Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

Post by RSieger1 » Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 12:41 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #395

Ensorceled wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more charitably, "We avoided laying off racial/oppressed minorities for racist/bigoted reasons"

Why not say "we ensured our layoffs were not affected by racist or gendered bias."? Why exclude non-minorities from the policy of non-discrimination? Imagine a company writes, "We avoided laying off Latino men for racist or bigoted reasons." But not Latino women? But not African Americans? What is the message behind limiting this assurance of non-discrimination to a particular group? I agree that people interpreting…

Post by RSieger1 » Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 12:53 PM UTC

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…

Post by RSieger1 » Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 12:56 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #381

vondur wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure if you are white and laid off, you will have a pretty strong case for a lawsuit. I can't believe someone in legal wouldn't warn the leadership that putting out a press release stating this was a good idea.

This is San Francisco. When I worked there (2015-2020), most of my co-workers openly endorsed hiring bias against demographics that aren't considered "diverse". I'd be highly skeptical that a jury would side with a plaintiff alleging anti-white discrimination, no matter how solid the proof. If a community widely thinks activity that is de jure illegal should be allowed then it becomes de facto permitted because even…

Post by RSieger1 » Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #448

prottog wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I always enjoyed that attempt at a definition that led to people pointing out it made women out of chairs and horses. Some of them do manage to be ideologically consistent and exclude vast swathes of cis women from womanhood just to get at trans women, but most just fall back on "but science!" even as actual scientists point out science doesn't support anti-trans ideology.

Post by RSieger1 » Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

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?