311–320 of 514 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s true though
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?
That's still racist!! The only way for it not being racist is not having anything to do with race at all!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't affirmative action in hiring legal? Seems like this is just the same thing but for layoffs.
It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "aff…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, an…
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 h…
Their primary language is English, so any difficulty pronouncing LatinX in Spanish doesn't matter as much to them. They're not necessarily looking to solve the gendered nature of Spanish overall, and may not even speak it fluently. Also, similar early English terms for gender-equality/non-binary identities were equally difficult to pronounce (the title Mx., neo-pronouns like xie/zer).
I'm curious how the data would look split by gender/country of origin/LGBTQ+ or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal probably approved the word "lens". And if this ends up in court they will say that "lens" means that we are aware of the impact layoffs have on our society, but does not change who we fire during a layoff, meaning even if we didn't do this through a lens the person suing would have still been let go.
> but does not change who we fire during a layoff what does 'carried out through a lens' mean. Through means it was put through that lens?
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 man…
Doing so is illegal and makes little sense to put it in a public announcement. Might as well state that they don't intend to murder anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much did Twilio grow from 2020-2022? Over 200%: from 2,800 staff to 8,510 ... This means this 11% reduction leaves them at... 292% growth since 2020, while its not amazing news, this is a small reduction given the growth they've had. These layoffs were inevitable IMO, everyone doubled their team (or more!) and then asked where the money was going to come from.
How the **CK are these companies training and onboarding and managing all these new hires in such short a time frames?
Companies that do this are waving a big red parachute in your face.
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 man…
FWIW I would be interested to know what the CEO actually meant by that. My assumption is it's more lip service than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "aff…
I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co...
Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action".
If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant.
Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.