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

501–510 of 514 posts

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#501

Post by crackercrews »

Spivak wrote: post #495
polski-g wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative action in the private sector is 100% illegal.

No it isn’t, in fact private companies are encouraged (and in some cases required) to have an affirmative action policy in place. The thing you think affirmative action means “hiring less qualified employees because of their race” is illegal. You can’t base your hiring decision on someone’s protected characteristics but you are totally free to base other things on that. Here are some anti-* takes that are totally leg…

> You get the feeling that this was likely due to his race and so you don’t hold it against him.

What would cause someone to get this feeling? Does a candidate just have to indicate that he wanted bigger projects but didn't get them? Seems like the exact same thing that would happen to someone who was not ready for bigger projects.

Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent who worked at a company with mostly left leaning employees?

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#502

Post by dilap »

noelsusman wrote: post #476
dilap wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the statement is ambiguous. However, it does seem to be hinting at something . What do you think "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means? Like, what concrete actions do you think they took to justify that statement? Do you think it's purely window-dressing? That they did absolutely nothing different, and just included the statement? I don't know if it's an authoritative so…

> I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company. I would bet that your average "blind" layoff is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company. If they did anything at all here it was probably taking some sort of active role in preventing that outcome.

Well, I'd take that bet. Perhaps one of the laid-off employees will sue and we'll get to find out.

(Meta/off-topic: Someone flagged your comment, so I vouched for it. Viewpoint moderation is dumb and inhibits good conversation.)

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#503

Post by Spivak »

crackercrews wrote: post #501
Spivak wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t, in fact private companies are encouraged (and in some cases required) to have an affirmative action policy in place. The thing you think affirmative action means “hiring less qualified employees because of their race” is illegal. You can’t base your hiring decision on someone’s protected characteristics but you are totally free to base other things on that. Here are some anti-* takes that are totally leg…

> You get the feeling that this was likely due to his race and so you don’t hold it against him. What would cause someone to get this feeling? Does a candidate just have to indicate that he wanted bigger projects but didn't get them? Seems like the exact same thing that would happen to someone who was not ready for bigger projects. Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent who worked at a co…

> Would you do the same thing for a dev with a strong southern accent...

Abso-fucking-lutely. In fact I've actually done something similar, when you work in the somewhat affluent urban blue specs on the political map you will find genuinely talented engineers, usually self-taught too, who grew up in a small town/village and just don't have the usual pedigree of a CS degree from a random college and tech internships. I felt so bad for this one guy we hired, dude was and still is a fucking wizard at networking -- he literally runs his own ISP now as a side hustle but in the interview he didn't even have to say it, it was clear from how defensive he was saying stuff like "I know you would be taking a chance on me", "I would be fine with a probationary period" that he was getting rejected other places. So we had to interview him differently to set him up to show off what he was good at because random whiteboard algo problems wasn't it.

So it's not exactly textbook discrimination, but it is recognizing the systematic disadvantages this guy had as a result of who he is.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#504

Post by foofoo4u »

ransom1538 wrote: post #244
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…

"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…

Soon after George Floyd, my manager came under immense pressure from HR to inquire me about my race. I declined to comment. So they decided to mark me as a minority based on my ethnic name. It still bothers me to this day that my race is so outright asked in the office to used to determine my employability, recognition, bonuses, and promotion. It was a turning point in my career. I thought to myself, "wow, here we are. I didn't think we'd get here, but I now work for a racist company and society at large."

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#505

Post by foofoo4u »

bombcar wrote: post #217
rglover wrote: post #91

> "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism . I wouldn't work for these people in a million years, but I really do wonder how I'd fit into their shallow models (I'm mixed race b/w).

That’s the creepiest thing to me - employers tracking your race seems … strange. And if they’re not tracking it it’s even worse because that means they’re deciding your race for you!

True. My race is listed on Workday. And that was determined by HR after I declined to declare what I am. They just decided to look at me, my name, and choose what they thought most suiting.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#506

Post by foofoo4u »

Ensorceled wrote: post #168

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…

There is good reason to believe that white people will be the primary targets of this layoff. I work for an employer in the Bay Area and the messaging echos many others in the region. We have been subjected to lectures and presentations for the past two years telling us that white people are a problem in society. That white people are privileged, are biased, and are oppressors. Management openly suggests to us through broadcasts that we should read the books, "How to be an anti-racist" and "White fragility". Leaders in the organization have these quasi-struggle sessions where they publicly confess their white privilege via broadcast. Management also openly states that race will be a factor in bonuses and promotions to help uplift minorities. They proudly state in their marketing that they will increase hiring of colored people and give charitable donations to black organizations.

Given this pattern of messaging, how else can someone conclude that white people are not the primary targets of a layoff of a San Francisco based company? Especially when the statement contains, "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens".

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#507

Post by foofoo4u »

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…

Is there a list of employers that I can reference that reject DIE (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)? That way I know who to interview with.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#508

Post by codefreeordie »

vondur wrote: post #223
lr1970 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Unfortunately, mostly not. Courts have so far been extremely unwilling to consider cases of that sort.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#510

Post by John23832 »

dekhn wrote: post #486
John23832 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, I don't know why you're trying to paint me as something when I'm the OP of the thread that has taken umbrage with the layoffs. First, go outside and breathe. Second, the statement clearly says that it is a part of the calculus. Nobody is fired because they are white or black or whatever. The statement is just that it is taken into consideration (which is something that I have issue with). Please (and I mean thi…

I cannot think of another reasonable interpretation of what the CEO said than "we considered race/class/some other attribute as part of a person's performance and suitability for continued employment at the company". If two people were otherwise equal int heir performance, but one was black, and the other white, I woudl expect that to be the determining feature. I don't have any insight into what they are actually do…

That's the point... You don't know that they were otherwise equal.
Post reply on HN