7 ms·

In the filing, it states > As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced i

In the filing, it states > 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. What does it mean to layoff through an, "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?

codefreeordie 4y ago
You focus on laying off as many folks from the "Oppressor" class as possible
- db48x 4y ago
  They are going to be spending a lot of time and money on wrongful-termination lawsuits.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    Probably not. Despite the clarity and obviousness of the statutes, courts have been pretty unwilling to consider discrimination claims put forward by white/male plaintiffs.
pinewurst 4y ago
I’m reminded of the Soviet joke about capitalism being man oppressing man, and socialism the other way around. Layoffs are almost always unfair in some way. This just tilts the unfairness in another direction.
torstenvl 4y ago
It means they targeted employees for layoffs based on a protected characteristic, and admitted it in public.
- polski-g 4y ago
  So now they're going to have to write a settlement check to the Whites/Asians they fired, or re-hire them and fire the non-Whites/Asians. Hilarious.
TheBigSalad 4y ago
Making sure you aren't disproportionately firing people of a certain race for reasons other than performance. For example, maybe a particular dept you don't need is coincidentally in an area with more black people and is disproportionately black. You might let go of people in other departments and transfer some of the minority employees. Or maybe you just fire people randomly. You at least look at your list and make sure it's not disproportionately one race or full of minorities, and if it is, find out why.
- polski-g 4y ago
  It is unlawful to even consider protected characteristics in any employment decision. You can't look at characteristics for hiring, firing, promoting, not promoting, or even transferring.
  - rparet 4y ago
    This is completely untrue. Google “adverse impact hr” for a quick education on this topic.
    - the_doctah 4y ago
      Why do you think this phrase, which describes the outcome, makes the action any less illegal?
  - chadash 4y ago
    I am skeptical that a company the size of Twilio wouldn't run this by employment lawyers first. Do you have any sources to cite here?
    - the_doctah 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
      - 4y ago
mc32 4y ago
It means when the HR took the spreadsheet over from the beancounters they UNHID the race/gender columns that legal had set to HIDE, so they could make better decisions on who would get the axe.
- the_doctah 4y ago
  Kind of like how LinkedIn asked me to identify my demographic in order to promote more "equitable" outcomes
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
It’s a vague platitude and the devil is in the details. For example, you could implement the policy by sending this instruction to your managers: “Please avoid preferentially keeping people on because you have a connection outside work, for example, a family relation or college fraternity membership.” Who knows if this would have any effect, but most would agree the attempt is “anti-racist/anti-oppression”.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
If two employees are otherwise equally performing, the company has to lay off one of them....but one would have significantly greater difficulty finding re-employment, that's something they want to consider in the decision of which employee is laid off. It also probably means they acknowledge that there are extensively proven biases against people of color throughout society, and tried to assure that people were not more likely to be laid off because they were a minority. Just look at the majority of comments here shouting about how this is discriminatory realize how many people in the tech sector look at a black woman interviewing for a programming job and consciously or unconsciously assume she's gotten as far as she has based off diversity quotas or "woke hiring managers" etc...and thus question her credentials more, scrutinize her background more closely, are pickier about her answers to questions and her solutions to coding problems. Edit: "people in tech think a black woman interviewing with them is incompetent because of diversity hire initiatives" != "diversity hire initiatives result in incompetent employees" just like all the kids believing in Santa don't make Santa real. Don't use my words to justify your "reverse discrimination" narratives. Outgroup candidats start from "less likely to get hired"; diversity initiatives help push them toward "fair chance in the hiring process." Edit2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237
- achenatx 4y ago
  thats exactly the problem with quotas and biased hiring. If it exists people will assume any given person was actually less qualified and got in because of the quota.
- mizzack 4y ago
  > If two employees are otherwise equally performing, the company has to lay off one of them....but one would have significantly greater difficulty finding re-employment, that's something they want to consider in the decision of which employee is laid off. This completely ignores that most companies have their own DEI and ESG based hiring initiatives.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    The existence of DEI and ESG hiring initiatives doesn't mean an outgroup candidate won't still face a tougher time finding re-employment. Read through all the outraged comments here (and the other three discussions about this) about "woke" this and "diversity programs are illegal discrimination" that, and tell me with a straight face that because some companies have diversity programs, that minorities in tech have just as much of a fair shot at employment as a white worker.
bombcar 4y ago
It means you hired an anti-racism consultant who charged you probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell you that you're anti-racist. What else would it practically mean?
protomyth 4y ago
What does it mean to layoff through an, "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? Some woke CEO and HR, have come to the belief that they don't have to know anything about the person, their character, value to the company, or history. They can determine worthiness of the employee by a check box in "Race" or what pronouns the worker uses. I suppose its an easy way to express their own guilt without actually hurting themselves. Plus, it makes them a hero at those parties they go to. Clearly if you name two factors, you are going to consider those two factors and actually be Racist and have Oppression of your own. I'm just sick of the assumptions of people. I get the feeling when the lawsuits come, the internal e-mails in discovery will confirm my worst fears about how the CEO operated.

