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

I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

evhaste.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#111

Post by cbtacy »

AlbertCory wrote: post #63
pcthrowaway wrote: post #2

I noticed this submission had become "dead" due to flagging, and retaliation for whistleblowing seems like exactly the type of thing that a coordinated group would try to bury. I vouched for it. I don't have feelings one way or another on who is being wronged, but I thought the information was well-presented and coherent, and deserves consideration without being flagged. If the other party believes this is inaccurate…

Without taking any position on this post itself or flagging of it: flagging has just become abusive. It needs serious reform, @dang. I can't speak for the original rationale, but it seems like the intent must be to remove posts or comments that are clearly offensive on some semi-legal grounds (obscene, advocating violence, etc.) Now it's become just "I don't like this." There are many possible reforms, but off the to…

Reforming "flagging" to make it less open to abuse and brigading is obviously overdue.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#112

Post by codehitchhiker »

AlbertCory wrote: post #63
pcthrowaway wrote: post #2

I noticed this submission had become "dead" due to flagging, and retaliation for whistleblowing seems like exactly the type of thing that a coordinated group would try to bury. I vouched for it. I don't have feelings one way or another on who is being wronged, but I thought the information was well-presented and coherent, and deserves consideration without being flagged. If the other party believes this is inaccurate…

Without taking any position on this post itself or flagging of it: flagging has just become abusive. It needs serious reform, @dang. I can't speak for the original rationale, but it seems like the intent must be to remove posts or comments that are clearly offensive on some semi-legal grounds (obscene, advocating violence, etc.) Now it's become just "I don't like this." There are many possible reforms, but off the to…

100%

Flagging stuff because "I don't like this" "it's critical of me or my friend or something I like" should be punished

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#113

Post by pretendgeneer »

biomcgary wrote: post #67
yamtaddle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you don’t like your manager, taking the view that if you escalate a formal complaint to HR (in doing so lose all trust you manager and HR may have in you), you’ll be vindicated and live on happily ever after… it’s a fairytale. Go work somewhere that makes you happy. Leave toxic environments - it’s not your job to fix them/right wrongs. Know where it's not a fairytale? Unionized workplaces. Source: I know several…

My first job was at a unionized workplace. I ended up doing more work to cover the guy that was loafing around under the protection of the union. Who protects you from the protectors? Rational or not, since that time, I am suspicious of the personal work ethic of those arguing for unions.

Seems like you were doing more to protect that guy than the union was.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#114

Post by tonymillion »

throw491 wrote: post #96
ajross wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you had an employee who was horrified at their coworkers' eternal damnation and worked tirelessly to save their souls? Seems like that might cause friction as well. Seems like we might have a standard answer for that sort of friction that works for most environments. The bulk of which, frankly, is just "don't be an asshole". But at the margins, we back that up with " at the very least , don't discriminate and…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#116

Post by cogman10 »

throw491 wrote: post #96
ajross wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you had an employee who was horrified at their coworkers' eternal damnation and worked tirelessly to save their souls? Seems like that might cause friction as well. Seems like we might have a standard answer for that sort of friction that works for most environments. The bulk of which, frankly, is just "don't be an asshole". But at the margins, we back that up with " at the very least , don't discriminate and…

[flagged]

> This isn't really a comparable issue that comes up with employees who have particular religious beliefs

Ah yes, because we all know the famous bible verse "Thou shalt misgender transgender individuals because the lord thy god thinks they are icky".

There aren't religious beliefs around transgenderism, only bigotry using religion as a shroud. And, it's an old trick. We seen slave owners use religion to justify slavery. Religion was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. It was used to "keep women in the home". It's been used to fight against gay rights.

You really want us to believe that a deity will punish some christian for referring to someone as "they" when they think they are a "him"?

If you've ever wondered why the young folk are leaving religion, this is it.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#117

Post by dingledork69 »

pc86 wrote: post #106
dingledork69 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please actually respond to the points made given their most charitable interpretation, as the guidelines suggest.

I did. You can mince words, but it's still blaming the victim. Telling people who get bullied in the workplace to just accept it and to get a new job is insane.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#118

Post by pcthrowaway »

lliamander wrote: post #103
pcthrowaway wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's enough reason to be flagged. 90% of the submissions from people sharing their experience with a company/product here would fall under that description as well (and many of those are upvoted because they seem useful) That dude who interned at repl.it a while back and posted about a mildly bad experience was upvoted to the front page for over a day. people had their pitchforks out. I think we shoul…

I agree that this a perfectly on-topic post and worthy of discussion (in part because it was well written). I was just countering the claim/insuation that people were flagging the story because of their own prejudice against trans people (or whatever). > But the silence from Rune, and dialogue suppression tactics by mystery parties honestly just make me more inclined to believe there is at least a grain of truth in t…

They could point out the inaccuracies or misrepresentations. For example, the claim that 20% of the staff were let go, but 100% of the laid off folk were "of historically marginalized groups. Women, people of color, queer folks, and multiple people on disability and even maternity leave"

They could respond with information. Maybe this is a broad enough group and their workforce is unusually diverse, and 90% of their workforce fits that description. If their layoff cohort was remotely representative of their demographics in the first place, this would be fine, but it really doesn't sound like it.

For example, the claim that they laid off people on maternity leave. Did their 20% company-wide layoff comprise 20% of their staff which was on maternity leave (in other words "sure, we laid off 2 people on maternity leave, but another 8 of our employees are actually on maternity leave, and they didn't get laid off").

Or was this overall inaccurate? ("actually our layoff cohort contained groups of people who are underrepresented in tech, but also groups of people who are overrepresented in tech. Protected statuses were not a factor in our layoff decisions").

Perhaps they fucked up and realize they did discriminate based on protected class, and can only dig the hole deeper by responding now.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#119

Post by hammyhavoc »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #44
saulrh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cut and run" doesn't work if you're on a visa, if you've already had to do that once or twice in the last couple years, or if you don't have enough of an emergency fund. It also doesn't work if you're not a tech worker - remember that discrimination affects HR reps and program managers and mechanical engineers and fabrication technicians and research scientists just as much as it affects SWEs.

Yeah, as someone who has been in one of these situations before and was unable to speak out, I am incredibly grateful for those of my coworkers that did speak out. One of the reasons people in power can behave so terribly towards specific groups is because they can't "just leave" like you suggest. You think the bully's going to choose the strongest person as a victim? I try to pay the favor forward by speaking out an…

You're a good person.

Re: I was laid off in retaliation for anti-discrimination whistleblowing

#120

Post by TechBro8615 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #63
pcthrowaway wrote: post #2

I noticed this submission had become "dead" due to flagging, and retaliation for whistleblowing seems like exactly the type of thing that a coordinated group would try to bury. I vouched for it. I don't have feelings one way or another on who is being wronged, but I thought the information was well-presented and coherent, and deserves consideration without being flagged. If the other party believes this is inaccurate…

Without taking any position on this post itself or flagging of it: flagging has just become abusive. It needs serious reform, @dang. I can't speak for the original rationale, but it seems like the intent must be to remove posts or comments that are clearly offensive on some semi-legal grounds (obscene, advocating violence, etc.) Now it's become just "I don't like this." There are many possible reforms, but off the to…

I flagged it because it's exhausting sociopolitical drivel that has nothing to do with tech. If the company discriminated against this person, then prove it in court. Nobody here has sufficient information to make a determination one way or another. And none of us has an obligation to take the author at their word.
Post reply on HN