Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/twilio-to-lay-of-11percent-of-workforce.html

by melvinmelih • 4 years ago

359 401 4 years ago

cnbc.com

WFHRenaissance• 4 years ago

Sheesh. That's a pretty large chunk... ~865 people.

abledon• 4 years ago

curious what % are software devs compared to sales/hr etc..

kernel-dump• 4 years ago

Yup IMO this is the most interesting question. While admittedly I haven’t been closely following the layoffs taking place this week; those I have read about talk primarily about downsizing non-engineering headcount.

_fat_santa• 4 years ago

The cloud communications software builder has been striving for profitability in 2023, and the restructuring plan aims to improve operating margins, create a better selling capacity and reduce operating costs.

If you look at all the layoffs we had this year, the vast majority are by companies that are VC funded and unprofitable. It would be a scary time to work for a VC backed company, because you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb, and VC's seem to be clutching the funds in this economy.

dangus• 4 years ago

The real problem in my mind is that it's difficult for employees to judge whether a company is making disciplined hires in the first place.

The ballpark method I've been using has been to ask for the ARR and divide that number by the employee count. I don't know that this is a real business indicator, but it seems to me that the closer that number is to a workable salary, the better.

Maybe all tech startups are all using VC funds, but they're not all created equal in terms of management quality. There are a handful of startups that boast never holding a formal layoff.

pc865• 4 years ago

Startups are by definition young companies growing extremely fast. Never having had formal layoffs for young companies experiencing high growth should not be something particularly surprising.

pierrefermat1• 4 years ago

I think this has been true regardless of the economy climate, but actually the climate has just resulted in more companies missing that funding round.

nonameiguess• 4 years ago

Sounds more like you're one missed funding round away from having a 10% chance of being kicked to the curb, where "kicked to the curb" often means a fairly generous severance that covers more than the period you're likely to remain unemployed (12 weeks in this case). While I'm sure there are some legitimately bad outcomes, it seems like the median outcome is keeping your job, and the median outcome for those who don't is a several month paid vacation.

duxup2• 4 years ago

you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb

Isn't that always the case?

sulam2• 4 years ago

While you’re not directly stating that Twilio is VC-funded, that implication can easily be drawn by the adjacency in these two statements. Twilio was VC funded, but they’re a public company now and have been for some time. These layoffs have nothing to do with missing a funding round.

bearjaws2• 4 years ago

How much did Twilio grow from 2020-2022?

Over 200%: from 2,800 staff to 8,510 ...

This means this 11% reduction leaves them at... 292% growth since 2020, while its not amazing news, this is a small reduction given the growth they've had.

These layoffs were inevitable IMO, everyone doubled their team (or more!) and then asked where the money was going to come from.

tmpz22• 4 years ago

How the **CK are these companies training and onboarding and managing all these new hires in such short a time frames?

Hamuko• 4 years ago

It would be a scary time to work for a VC backed company, because you're one missed funding round away from getting kicked to the curb, and VC's seem to be clutching the funds in this economy.

VC-backed companies that aren't profitable are risky places to work for anyways. At least in these layoffs, the whole company doesn't go bust.

But if you work at a VC-backed company, and you don't feel essential, then maybe keep your resume updated.

automatic6131• 4 years ago

Oh no, imagine having to provide value to the world instead of being in the business of selling a dollar for 95c. So hard ;*(

SV_BubbleTime3• 4 years ago

Next you are going to tell me that a company is going to need to make a product going forward and can’t just expect to be supplied with literally endless free money forever.

time_to_smile• 4 years ago

You can't just broadly look at all companies for patterns in layoffs. It's important to divide startups from IPO'd companies.

A common pattern for all of these is the inability to generate profit, but this is business-as-usual for a startup. Even in normal times it's okay for startups to lose money.

Startups typically perform layoffs because they are running out of runway and need to extend the life of the company. Their entire reason for existing is the liquidity event that is either acquisition or IPO, and it is essential for investors that they survive long enough to see such an event.

