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

411–420 of 514 posts

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#411

Post by [deleted] »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #290
ransom1538 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." How do they know who is what race though? If I am 50% latino / 50% asian what does that mean? Do you get to pick? Or do they test my skin color? Do they have forms to fill out what race you are? Do they do genetic testing? Depressing racism i…

Latino gives +1 point while Asian in tech gives -0.90 not quite the -1 for white but pretty close. Good news is you come out net positive.

[deleted]

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#412

Post by taeric »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #175
taeric wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Why would they hit minorities harder? What does race have to do with that?

In large, because minorities are likely under represented in management. And it is well established that, if there are not minorities in the selecting process, than you can expect them to be selected more for stuff like this. Even if, objectively, they are no worse than the majority.

So, again, the wording is poor. And if they are just choosing who to let go based on race, that is bad. However, it makes sense to take an active oversight to make sure you don't have white managers, for example, just letting go all of their black reports. (And the reverse is also true. Though, again, likely not as prevalent. Not because minority people can't have prejudices; but because they are likely underrepresented in the roles. )

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#413

Post by Spivak »

NeverFade wrote: post #408
Spivak wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy. You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re curr…

> Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action Change the framing from "a victim was robbed of $1,000" to "a poor person gained $1,000" and the clear crime of armed robbery becomes a positive event! Fortunately, playing these types of games with language doesn't change the facts, or else there would be no justice; you can always "chan…

Your example doesn’t work because you’re just pointing out some positive aspect, it doesn’t make it not robbery. In my case the difference between firing a white person and retaining a black person changes the nature of the act as it’s viewed by the law. What is in the mind of the person carrying out an act that affects different races disproportionately matters. And if we’re we following precedent this would probably be allowed as another narrow case.

So I don’t disagree with your overall point but I also don’t think anyone is going to win a lawsuit over this without a huge case that makes it to scotus because the practice of diversity hires is common and currently tolerated. And “we looked at all our employees and chose who to retain” is isomorphic to regular affirmative action.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#414

Post by jballer »

lr1970 wrote: post #209
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…

But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?

They're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#415

Post by NeverFade »

Spivak wrote: post #413
NeverFade wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action Change the framing from "a victim was robbed of $1,000" to "a poor person gained $1,000" and the clear crime of armed robbery becomes a positive event! Fortunately, playing these types of games with language doesn't change the facts, or else there would be no justice; you can always "chan…

Your example doesn’t work because you’re just pointing out some positive aspect, it doesn’t make it not robbery. In my case the difference between firing a white person and retaining a black person changes the nature of the act as it’s viewed by the law. What is in the mind of the person carrying out an act that affects different races disproportionately matters. And if we’re we following precedent this would probabl…

> I don’t disagree with your overall point but I also don’t think anyone is going to win a lawsuit over this without a huge case that makes it to scotus because the practice of diversity hires is common and currently tolerated.

According to this pessimistic viewpoint, there was no point in the civil rights movement of the 1960s that led the to revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Black people would look around, and realize that discrimination against them is "common and currently tolerated", especially in the South, and just throw their hands in despair and live with it.

Fortunately, they didn't. And if even a single Twilio employee was fired for his race, I hope he doesn't, either. Not just for his sake, but for our sake as a society.

I don't want to live in a society where people are judged and treated according to the color of their skin.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#416

Post by koheripbal »

faxmeyourcode wrote: post #49
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…

> 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. Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked. The civil rights act of 1964…

Most state civil rights laws that list protected classes, specifically only minorities are protected - not white people.

That's how it is in NY state.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#417

Post by LegitShady »

peter422 wrote: post #389
LegitShady wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

serious question - instead of debating the issue, why do you quiz them on their personal knowledge of history? If you'd like to make a point, make it. but demanding they justify their knowledge of history isn't a point in your favor, it rather appears you're incapable of providing a logical argument so will ad hominem their knowledge of history instead. Who are you to quiz random people on the internet on historical…

Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context. If somebody is not aware of the relevant context as it relates to the US (they specifically said they were not from the US) then of course it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies. Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely t…

>Race is a social construct that only has any relevance in it's historical context

race plays a role in college admissions, and now in this layoff, and maybe hiring at the same company. so clearly it has relevance today in its current context.

>it would be very difficult to understand the point of the policies.

which policies? making hiring and firing decisions based on race is illegal in the USA.

>Most people are willfully ignorant and like to "play dumb" while making bad faith arguments about issues like this. I was merely trying to inquire if the OC was ignorant and willing to learn or willfully ignorant.

You didn't make any arguments at all, you just started quizzing them on their knowledge.

Again, it just seems like you're trying to legitimize systemic institutional racism on the basis of 'historical context' of a 'social construct'.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#418

Post by therealdrag0 »

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #110

>Twilio had 7,867 employees as of Dec. 31, 2021. Every single layoff story stupefies me. Confuses. Flabbergasts. What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks? My employer has more people but we build nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Our revenue per employee is nearly double Twilio's and is low for a "tech" firm due to the extremely high capital costs a…

Maybe I should be able to guess but mind providing your employer, curious who makes reactors and space craft?

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#419

Post by happyopossum »

trention wrote: post #135

So, a company explicitly states that when push comes to shove, if you are white, you move to the front of the firing queue. Remind me again, why would a white person (especially man) not put them on the back of the queue when deciding where to apply for a job? Despite not living in the states (and in a country where this sh*t is illegal), I think I will make it my policy to never work for a (parent) company that has…

Strangely enough, it’s pretty darned illegal here too. I expect well see multiple lawsuits and some corporate backtracking on this.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#420

Post by prottog »

Kye wrote: post #373
ClassyJacket wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I don't consider myself to have moved politically right at all, but progressives are moving drastically left. Stuff like this, and the modern gender politics that is resulting in the erasure of women and lesbians in particular, has resulted in me no longer referring to myself as a leftist.

No one is erasing lesbians or women.

There's a whole ideological movement in vogue that has a really hard time defining what a woman even is.
Post reply on HN