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

61–70 of 514 posts

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#61

Post by nemo44x »

LegitShady wrote: post #53
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…

>If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

> If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

Take it up with your lawyers. I can't believe they admitted it in an official filing. It's like they're begging to be sued.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#62

Post by fullshark »

zwkrt wrote: post #50
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…

Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come of…

We have no idea what it means and you can rationalize it all you like. Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color. Or it’s just cheap talk and means nothing, those are the only two options.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#63

Post by rurp »

white_dragon88 wrote: post #37
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…

I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#64

Post by peter422 »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#65

Post by nemo44x »

John23832 wrote: post #60
LegitShady wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

It is still a question. There could people who are clearly not performing and then are let go that just so happen to not be a part of the "protected group". People are not being let go because of who they are, it's just a part of the calculus. It may not be the significant factor.

> People are not being let go because of who they are

This is a common tactic from progressive in that they flat out deny the reality that everyone else see. They just say "it doesn't happen" when the CEO in a letter that was filed stated they specifically did this.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#66

Post by nemo44x »

rurp wrote: post #63
white_dragon88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.

They were explicitly "anti-racist" which is just racism done differently.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#67

Post by dehrmann »

crackercrews wrote: post #41
dehrmann wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the EEOC could subpoena emails relating to selection.

Perhaps the next administration might. The current one is more likely to offer a pat on the back.

For how much Republicans hate woke politics, I'm surprised Trump didn't have the EEOC look into hiring practices of tech companies. I'm not sure what would come of it (though I suspect there are illegal practices in order to hit diversity targets), but the announcement would have been a political win because Republican's don't trust big tech, don't trust coastal liberals, and don't like that this might be taking place.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#68

Post by peter422 »

fullshark wrote: post #62
zwkrt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come of…

We have no idea what it means and you can rationalize it all you like. Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color. Or it’s just cheap talk and means nothing, those are the only two options.

No post body was provided.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#69

Post by djbebs »

nemo44x wrote: post #61
LegitShady wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are. I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

> If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions. Take it up with your lawyers. I can't believe they admitted it in an official filing. It's like they're begging to be sued.

Racial discrimination is perfectly legal (and sometimes mandated) as long as the group harmed is the right one.

Re: Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

#70

Post by jjulius »

ryandrake wrote: post #48
romeros wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were overhiring. I talked to their recruiter last year. They had pretty aggressive hiring goals. Same story with Zillow, Upstart, Facebook and a bunch of companies. All of their stocks tanked by more than 50% since then.

Why would a business even have a "hiring goal?" Shouldn't you have business goals, and then look at those business goals and determine if hiring will contribute to them? Having an isolated "hiring goal" seems as pointless as having a "printer buying goal".

>Why would a business even have a "hiring goal?" Shouldn't you have business goals, and then look at those business goals and determine if hiring will contribute to them?

Sure! So, you've got your business goal(s), and within those goals you have sub-goals that achieve the main goals. One of your primary goals requires additional headcount, which then necessitates that one of your sub-goals is... wait for it... a hiring goal.

Post reply on HN