codefreeordie 4y ago

You focus on laying off as many folks from the "Oppressor" class as possible

db48x 4y ago
They are going to be spending a lot of time and money on wrongful-termination lawsuits.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Probably not. Despite the clarity and obviousness of the statutes, courts have been pretty unwilling to consider discrimination claims put forward by white/male plaintiffs.

pinewurst 4y ago

I’m reminded of the Soviet joke about capitalism being man oppressing man, and socialism the other way around. Layoffs are almost always unfair in some way. This just tilts the unfairness in another direction.

torstenvl 4y ago

It means they targeted employees for layoffs based on a protected characteristic, and admitted it in public.

polski-g 4y ago
So now they're going to have to write a settlement check to the Whites/Asians they fired, or re-hire them and fire the non-Whites/Asians. Hilarious.

TheBigSalad 4y ago

Making sure you aren't disproportionately firing people of a certain race for reasons other than performance. For example, maybe a particular dept you don't need is coincidentally in an area with more black people and is disproportionately black. You might let go of people in other departments and transfer some of the minority employees. Or maybe you just fire people randomly. You at least look at your list and make sure it's not disproportionately one race or full of minorities, and if it is, find out why.

polski-g 4y ago
It is unlawful to even consider protected characteristics in any employment decision. You can't look at characteristics for hiring, firing, promoting, not promoting, or even transferring.
- rparet 4y ago
  This is completely untrue. Google “adverse impact hr” for a quick education on this topic.
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    Why do you think this phrase, which describes the outcome, makes the action any less illegal?
- chadash 4y ago
  I am skeptical that a company the size of Twilio wouldn't run this by employment lawyers first. Do you have any sources to cite here?
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    - 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

It means when the HR took the spreadsheet over from the beancounters they UNHID the race/gender columns that legal had set to HIDE, so they could make better decisions on who would get the axe.

the_doctah 4y ago
Kind of like how LinkedIn asked me to identify my demographic in order to promote more "equitable" outcomes

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

It’s a vague platitude and the devil is in the details. For example, you could implement the policy by sending this instruction to your managers: “Please avoid preferentially keeping people on because you have a connection outside work, for example, a family relation or college fraternity membership.” Who knows if this would have any effect, but most would agree the attempt is “anti-racist/anti-oppression”.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

If two employees are otherwise equally performing, the company has to lay off one of them....but one would have significantly greater difficulty finding re-employment, that's something they want to consider in the decision of which employee is laid off. It also probably means they acknowledge that there are extensively proven biases against people of color throughout society, and tried to assure that people were not more likely to be laid off because they were a minority. Just look at the majority of comments here shouting about how this is discriminatory realize how many people in the tech sector look at a black woman interviewing for a programming job and consciously or unconsciously assume she's gotten as far as she has based off diversity quotas or "woke hiring managers" etc...and thus question her credentials more, scrutinize her background more closely, are pickier about her answers to questions and her solutions to coding problems. Edit: "people in tech think a black woman interviewing with them is incompetent because of diversity hire initiatives" != "diversity hire initiatives result in incompetent employees" just like all the kids believing in Santa don't make Santa real. Don't use my words to justify your "reverse discrimination" narratives. Outgroup candidats start from "less likely to get hired"; diversity initiatives help push them toward "fair chance in the hiring process." Edit2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857237

achenatx 4y ago
thats exactly the problem with quotas and biased hiring. If it exists people will assume any given person was actually less qualified and got in because of the quota.
mizzack 4y ago
> If two employees are otherwise equally performing, the company has to lay off one of them....but one would have significantly greater difficulty finding re-employment, that's something they want to consider in the decision of which employee is laid off. This completely ignores that most companies have their own DEI and ESG based hiring initiatives.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  The existence of DEI and ESG hiring initiatives doesn't mean an outgroup candidate won't still face a tougher time finding re-employment. Read through all the outraged comments here (and the other three discussions about this) about "woke" this and "diversity programs are illegal discrimination" that, and tell me with a straight face that because some companies have diversity programs, that minorities in tech have just as much of a fair shot at employment as a white worker.

bombcar 4y ago

It means you hired an anti-racism consultant who charged you probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell you that you're anti-racist. What else would it practically mean?

protomyth 4y ago

What does it mean to layoff through an, "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? Some woke CEO and HR, have come to the belief that they don't have to know anything about the person, their character, value to the company, or history. They can determine worthiness of the employee by a check box in "Race" or what pronouns the worker uses. I suppose its an easy way to express their own guilt without actually hurting themselves. Plus, it makes them a hero at those parties they go to. Clearly if you name two factors, you are going to consider those two factors and actually be Racist and have Oppression of your own. I'm just sick of the assumptions of people. I get the feeling when the lawsuits come, the internal e-mails in discovery will confirm my worst fears about how the CEO operated.