4 ms·

> > our layoffs [...] were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens > the Chief Executive of a publicly-traded company seems to have admitted [.

by libria 4y ago

> > our layoffs [...] were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens > the Chief Executive of a publicly-traded company seems to have admitted [...] that he conducted race-based layoffs The opposite. Lawson is trying to say he conducted a completely fair race-neutral layoff. Part of this process included remaining cognizant of any biases against particular races in order keep it neutral. Whether that's what took place is up to debate, but he certainly didn't claim it was a race-based layoff and saying so without any numbers or even internal anecdotes is dishonest journalism. I mean, he could omitted the virtue-signalling and everyone would assume it's just your typical recession-layoff that's been trending.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Let's look at the full quote: > 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. This doesn't seem to suggest a concern about biases in the layoff process, it strongly seems like he's arguing that "marginalized communities" depend more on these jobs than "unmarginalized communities". Indeed, if he was talking about biases in the layoff process, why would he say "marginalized communities"? I don't even know what that means in that context. Biases in the layoff process affect the individuals laid off. Of course, it also affects those individuals' broader communities, but factoring those communities into the calculus is the definition of biasing the decision (putting aside the implicit assumption that individuals are necessarily members of race-based communities).
throwoutway 4y ago
There’s two ends of the spectrum. Everyone thinks this is illegal and takes the pessimistic view, while you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum. Calling the majority of commenters/journalists dishonest when you take an equally strident one-sided view is dissonant at best
- libria 4y ago
  > Everyone thinks this is illegal I agree that declaring and executing race targeted layoffs should be illegal. > you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum No. I think he's honestly trying to say "One particular kind of biased layoff hurts one group more than another kind of bias so I'm trying hard to make sure there's no bias", albeit poorly. I'm definitely pessimistic that he can achieve this even if his intent is to be completely impartial. There's also a chance he has no intention of being fair which I agree with you should be illegal, but I don't see evidence of that yet and just assuming malice is presumptuous. Like can the journalist at least dig up 5 X-race guys who got fired and 1 Y-race guy who didn't and then say "see?" Nah he just went straight from Press Release -> Pitchfork mob without any legwork.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Individual managers/HR persons do not work like this, because it is not possible. At the end of the day it necessarily comes down to some human deciding that we have too much of x race and thus firing someone for their race.

by libria 4y ago

throwaway894345 4y ago

Let's look at the full quote: > 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. This doesn't seem to suggest a concern about biases in the layoff process, it strongly seems like he's arguing that "marginalized communities" depend more on these jobs than "unmarginalized communities". Indeed, if he was talking about biases in the layoff process, why would he say "marginalized communities"? I don't even know what that means in that context. Biases in the layoff process affect the individuals laid off. Of course, it also affects those individuals' broader communities, but factoring those communities into the calculus is the definition of biasing the decision (putting aside the implicit assumption that individuals are necessarily members of race-based communities).

throwoutway 4y ago

There’s two ends of the spectrum. Everyone thinks this is illegal and takes the pessimistic view, while you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum. Calling the majority of commenters/journalists dishonest when you take an equally strident one-sided view is dissonant at best

libria 4y ago
> Everyone thinks this is illegal I agree that declaring and executing race targeted layoffs should be illegal. > you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum No. I think he's honestly trying to say "One particular kind of biased layoff hurts one group more than another kind of bias so I'm trying hard to make sure there's no bias", albeit poorly. I'm definitely pessimistic that he can achieve this even if his intent is to be completely impartial. There's also a chance he has no intention of being fair which I agree with you should be illegal, but I don't see evidence of that yet and just assuming malice is presumptuous. Like can the journalist at least dig up 5 X-race guys who got fired and 1 Y-race guy who didn't and then say "see?" Nah he just went straight from Press Release -> Pitchfork mob without any legwork.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Individual managers/HR persons do not work like this, because it is not possible. At the end of the day it necessarily comes down to some human deciding that we have too much of x race and thus firing someone for their race.