BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Looking at profitability of high-growth companies without regard to the operating environment, as BG seems to be doing, is not a particularly useful lens for evaluation of long-term prospects, particularly with software companies like Twilio.

I'm not providing any investment advice and don't recommend anyone invest in individual securities, it's risky and most people underperform the market when they pick individual stocks but I did want to respond to BG's comments because while historical profitability is informative, it's not the primary tool that markets use to evaluate companies like Twilio.

---

Bingo.

---

It is pretty funny - and completely typical - that both Unit2 and Diablo avoid the substantive argument about the CEO's statements (and not answer my direct questions) and instead want to turn this into a discussion of stock valuation.

The stock is down 80% - that's a fact. Its clear that the CEO is trying to distract from that and likely get ahead of some bad financials with woke nonsense that is potentially illegal.

Maybe its a great investment at that price - go for it.

Here, again, were the questions:

So, as a practical matter, what does it mean to be "focused on ensuring our layoffs . . . were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?

Is that just virtue signaling (i.e., purporting to acknowledge racism/oppression) or did they actually make employment and layoff decisions taking into account race/ethnicity/etc? If it is the later, that seems legally problematic.

You like the fact they are "addressing this" - what exactly are they doing that you like so much?

---

I've already answered this question in some detail above - before you chimed in with your deplorable signaling. Based on the two lines in the public CEO letter it's impossible for me to speculate much more than I already have. Twilio has real lawyers (I know a few of them) and I would imagine they are being quite well advised by outside counsel. The fact that you consider it "legally problematic" isn't a needle-mover for anyone.

I do love that you indignantly demand responses to your question here when you refuse to address prior comments you made in the Trump MAL thread more than a month ago (see here). Shades of BG disappearing after his early pandemic speculation proved laughable. I'm sure you are just waiting for some foot fault on the part of the government so you can white knight for Trump again, although you will tell us you are no fan of his.

Would be remiss if I didn't add that the easiest way to trigger a conservative in 2022 is to attempt not to be racist.

---

Actually - you didn't answer the question. You claim to "like that he's addressing this" but can't point to a single thing he did other than offer a vapid statement. So either you love the empty virtue signaling in and of itself or you think something tangible happened. Which is it?

And on the legal issue, we both know it is very problematic for any employer to make hiring/firing decisions based on race and to then announce that. Imagine if an employer announced they were favoring white or Asian employees? So you dodged addressing that as well.

---

Depending on how you interpret the bolded language, every competently advised company does this, and if they don't they can't reasonably ensure that you aren't violating numerous employment laws.

Any attorney with knowledge about how corporations handle large layoffs is aware of this, so maybe you should self-educate before making a ridiculous claim. Here's a simple EEOC page discussing it, but there are plenty of other places you can look to confirm that everything I'm saying is grounded in best practices.

We can go around in circles here but the bottom line is that you are out of your depth if you think adverse impact analysis is problematic.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Looking at profitability of high-growth companies without regard to the operating environment, as BG seems to be doing, is not a particularly useful lens for evaluation of long-term prospects, particularly with software companies like Twilio.

I'm not providing any investment advice and don't recommend anyone invest in individual securities, it's risky and most people underperform the market when they pick individual stocks but I did want to respond to BG's comments because while historical profitability is informative, it's not the primary tool that markets use to evaluate companies like Twilio.

---

Bingo.

---

It is pretty funny - and completely typical - that both Unit2 and Diablo avoid the substantive argument about the CEO's statements (and not answer my direct questions) and instead want to turn this into a discussion of stock valuation.

The stock is down 80% - that's a fact. Its clear that the CEO is trying to distract from that and likely get ahead of some bad financials with woke nonsense that is potentially illegal.

Maybe its a great investment at that price - go for it.

Here, again, were the questions:

So, as a practical matter, what does it mean to be "focused on ensuring our layoffs . . . were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?

Is that just virtue signaling (i.e., purporting to acknowledge racism/oppression) or did they actually make employment and layoff decisions taking into account race/ethnicity/etc? If it is the later, that seems legally problematic.

You like the fact they are "addressing this" - what exactly are they doing that you like so much?

