Related Posts
Rising Star
More Posts
29 M - Any one in Montreal for a relationship?
Additional Posts in Consulting
Where are my monies!?
Rising Star
Chief
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Chief
The stated logic seems dumb. If your rationale is that layoffs can have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, you should also disproportionately focus layoffs on:
- People with a trust fund
- People with wealthy spouse and/or family
- People that have specialized skill sets that would fare best on the market
- People living with their parents
- People who are younger / not close to retirement
- Other tongue-in-cheek reasons based on bad logic. Need more information on how this "lens" was applied...
- A POC
White privilege is so glaring that y’all read “we will not disproportionally lay-off minorities” as “we are going for white folks! No more white people allowed!”
Admitting that it could have happened in the last is a great first step. There's a number of reasons this could have organically happened, and they're addressing those potential biases in future rounds.
For example, minority employees given equal performance could have scored lower on reviews, have less in common, come from different schools, etc, which could make them less protected come layoffs.
Chief
Intentionally targeting a demographic to fire over others seems racist in itself
Chief
Am I? I'm aware of one assumption I've made, that I've clearly called out, and nobody has brought forward data to disprove.
Waiting for the McKinsey DEI user to post the most out of pocket comment ever seen….
Chief
I would rush into workday and change my profile settings for identity
KPMG 2: it is actually a controversial legal question. Similar to what the supreme court will debate about soon concerning Harvard.
Rising Star
Laying off more people from a certain race and calling it ‘anti-racist layoffs’?? SMH
I would agree it’s important to put a badly worded headline in context. It sounds like the layoffs are a business necessity. A private company can layoff whoever they want ( particularly in at will states). If what he is saying, is that layoff data shows, as fair as companies try to be, marginalized communities are always or often more impacted, and they will affirmatively be mindful of those trends, that is not racist. I read it as unconscious bias often enters these decision, and they want to avoid it.
Pro
So is the CEO resigning? He’s not from a marginalized community.
Rising Star
Midwesterners trying to fit into Silicon Valley
Chief
When the Babylon Bee comes to true life!
You can't even read the article
Chief
The answer is in the headline that you failed to read…
For the lazy, here’s the quote:
"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," the email read.
(It doesn’t really define what they mean by “Anti-Racist”)
They mean they’re not firing the pronoun obsessed white folks over actual minorities
Underrated comment, D6
Pronoun obsessed white folks are the worst of all. They are so disgustingly concerned with identity politics and virtue signaling.
Any employment decision using the immutable characteristic on one’s skin color as a criteria is definitionally racist. But we are in a time of good and bad racism, it seems.
We honestly need a better term/word than “anti-racist”. The media really over plays the term and people don’t take it serious.
I wonder if you need an entire new term. I see racism as an act of harm that has negatively affected many people for generations. For example, if you get shot, you don’t need an anti-shot or anti-bullet. You’ll need a hospital and a doctor.
Not surprised that most of the privileged folks in here have this opinion. Do better, fam.
Says the guy that works for Deloitte? You aren’t? Lol please
I think that’s probably illegal if race was a determining factor for employment
At face value it could mean that if there are 100 white folks working at your company + 10 marginalized communities, then a 10% layoff would result in about 9-10 white people and 1 MC fella laid off.
Chief
Sure, if you want to draw up a scenario entirely favorable to your fears of being treated inequitably, meanwhile failing to realize that black people and other marginalized communities have been treated unfairly for centuries. Seriously, google “last hired first fired.”
Well, that’s just communication to say we will be racist but we are going to surf on a trend and make money.
I would love if a few hackers spoiling the beans with a before/after total employment cost mass evolution. And with margin and ROE evolution too.
This feels like clickbait
In the end it will only hurt the business if you lay off based on a factor that has no statistical significance with higher revenue and / or profits.
Rising Star
How do you feel about reading the article?