Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbthrow91 | Hacker News Reader

You are omitting the fact that the one white employee switched to working out of the NYC office. There's no mention of a black employee making the same request and it being denied, just the request to wfh being denied for both white and black employees.

And then you are extrapolating two uncorroborated anecdotes of inappropriate comments as evidence of widespread discrimination.

View on HN

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?

I don't see anything in the article that implies the PHL employee was given a choice of office. For all we know they made the request after CB decided against WFH teams.

If we take the articles claims at face value, what we know is:

* There was an existing compliance department.

* It had several remote team members.

* The company opened a compliance office in PDX.

* The company required Black team members to relocate to PDX or apply for new jobs.

* The company allowed a non-Black team member to remain in PHL and work out of the NYC office.

* Multiple sources claimed that the PHL employee was allowed to continue working remotely.

* The stated reason for demanding the relocation of the Black team members was to have the whole compliance team working from one place, a goal that obviously wasn't served by having someone else working out of PHL and NYC.

Maybe the sources in this article are lying (of course, you can rebut any claim that way), but apart from that, I'm not sure how this complaint is easily knocked down.

It's unclear but I think when it's mentioned PHL employee is able to work remote, they mean they are able to work out of the NYC office which is remote relative to the PDX office. It was not my read that they are working remote from home.

Your wording speculates on how the communication around remote was delivered in an unfavorable light. We know the decision was made to end WFH/remote, and one employee managed to get permission to work from the NYC office. A more realistic (still speculative) scenario imo:

-Company announces end of wfh/remote for a team. Folks are asked to relocate to PDX. -Employee asks for permission to work from NYC. Request is approved.

Group employee relocations are a big deal. You are leaving out the part where the stated rationale for that relo is to have the team all together in one place. Instead, the real rationale appears to have been to have all the Black employees all together in one place (or, just as pausibly, that the relo was in fact a soft RIF of that group of employees).

@tptacek: you are imputing a motivation out of thin air. having fought hard for wfh/remote at companies against it, I can imagine far more benign reasons to be plausible.

No company does a group relocation without expecting to lose several members of the team. They're essentially all RIFs. I've tried to keep my analysis as dispassionate as I can in this part of the thread. I think the facts as asserted in the article speak pretty clearly, and the bulleted list I provided upthread recites those facts pretty much directly and in ways you haven't disputed.

So you admit you just spent several comments lying in the hope your opponent wouldn't go to the bother of pointing out the evidence?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com