4 ms·

Right wing sites/blogs/forums are saying that this implies white people, probably white straight men, will be more likely to be laid off because it is supposedl

Right wing sites/blogs/forums are saying that this implies white people, probably white straight men, will be more likely to be laid off because it is supposedly harder for minority group members of various types to replace their job than it is a white male. Idk if this is true, but that's how the right is reading this.

OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
That's how I'm reading it. I don't really understand if there is another way of reading it? The action we're talking about is terminating employees to the order of 11% of current employees. The possible changes to that action given a certain frame is basically just choosing who is going to be terminated. What other option is there? I would actually prefer we be frank about this. Racist rightwingers aside, if they think it's better to lay off cishet white males before anyone else and if that is what they're doing, why not just come out and say that? It is either a reprehensible or a laudable act, without anything in between, and if you're doing that, you obviously think the latter. Are they afraid of right wing backlash? I hardly think tiptoeing around it this way is going to stifle that backlash.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- true_religion 4y ago
  What if that's not what they are doing? What if instead anti oppression means they won't target any ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation for layoffs?
  - 6nf 4y ago
    Using ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation for layoffs is already illegal.
    - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
      It seems to be used constantly for hiring, which seems like it should also be illegal but apparently isn't. Saying you want to hire a white guy even sounds illegal. But saying you want to hire a minority is applauded. I can imagine this same rule can slowly slide to allow for firing certain people as long as it protects the current protected class.
  - friendzis 4y ago
    There is no sane way to read this from their wording. First and foremost, discriminatory lay offs (i.e. ones targeting race, ethnicity, etc.) are illegal. So you either perform lay offs "randomly", based on merit (these particular jobs are targeted first) or a mix of the two. If you have to add "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" it means you filter candidate lists based on racist/oppressive criteria. Most probably this means that candidate list will be filtered in a way that end result of lay offs will target certain races, ethnicities, etc. more aggressively to make end result "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression", whatever that means by them. It might mean heavy lean towards white cishet males, might as well mean the opposite. What matters, though, that any way you look at it race/ethnicity/etc. becomes a criteria for lay offs, which is both racist and illegal. But yes, blame it on the "right wing"

OrderlyTiamat 4y ago

That's how I'm reading it. I don't really understand if there is another way of reading it? The action we're talking about is terminating employees to the order of 11% of current employees. The possible changes to that action given a certain frame is basically just choosing who is going to be terminated. What other option is there? I would actually prefer we be frank about this. Racist rightwingers aside, if they think it's better to lay off cishet white males before anyone else and if that is what they're doing, why not just come out and say that? It is either a reprehensible or a laudable act, without anything in between, and if you're doing that, you obviously think the latter. Are they afraid of right wing backlash? I hardly think tiptoeing around it this way is going to stifle that backlash.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
true_religion 4y ago
What if that's not what they are doing? What if instead anti oppression means they won't target any ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation for layoffs?
- 6nf 4y ago
  Using ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation for layoffs is already illegal.
  - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
    It seems to be used constantly for hiring, which seems like it should also be illegal but apparently isn't. Saying you want to hire a white guy even sounds illegal. But saying you want to hire a minority is applauded. I can imagine this same rule can slowly slide to allow for firing certain people as long as it protects the current protected class.
- friendzis 4y ago
  There is no sane way to read this from their wording. First and foremost, discriminatory lay offs (i.e. ones targeting race, ethnicity, etc.) are illegal. So you either perform lay offs "randomly", based on merit (these particular jobs are targeted first) or a mix of the two. If you have to add "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" it means you filter candidate lists based on racist/oppressive criteria. Most probably this means that candidate list will be filtered in a way that end result of lay offs will target certain races, ethnicities, etc. more aggressively to make end result "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression", whatever that means by them. It might mean heavy lean towards white cishet males, might as well mean the opposite. What matters, though, that any way you look at it race/ethnicity/etc. becomes a criteria for lay offs, which is both racist and illegal. But yes, blame it on the "right wing"