Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 514 posts

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#161

Post by Blackthorn »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #102
Blackthorn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.

> better, more fair Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.

> it's not better, it's not fair

It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#162

Post by crackercrews »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #107
crackercrews wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?

They apparently laid off white people at a higher rate than they would have. Otherwise the statement about using an anti-racist lens would be incredibly misleading.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#163

Post by pc86 »

mod wrote: post #144
pc86 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just so weird, though. If you honestly have that opinion, that means one of two things is true. 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directi…

> 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs. Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief? I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashi…

So of the 29,800,000 other businesses "without a CEO," how many of them still have one person making the majority of the decisions? I'd venture to say 80-90% of them. And how many of the largest, most economically successful companies have no CEO? Zero.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#164

Post by hudsonjr »

Blackthorn wrote: post #47
anonym29 wrote: post #18

Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious ( https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73... ) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted". I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with la…

Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.

This does fit with layoffs I've went through. Decide who to lay off first, and then the framing is done later.

My guess is the sex/race/etc metrics of the layoff "looked OK" by coincidence, and someone wrongly thought it was a good idea to call out

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#166

Post by skyyler »

csa wrote: post #146
howinteresting wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You refer to the original/early version of CRT. In the 90s and beyond, CRT has expanded substantially in scope. It has also changed focus in terms of how it is utilized.

Could you recommend some texts responsible for the change in scope?

My understanding of CRT is that race is entirely a social construction, and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction and not anything with real biological basis.

When did that change?

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#167

Post by csa »

trention wrote: post #108
peter422 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people being laid off likely grew up in America 25-40 years ago. Modern policies are not relevant to the people I'm talking about (though obviously still a very interesting and important discussion).

Affirmative action in college admissions and hiring has been a thing at least since the early 90s.

> Affirmative action in college admissions and hiring has been a thing at least since the early 90s.

1969 iirc for college admissions and federal government contracts (and maybe federal government hiring).

Interestingly, the 90s are when some states, like California in 1996 (prop 209), banned affirmative action in admissions.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#168

Post by Ensorceled »

This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments:

> 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.

Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

But so many comments are making the leap to they are targeting white people for layoffs and claiming this layoff is racist against white people.

For example this comment:

> People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.

and this:

> I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

You can find more.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#169

Post by grapehut »

John23832 wrote: post #34

(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…

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.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#170

Post by solveit »

mod wrote: post #144
pc86 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just so weird, though. If you honestly have that opinion, that means one of two things is true. 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directi…

> 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs. Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief? I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashi…

> Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief?

It's quite difficult to imagine one that works for most large companies, at the very least. Name a couple if it's so easy.

Post reply on HN