Twilio CEO: Layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens
sec.gov
sec.gov
Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837802 - Sept 2022 (436 comments)
A message from Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson: 11% workforce cut - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837345 - Sept 2022 (197 comments)
Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 - Sept 2022 (104 comments)
My last manager told me there was a "side pot" of raise money for diverse employees. Surely all it would take is one lawsuit to torpedo such a policy.
The court of public opinion is a lot better at fighting against things like this than the courts of law - it was really what brought down Jim Crow in the US (the law followed the popular opinion).
Interestingly enough, the Jim Crow laws (as awful as they were) were actually less racist than the outright race-based discrimination being used today, particularly against Asians. Jim Crow Laws were used against poor whites as well, something forgotten by many. Dr. Adolph Reed has made this point for years - https://goodbye.substack.com/p/adolph-reed-jr-jim-crow-racec.... His argument is that this is done to keep people's eyes off the prize in terms of class struggle, in order to make it all about identity.
Once you start implementing hiring quotas you need to be very careful, but right now you can probably get away with it unless someone is willing to take the risk to sue (it would probably destroy their reputation to do such a thing).
Because it's not really about diversity per se:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/opinion/elites-populists-...:
> His argument, in brief: “In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods. Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.” With the lost salience of luxury items, “the upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem: luxury beliefs. These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.”
For standing, the plaintiff has to be someone who can demonstrate that they specifically were specifically harmed by these policies.
Maybe even harder, you have to find someone who is willing to take the heaps of public scrutiny that's going to come with claiming white victim-hood.
That's what discovery is for
Standing is: got laid off
Making a case: discovery would have to show evidence that they were fired for illegal reasons
> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.
What does it mean to layoff through an, "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?
In this case, my point is not that this is legal or illegal. My point is that they probably ran this by their lawyers and at the very least those lawyers probably said "yeah, you have a reasonable case if this goes to court". If the lawyers said "yeah, this is definitely illegal, you are going to get sued, it's an easy case and you are going to lose", then sure, it's possible that Twilio decided to do this anyway, but I don't see that as likely. They probably have at least a legal theory on why this is permissible.
source: http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-...
My guess is someone sues and we'll all find out what exactly constitutes an anti-racist lens.
When you hire a man, it’s not like you don’t know they’re a man. The issue would be if you ONLY hire men (intentionally or not).
What do you do if you only care about performance in decisions, and when you are done you find out you fired more minorities than others?
Hilarious.
Who knows if this would have any effect, but most would agree the attempt is “anti-racist/anti-oppression”.
What else would it practically mean?
It also probably means they acknowledge that there are extensively proven biases against people of color throughout society, and tried to assure that people were not more likely to be laid off because they were a minority.
Just look at the majority of comments here shouting about how this is discriminatory realize how many people in the tech sector look at a black woman interviewing for a programming job and consciously or unconsciously assume she's gotten as far as she has based off diversity quotas or "woke hiring managers" etc...and thus question her credentials more, scrutinize her background more closely, are pickier about her answers to questions and her solutions to coding problems.
Edit: "people in tech think a black woman interviewing with them is incompetent because of diversity hire initiatives" != "diversity hire initiatives result in incompetent employees" just like all the kids believing in Santa don't make Santa real. Don't use my words to justify your "reverse discrimination" narratives. Outgroup candidats start from "less likely to get hired"; diversity initiatives help push them toward "fair chance in the hiring process."
This completely ignores that most companies have their own DEI and ESG based hiring initiatives.
Read through all the outraged comments here (and the other three discussions about this) about "woke" this and "diversity programs are illegal discrimination" that, and tell me with a straight face that because some companies have diversity programs, that minorities in tech have just as much of a fair shot at employment as a white worker.
Some woke CEO and HR, have come to the belief that they don't have to know anything about the person, their character, value to the company, or history. They can determine worthiness of the employee by a check box in "Race" or what pronouns the worker uses. I suppose its an easy way to express their own guilt without actually hurting themselves. Plus, it makes them a hero at those parties they go to.
Clearly if you name two factors, you are going to consider those two factors and actually be Racist and have Oppression of your own.
I'm just sick of the assumptions of people. I get the feeling when the lawsuits come, the internal e-mails in discovery will confirm my worst fears about how the CEO operated.
Layoffs are almost always unfair in some way. This just tilts the unfairness in another direction.
Fixed that for you.. And oh boy would I not want to be one of this companies lawyers in the coming months and no doubt years! Yikes
Why do I think this is underhanded? Because you can do this and also not strut around and flaunt it. If you believe it is morally preferable to lay a white person off rather than another person to counter injustice, you don't help anyone involved by mentioning it. It foments anger and resentment among the laid off employees who are already having one of the worst days of their life, and who gains from broadcasting it? Just Twilio's management.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...
The law makes it illegal for an employer to make any employment decision because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Sincerely, A non white person.