---

I've already answered this question in some detail above - before you chimed in with your deplorable signaling. Based on the two lines in the public CEO letter it's impossible for me to speculate much more than I already have. Twilio has real lawyers (I know a few of them) and I would imagine they are being quite well advised by outside counsel. The fact that you consider it "legally problematic" isn't a needle-mover for anyone.

I do love that you indignantly demand responses to your question here when you refuse to address prior comments you made in the Trump MAL thread more than a month ago (see here). Shades of BG disappearing after his early pandemic speculation proved laughable. I'm sure you are just waiting for some foot fault on the part of the government so you can white knight for Trump again, although you will tell us you are no fan of his.

Would be remiss if I didn't add that the easiest way to trigger a conservative in 2022 is to attempt not to be racist.

---

Actually - you didn't answer the question. You claim to "like that he's addressing this" but can't point to a single thing he did other than offer a vapid statement. So either you love the empty virtue signaling in and of itself or you think something tangible happened. Which is it?

And on the legal issue, we both know it is very problematic for any employer to make hiring/firing decisions based on race and to then announce that. Imagine if an employer announced they were favoring white or Asian employees? So you dodged addressing that as well.

---

Depending on how you interpret the bolded language, every competently advised company does this, and if they don't they can't reasonably ensure that you aren't violating numerous employment laws.

Any attorney with knowledge about how corporations handle large layoffs is aware of this, so maybe you should self-educate before making a ridiculous claim. Here's a simple EEOC page discussing it, but there are plenty of other places you can look to confirm that everything I'm saying is grounded in best practices.

We can go around in circles here but the bottom line is that you are out of your depth if you think adverse impact analysis is problematic.

---

You're out of your mind (and depth) if you think this is a clear cut area of the law. And, as usual, you have misrepresented what I said and moved the goal posts. I didn't say "adverse impact analysis" was problematic. I did say that making decisions based on race, etc., is potentially problematic. And that is accurate.

Here's an article discussing this actual situation

"Attorneys say that companies are walking a fine line in making layoffs just as in hiring. Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act which "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin." So whether Twilio's actions are legal is a matter of debate."

"If the company is making layoff decisions based on race or any other protected characteristic that's not legal in the U.S.," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. She did note that it is not exactly clear what Lawson meant in the statement regarding the company using an anti-racist lens."

https://wraltechwire.com/2022/09/20/anti-racist-anti-oppression-lens-used-for-layoffs-at-tech-firm-but-is-that-legal/

Here's an article - by a well respected law professor further discussing race based layoffs. It discusses the actual SUPREME COURT precedent (Wygant case from 1986) which specifically held that race based layoffs were unlawful and related cases. One of us is "out of the depth here" - and it is not me.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/15/race-based-layoff-scheme-at-minneapolis-schools/

Wygant Case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/267

And I note that the above cases involved collective bargaining where unions agreed to the discrimination that was ultimately found unlawful -- the employer and employees agreed to discriminate and it was still unlawful. A non-unionized private company has no such collective bargaining agreement argument to hide behind.

So, to my original point/question (which you still have not answered), what did the company actually do that you think was so great? If all they did was an "adverse impact analysis" (which seems to be your latest deflection) then the announcement of a normal HR process was just woke virtue signaling that you apparently respond to approvingly like a seal. It is meaningless.

If, on the other hand, they actually made specific firing/layoff decisions based on race (as the statement implies but does not say), they have some real legal risks. Which was my actual claim. And the line between these two things is not entirely clear - other than to you apparently (because everything is so very clear and obvious to you). That is precisely why the woke statement was legally stupid - it is inviting a lawsuit even if all the company did was an "adverse impact analysis".

More on that last point here: https://www.piratewires.com/p/are-race-based-firings-legal-twilios

More nonsense from BG. You have no reason to believe that Twilio is firing people based on race or violating any law. You posted a bunch of articles from people who also don't know and are saying that it's possible that Twilio could be breaking the law if they did so.

You are doing your normal conservative performative opposition to anything that that offends white peoples' sensitivities. Lawson basically said they are going to pay extra attention to make sure they aren't adversely impacted marginalized communities. That's a good thing but you have to twist it into something else to attack it. I'm surprised you haven't woven Hunter Biden into the conversation.

Anytime I see the phrase "woke virtue signaling" thrown into a post, I know I'm reading far right wing virtue signaling and seeing Liberal Derangement Syndrome in action.