The NYT didn't title their piece 'Coinbase is racist'. It's reporting on 'lots of Coinbase's black employees feel the company handles race and diversity issues poorly'. The reporting looks into that and, well, reports on why the employees think that.
The 'other side' of this is a Coinbase blogpost that says 'we hired a consultant who told us we don't have such problems'. You are certainly free to decide which of these is better supported.
The article was written as if the hook/angle for the article was created after the No-Politics-Policy, then filled in by contacting former and current employees. I don't think a report with "Coinbase gets lots of unfair flak, but tries really hard to be inclusive" article would be published, or even could have been written with the selection of sources.
That's like scientists finding a negative result, and not getting it published. Skilled scientists don't let that happen often.
Not in response to the rule, but to the media cycle that followed publication of the rule.
I don't believe that in the editing room they went: "Next item. The Coinbase controversy. Let's do an objective investigation of this and see what we find." But I won't accuse the NYT of bad faith, economic/journalistic incentives are sufficient to explain that angle, fishing for further controversy for a company with an already bad reputation (deserved or not).
Notice the NYT article even wrote negatively of Coinbase's diversity efforts: Supposedly, black people where shoed into photos, to make the company look good to the outside, but were never promoted or listened to (implying, because they were black, and white Libertarian autist tech bro's don't listen to or promote their black employees as a matter of principle). With such an angle about questionable motives, it is neigh impossible to do anything right. It is "we already determined you are wrong, now where is your apology?".
I don't understand. If Black employees were deliberately encouraged to show up to be photographed, but otherwise ignored and passed over for advancement, it doesn't take much of an editorial slant to show a problem; that behavior is inherently problematic.
That behavior (passing over an employee due to their skin color) is not only problematic, it is against the law.
Did the editorial show that Coinbase is engaging in illegal discrimination practices? No, but they sure implied it.
Would it be problematic to encourage diverse representations to show up for company photos, if you did not ignore them for advancement? On its own, I think that's just common sense, and taking some PR advantage of the costly diversity programs.
A random/unplanned company photo I was in, was circulated online, to falsely claim that my company only hires white people. Felt really bad, especially for my multiracial colleagues present in that photo. Can you even give this movement what they want, without accusations of pandering/fake concern?
> Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.
I refuse to believe that Coinbase based that decision on skin color, and I find it hard to believe anyone else sees that differently. As such, to follow this rule, you would have to overturn your decision -- based on rationale --, because it happens to negatively impact a person with a specific skin color. How is this a decent decision: "Sorry Chad, we can't let you work from home to care for your mother, because we just told some black-skinned support engineers to relocate, and we don't want to specifically require black people to relocate, and allow white people to work from home."? How is that fair? To who? It suddenly becomes justified if Chad was black, or if you allow everyone to work from home?
The comment I replied to appears to have been substantially edited in the time since I've replied to it.
Sure. You can:
* Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.
* Treat Black employees respectfully in meetings.
* Not allow people who manage Black employees to mock them for being drug dealers and for carrying weapons.
* Not allow recruiting team members to discuss the merits of different races and their likelihood of success as candidates in hiring team meetings.
This all seems pretty basic?
Incidentally: I don't know what the "movement" you're referring to is. I've been in this industry since the 1990s, and these seem like rules that would have been equally germane in 1995.
I'm not trying to zing you with that, but am noticing a persistent subtext on this thread that attempts to equate Black people not wanting to be discriminated against with some larger basket of "far-left politics". Plenty of conservatives have the same objections to racial bias as whatever the "movement" we're talking about here is. Ironically, among Democrats (Black people overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party for historical reasons), Black people trend significantly more conservative.
No edit, I just replied to you in my previous comment.
Are you under the impression that Coinbase makes Work-From-Home decisions based on the skin-color of their employees?
If yes (which it seems like to me), I'd like to learn more about that, and your reasoning. Am I oblivious to modern work-place racism? Imperceptive? Naive? Defending vile racists? I'd like to reconsider those questions on a more informed ground. My (and your) view kinda hinges on that impression and its truth.
I can understand why Black employees would have that impression, but if it's not true, then I also see that as problematic.
> I am under the impression that Coinbase demanded that the Black employees of the compliance group relocate to PDX so that the whole group could work out of the same office, and then exempted a white worker in the same group from that requirement.
Did it matter for this demand that one group was Black and the other was white? Or did this just happened to be the unfortunate outcome, which is bad optics if you focus on skin color attributes, and such bad optics should be avoided?
I am still not too sure. Can you remove "Black" and "white" from your impression and still say the same thing, or is it essential to your impression, and telling of a problematic work environment?
I am under the impression that Coinbase demanded that the Black employees of the compliance group relocate to PDX so that the whole group could work out of the same office, and then exempted a white worker in the same group from that requirement.
These kinds of things happen all the time in companies. Company relocates team x, company decides not to allow remote but that one engineer doesn’t relocate it or works remotely. Usually because the employees has long tenure/unique skillset/otherwise valuable that losing them would be a big loss.
We don’t have details who exactly was required to relocate and who weren’t. Coinbase’s compliance department is huge made of multiple teams, so it’s not just the handful of people mentioned in this article.
The 'other side' of this is a Coinbase blogpost that says 'we hired a consultant who told us we don't have such problems'. You are certainly free to decide which of these is better supported.