For publicly traded companies, which we've seen a lot of layoffs in recently (which in the last 30 days includes: Twilio, Rent the Runway, Uber, Shopify, Snap, Wayfair, New Relic). The common theme for almost all of this is negative net earnings and B2C. This is what makes Twilio interesting, they're the first B2B IPO with major layoffs.

One thing that I keep hearing at my IPO'd startup is that "we won't have layoffs since we have a long runway", but runway matters way less for IPO'd companies. The key aim for IPO'd companies is to please your investors, and if you're shares keep taking a hit because interest rates go up and your net earnings remains steeply negative, then layoffs are coming.

If this continues it will start to impact profitable companies, but not before doing much more damage to the non-profitable ones. This feels like a slow motion re-enactment of the dot com burst.

christkv2• 4 years ago

It seems a lot of the layoffs are from over-hiring in 2020-21 ?

avelis• 4 years ago

over-hiring or not trimming due to the pandemic.

seydor• 4 years ago

And it will be just fine

saos• 4 years ago

Another company carelessly overhiring. OR maybe using opportunity to do some trimming?

edit: Where does one check hiring metrics for company before accepting contract?

romeros• 4 years ago

They were overhiring. I talked to their recruiter last year. They had pretty aggressive hiring goals. Same story with Zillow, Upstart, Facebook and a bunch of companies. All of their stocks tanked by more than 50% since then.

bushbaba• 4 years ago

Twilio is down 50% from their pre covid price. Ouch

ryandrake• 4 years ago

Why would a business even have a "hiring goal?" Shouldn't you have business goals, and then look at those business goals and determine if hiring will contribute to them? Having an isolated "hiring goal" seems as pointless as having a "printer buying goal".

noirbot• 4 years ago

That seems strongly bad-faith as an assumption. I'd assume they hired people for what seemed like good reasons at the time, but things have changed and now they need to have less payroll.

Any hiring or new initiative looks "careless" if it didn't work out, but it could have just been a calculated risk that didn't pay off, especially given how chaotic the last few years have been.

CharlieDigital• 4 years ago

Where does one check hiring metrics for company before accepting contract?

LinkedIn company pages have those stats for Premium members.

Twilio is showing -- what do you know -- 13% headcount growth over the last 6 months and a median tenure of 1.3 years.

bearjaws2• 4 years ago

Nasdaq shows their employment growth at 290% over the last 30 months. Absolutely wild.

duxup2• 4 years ago

What even causes "over hiring"?

People just building their resume for things like "managed a department of 200 people" ?

Otherwise over hiring sounds like a pain in the ass to deal with.

squeaky-clean• 4 years ago

I don't know about Twilio specifically but Covid is the biggest reason for most of the current layoff rounds.

Kind of the opposite of the beginning of the pandemic, when companies with in-person employees were laying off staff and moving to work-from-home and online companies like Zoom, Shopify, Teledoc, Twilio began booming. But now many of those brand new customers are returning to their old ways.

These internet companies "over hired" in the sense that they got a massive unexpected influx new demand they needed to scale out for, and no clue how long this would last. Will it fade out next month or be a decade long pandemic?

Many companies also expected higher customer retention after covid than they're actually keeping. If you look at trendlines for online shopping, work from home, etc related industries covid caused an instant jump in their growth equivalent to about 5 years on the trend line. Rather than staying "in the future", demand is declining back towards a trend line that otherwise ignores covid.

naravara• 4 years ago

Investors in high-growth companies like to see rapidly expanding headcounts.

