments of society being racist and making racism your official company policy.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Yes, the difference is that responsibility is diffused in the former and nobody can be held accountable for it, despite a similar outcome. And there are plenty of institutions (law enforcement in particular, but there are many others) that actively behave in a racist manner. Again, since there's no policy, nobody in practice can be held accountable for it. So no, nobody should be surprised that racism is alive and well in 2022. It thrives in the intersection of personal bigotry and the wide open space of discretionary power exercised by figures of authority.

valboa 4y ago

donretag 4y ago

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?

flatiron 4y ago
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

enumjorge 4y ago

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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250

subsubzero 4y ago
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-preference-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-prefere...
- 4y ago

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

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?

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
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.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > 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.

coding123 4y ago

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.

grapehut 4y ago

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.

notch656a 4y ago
> if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them. By unfairly you mean fairly.
- grapehut 4y ago
  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.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >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.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    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.
randomdata 4y ago
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.

Consultant32452 4y ago

A Minnesota public school district created a plan to prioritize laying off white teachers. https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-plan-to-ax-white-teachers-first/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-pla...

HideousKojima 4y ago
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 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.
- Consultant32452 4y 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.

ransom1538 4y ago

"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.

skrbjc 4y ago
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.
slt2021 4y ago
your race is saved in HR system once you apply for the job
peanuty1 4y ago
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.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
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 4y ago
  [deleted]
BonoboIO 4y ago
Mindblowing ... they think they do something good, but they make it worse for everybody.
foofoo4u 4y ago
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."

silent_cal 4y ago

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.

kache_ 4y ago

https://imgur.com/a/FZRAMhf https://imgur.com/a/FZRAMhf

yesiamyourdad 4y ago

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.

Ozzie_osman 4y ago

(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.

christophilus 4y ago

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.

seer-zig 4y ago

drc500free 4y ago

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.

nonethewiser 4y ago

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.

codefreeordie 4y ago

rdl 4y ago

I'd quit if I were working at a company which announced its layoffs like that and I somehow failed to get laid off.

mgarfias 4y ago

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.