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

‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 717 posts

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#261

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ironchef wrote: post #255
bra-ket wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frustration is understandable, but BLM movement discredited any and all accusations of racism, as they've been blatantly lying for months via massive propaganda campaign, making martyrs out of criminals while staging violent protests against non-existent 'police brutality'.

No. The majority of the protests were mostly peaceful. https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... Police brutality is real https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

The police are mostly peaceful too! But being mostly peaceful doesn't excuse the times when they're violent.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#262

Post by bmarquez »

adjkant wrote: post #231
roenxi wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To repeat the grandparent, what else can they do? Many of the "issues" bought up in this article aren't even problematic. It says John Russ left because Armstrong took public stance that he wanted Coinbase to focus on crypto space stuff. Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral. It is desirable that some companies just do what it says on the tin. If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related th…

> Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon. HN has already played out this debate on the original post so I'll save going into it here, but it's disingenuous to say that Russ didn't quit because of race-related policy, whether or not you think the policy is race-related. That said, putting out that "apolitical stance" in the direct wake of Geo…

> The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon.

Did all 60 people leave because of Coinbase's political stance, or did some leave because of the generous severance package of 4-6 months pay that the CEO offered in September?

I know that if I were looking to make a life change, I'd seriously consider that offer even if I liked the politics.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#263

Post by 2-tpg »

tptacek wrote: post #236
2-tpg wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in response to the rule, but to the media cycle that followed publication of the rule. I don't believe that in the editing room they went: "Next item. The Coinbase controversy. Let's do an objective investigation of this and see what we find." But I won't accuse the NYT of bad faith, economic/journalistic incentives are sufficient to explain that angle, fishing for further controversy for a company with an alread…

I don't understand. If Black employees were deliberately encouraged to show up to be photographed, but otherwise ignored and passed over for advancement, it doesn't take much of an editorial slant to show a problem; that behavior is inherently problematic.

That behavior (passing over an employee due to their skin color) is not only problematic, it is against the law.

Did the editorial show that Coinbase is engaging in illegal discrimination practices? No, but they sure implied it.

Would it be problematic to encourage diverse representations to show up for company photos, if you did not ignore them for advancement? On its own, I think that's just common sense, and taking some PR advantage of the costly diversity programs.

A random/unplanned company photo I was in, was circulated online, to falsely claim that my company only hires white people. Felt really bad, especially for my multiracial colleagues present in that photo. Can you even give this movement what they want, without accusations of pandering/fake concern?

> Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.

I refuse to believe that Coinbase based that decision on skin color, and I find it hard to believe anyone else sees that differently. As such, to follow this rule, you would have to overturn your decision -- based on rationale --, because it happens to negatively impact a person with a specific skin color. How is this a decent decision: "Sorry Chad, we can't let you work from home to care for your mother, because we just told some black-skinned support engineers to relocate, and we don't want to specifically require black people to relocate, and allow white people to work from home."? How is that fair? To who? It suddenly becomes justified if Chad was black, or if you allow everyone to work from home?

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#264

Post by tptacek »

cbthrow91 wrote: post #259
tptacek wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article, the white employee was not required to relocate to NYC, but rather was allowed to continue to work from their home in Philadelphia. And, of course, the article has many more complaints than this one!

"Ms. Milosevich said the white employee lived in Philadelphia and was allowed to commute to and work from the company’s New York office" Unless I am missing something seems pretty clear the employee switched from WFH in Philadelphia to commuting to NYC to work at that office.

Even if that's the case, the treatment is still obviously disparate:

* The PHL employee has been given their choice of office to work from.

* The Black employees were required to relocate, not just show up at a particular office on a schedule.

Were the Black employees offered the opportunity to work out of the NYC office?

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#265

Post by 0-_-0 »

ironchef wrote: post #255
bra-ket wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frustration is understandable, but BLM movement discredited any and all accusations of racism, as they've been blatantly lying for months via massive propaganda campaign, making martyrs out of criminals while staging violent protests against non-existent 'police brutality'.

No. The majority of the protests were mostly peaceful. https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... Police brutality is real https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

Police are mostly peaceful

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#266

Post by Sacho »

throwmylifawy wrote: post #214

Reading through the comments as black person is depressing. Many of the comments question whether the accusations are even true or collusive attack because of an unfounded accusation that black people tend to be SJWs (stereotyping). Others blame affirmative-action, bad schools, etc. (classic misdirection). Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion mig…

I apologize in advance because you seem to be emotionally invested in this, but I really do not understand the questions you pose in your comment. What did you actually expect from the discussion? Were there not enough comments against Coinbase? Were there not enough comments outraged about the perceived racist behavior of it? Do you think none of those commenters "imagine the possibility that racism is a problem in America in 2020"?

