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

651–660 of 717 posts

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

#651

Post by roenxi »

arolihas wrote: post #645
roenxi wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've squeezed a bit into the premise of that question. If, why and how persistently someone was ignored are very relevant questions that we have no facts on. And what the subject of the meeting was. We know that Alysa Butler felt unappreciated. I'm hesitant to believe the NYT is even representing her opinions fairly. If you read what they've written about carefully, the article doesn't have her accusing Coinbase of…

And you’re completely ignoring the fact that they are using these employees who they hired for an actual job as props for diversity brochures. Is that really just a “diversity problem”? To use your employees as token figures? Not every racist act has to be consciously malicious. It at the very least implies it, diversity problem honestly just sounds like a euphemism.

> And you’re completely ignoring the fact that they are using these employees who they hired for an actual job as props for diversity brochures.

Yeah, I am completely ignoring that. "My presence in the workplace was excessively celebrated" isn't a complaint. There is nothing there to respond to.

If you want to argue that could technically be racist behaviour I agree, but typically when people talk about racism they are actually going to serious issues like money, power or personal safety. Photos taken for promotional material is not something that needs a defence - it is a frivolous thing to argue about. Any company might do that.

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

#652

Post by dragonwriter »

LunaSea wrote: post #650
sumedh wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not baby sitting the employees is the only correct option here. No its not. If you ever work in big companies you will know that. > Adults shouldn't have their employer telling them that sexual harassment is a no no. Yes they do, Assuming you are a male, you might be unknowingly harrasing female employees just by having a boys will be boys attitude. So an employer has to give you training and explain you why its wr…

So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint? Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

> So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint?

No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

> Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

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

#653

Post by dragonwriter »

throwawayriver wrote: post #609
sumedh wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you dont get it, its not a projection. Some people dont want to deal with police complaint. If you dont understand that you will never get it.

>No you dont get it, its not a projection. It's IMAX-level projection. >Some people dont want to deal with police complaint. And if they don't want to, it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury. >If you dont understand that you will never get it. If you don't understand that it's not the company's place to play the judicial branch (and may be illegal for them to), then you'll never get it. It is…

> And if they don't want to, it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury.

It's absolutely the companies enforceable legal obligation to effectively prevent (including terminating ongoing) sexual harassment even if there is no crime, crime report, or criminal law enforcement action.

Sexual harassment overlaps with a variety of crimes, but it doesn't require a crime, and the employer is civilly liable for it no matter if the individual causing the problem has committed or been investigated for a crime or not.

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

#654

Post by dragonwriter »

throwawayriver wrote: post #634
sumedh wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury. yes it, why do you support people who abuse, why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible? So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a police complaint?

>yes it, why do you support people who abuse I don't, and neither should the company, which is why they should call the police. >why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible? Company is free to fire criminals if they want, no issues there. Many don't hire criminals to begin with, since your criminal history is public. >So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a pol…

> I don't, and neither should the company, which is why they should call the police.

Sexual harassment generally is not a crime (though it overlaps with some crimes), and even if there is a crime involved the police and public prosecutor are under no obligation to do anything about it.

The employer, however, is under an enforceable legal obligation to do something about harassment.

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

#655

Post by LunaSea »

dragonwriter wrote: post #652
LunaSea wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint? Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

> So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint? No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often. > Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go? “Innocent until proven guilty” is a…

> No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.

> “Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

That's why the company isn't enforcing anything and delegating the task to the competent authorities. In this case the police.

Many people have been victim of wrongful firing and huge damages to their personal life due to rash decisions being taken by companies based on a single complaint from someone.

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

#657

Post by tonfreed »

ejanus wrote: post #503
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…

We are in dynamic world and businesses need to stay away from politics and focus on its core value. Someone leaving has nothing to do with racism. We live in a time where few people and the media are manipulating the rest. Note that I am Black too.

When penguin employees are having a cry about a guy that published a book with all the life advice a good father would give, I'm really not surprised there's people out there shoving their hands out looking for or concessions not granted to anyone else.

It's a uniquely American thing that the academic grifters with nothing better to do are desperately trying to import here as well.

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

#658

Post by CryptoPunk »

jahaja wrote: post #647
CryptoPunk wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely would not agree. There is substantial systemic racism in favor of black Americans.

I'm pretty sure that you are just a troll, but how do you substantiate this outrageous claim?

Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not.

I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.

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

#659

Post by CryptoPunk »

wpietri wrote: post #644
CryptoPunk wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiring preferences based on the cultural or racial association of names is not an indication of "systemic racism against black Americans" or endemic racism. Systemic or endemic implies the racism is part of the systemic structure, i.e. the laws of the country, or its social contract. This study would at most imply high incidence of unconscious racial biases among the population. It could also be explained by employer…

You're conflating endemic and systemic. I clearly said one, not the other. Although you're wrong on both. That also isn't the strongest evidence. It's just one of the easiest to understand. But given that you're going to strain at gnats and swallow camels even with the pretty basic ones, I'll leave finding the rest as an exercise to the reader.

Endemic in this context is synonomous with systemic.

You ignore the evidence showing unarmed black Americans are 25 times less likely to be shot by police than unarmed white Americans in a given interaction with similar circumstances, because it doesn't fit your victimhood narrative.

You've done nothing but lob ad hominem at me for not agreeing with your completely baseless and unscientific quackery/dogma.

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

#660

Post by jahaja »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #658
jahaja wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that you are just a troll, but how do you substantiate this outrageous claim?

Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not. I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.

> Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not.

Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what?

> I substantiate this very easily: affirmative action means preferential treatment for job applicants who are black, and affirmative action is very common.

So on the one hand you deny that it exists towards black Americans, but you find affirmative action to be so significant that it however substantiate systemic racism in favour of black Americans?

Am I correct you assume that you've honed in on the word systemic and will only accept that it solely means whatever is explicitly written down? So that systemic/institutional racism does not include implicit bias?

Post reply on HN