Let's assume that I am 100% certain of all the accusations. How many types of comments do you expect to see about this? Condemn the company, point out systemic racism doesn't just affect Coinbase but everything, offer condolences and sympathy, support efforts to reduce racism. All of these comments exist in the thread.

What if I don't believe all the accusations are true? There are multitudes of reasons why that could be the case, which reflects in the number of possibilities being commented on. By your own contention, racism is a problem in America, so you would expect at least some of the comments to be racist, or at least controversial. You seem to have focused only on the worst ones, ignoring the discussions that followed them, whether positive or negative. You've ignored all the nuanced positions or straw-manned them. You're dismissive of people's comments or concerns while simultaneously asking people to not be dismissive of your concerns. I really don't get it.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#267

Post by ardit33 »

whakim wrote: post #212
ardit33 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did: 1. They are not mentioning that one reason is that a team had transfered regions/states, and that might be the main cause of attrition on that team, and not the actual treatment. 2. In a previous article, NYT failed to mention at all that Coinbase had provided severance of 6 months (which is very generous). NYT made it seems as these employees were forced out the company and lelft out in the streets a) Omit…

> They are not mentioning that one reason is that a team had transfered regions/states, and that might be the main cause of attrition on that team, and not the actual treatment. They did mention this: "When Coinbase announced it would be opening an office in Portland, Ore., several Black employees in the compliance department who worked remotely were told to move there or reapply for new jobs, four former employees s…

Please, don't dismiss arguments and call them names.

I was referring to a previous article... they omitted the severance package altogether, which was a key detail of the story and all other major outlets did mention it. It is clear that NYT is being scetchy-dishonest/has an axe to grind, or just plain sloppy/incompetent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-...

"Two months earlier, dozens of Coinbase employees had staged a walkout after executives were slow to express solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters and minority employees, several workers said. In his post, Mr. Armstrong said employees who disagreed with his “no politics” stance could leave."

"About 60 Coinbase employees, or 5 percent of the work force, have resigned, the company said. A spokeswoman declined further comment."

They might have not lied on the article, but by omitting details they completely changed the narrative of the story to protect whatever cause they have. This second article, has an air of blackmmail to me.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#268

Post by tptacek »

2-tpg wrote: post #263
tptacek wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. If Black employees were deliberately encouraged to show up to be photographed, but otherwise ignored and passed over for advancement, it doesn't take much of an editorial slant to show a problem; that behavior is inherently problematic.

That behavior (passing over an employee due to their skin color) is not only problematic, it is against the law. Did the editorial show that Coinbase is engaging in illegal discrimination practices? No, but they sure implied it. Would it be problematic to encourage diverse representations to show up for company photos, if you did not ignore them for advancement? On its own, I think that's just common sense, and takin…

The comment I replied to appears to have been substantially edited in the time since I've replied to it.

Sure. You can:

* Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.

* Treat Black employees respectfully in meetings.

* Not allow people who manage Black employees to mock them for being drug dealers and for carrying weapons.

* Not allow recruiting team members to discuss the merits of different races and their likelihood of success as candidates in hiring team meetings.

This all seems pretty basic?

Incidentally: I don't know what the "movement" you're referring to is. I've been in this industry since the 1990s, and these seem like rules that would have been equally germane in 1995.

I'm not trying to zing you with that, but am noticing a persistent subtext on this thread that attempts to equate Black people not wanting to be discriminated against with some larger basket of "far-left politics". Plenty of conservatives have the same objections to racial bias as whatever the "movement" we're talking about here is. Ironically, among Democrats (Black people overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party for historical reasons), Black people trend significantly more conservative.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#269

Post by adjkant »

bmarquez wrote: post #262
adjkant wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon. HN has already played out this debate on the original post so I'll save going into it here, but it's disingenuous to say that Russ didn't quit because of race-related policy, whether or not you think the policy is race-related. That said, putting out that "apolitical stance" in the direct wake of Geo…

> The 60 people who left makes it clear this is not agreed upon. Did all 60 people leave because of Coinbase's political stance, or did some leave because of the generous severance package of 4-6 months pay that the CEO offered in September? I know that if I were looking to make a life change, I'd seriously consider that offer even if I liked the politics.

We can only speculate on the numbers, but it can always be a both/and situation. This culture/environment itself can be part of the reason for wanting that life change.

But forget number speculation, we have concrete proof of this in the article:

> another employee who left in October was John Russ, the head of marketing and the company’s highest ranking Black employee, who had been hired three months earlier.

> In a brief phone interview, Mr. Russ would only say that he disagreed with Mr. Armstrong’s new position and left as a result.

Re: ‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

#270

Post by CyanLite4 »

I’m not a fan of cancel culture, but I’ve seen enough to know that I want to move my Bitcoin trading elsewhere. Their prebuttal seemed odd, and now this article confirms the worst of my suspicions.

I’m not saying they’re racist, but they’re clearly not anti-racist.

Post reply on HN