And when you're growing fast there's a real impetus to fill seats FAST and there's not much discipline around making sure you're hiring well. So you end up having to collect more people than you need because not all of them are well suited to their roles and you've got a lot of new projects that everyone isn't fully spun up on so there's always a surprising proportion of people who are being spun up or wound down on random projects all the time without directly committing any code. Companies that grow like this tend to end up with a lot of dead weight and bad business processes that spontaneously appear to shift that dead weight around to where they don't drag things down.

pastor_bob2• 4 years ago

Mostly in "Go-To-Market". Same as Patreon

I don't even know what that is, but sounds like a money pit.

telman17• 4 years ago

Another term for Sales I believe.

sulam2• 4 years ago

That’s correct.

realityking• 4 years ago

Sales, Marketing, and Customer Success are the “Go-To-Market” team.

geodel3• 4 years ago

Well its true for me also. When I go to market and end up spending money on useless junk. These people go to market and probably try to sell something similar.

calrueb• 4 years ago

Go-To-Market or often referred to as GTM is a common term used within the B2B SAAS space. The term is thrown around quite a bit if you work in that sector. Like others said, it is primarily concerned with all things revenue (obtaining and retaining).

ubertaco• 4 years ago

Dodged a bit of a bullet, I think; they were one of my top 2 choices in my last job hunt a few months ago, and ultimately I got a better feeling about the other choice. I've been loving the job I _did_ take, and don't regret my decision (especially now).

maerF0x0• 4 years ago

If you dont mind sharing, what company did you accept?

anonym298• 4 years ago

Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?

That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious (https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73...) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted".

I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

fche2• 4 years ago

w t f

anonym298• 4 years ago

This doesn't actually come as a surprise to you, does it?

UtopiaPunk2• 4 years ago

Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~.

All CEOs are bastards.

pc865• 4 years ago

Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~.
All CEOs are bastards.

Imagine turning a perfectly valid criticism into some weird anti-capitalist thing?

dehrmann2• 4 years ago

I suppose the EEOC could subpoena emails relating to selection.

crackercrews16• 4 years ago

Perhaps the next administration might. The current one is more likely to offer a pat on the back.

enumjorge3• 4 years ago

It feels like you're trying to flamebait rather than have a discussion about this. I encourage people to read comments on the other related thread [1] that seems to have disappeared from the front page for some reason.

[1] Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250

overtonwhy• 4 years ago

Bunch of new accounts commenting doing it too.

white_dragon88• 4 years ago

I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

rurp• 4 years ago

Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.

geodel3• 4 years ago

As others have already mentioned, you can keep considering yourself liberal in your living room. But if you go out on social media with these views, it could be construed as a rabid racist persona.

ClassyJacket• 4 years ago

Agreed. I don't consider myself to have moved politically right at all, but progressives are moving drastically left. Stuff like this, and the modern gender politics that is resulting in the erasure of women and lesbians in particular, has resulted in me no longer referring to myself as a leftist.

bufferoverflow• 4 years ago

Wild? Seems pretty standard leftist position these days.

pentae2• 4 years ago

They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle for hating white people, basically. Now I know this is super trendy right now but I don't want to get emails from your organization about how woke and bigoted you are. Just sell me the damn SaaS tool we signed up for and keep your politics to yourself. We moved all our business away.

bl_valance• 4 years ago

wow, you would think saying that would be against some discrimination law but they'll probably get away with it.

Blackthorn2• 4 years ago

Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.

anonym298• 4 years ago

Do you have any data or references to support your argument? I'm open to considering your hypothesis, but right now, it's merely an assertion.

ajsnigrutin5• 4 years ago

better, more fair

Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.

hudsonjr2• 4 years ago

This does fit with layoffs I've went through. Decide who to lay off first, and then the framing is done later.

My guess is the sex/race/etc metrics of the layoff "looked OK" by coincidence, and someone wrongly thought it was a good idea to call out

fullshark3• 4 years ago

Pretty easy to come up with ways this could work that are not ridiculous. Let's say you come up with a list of people to lay off. Let's say someone slices that list by demographics. Let's say someone compares that demographic distribution with the overall demographic distribution of the company and is embarrassed by what they see.

Then the CEO revisits, and changes the decisions or overrules an underling on a few cases about who to lay off to make things less embarrassing.

I don't know that that's what happened here, but is that really so unthinkable for a woke tech company in 2022 to do? For a company clearly concerned with how it's publicly perceived on this front?

faxmeyourcode• 4 years ago

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.

Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked.

The civil rights act of 1964 should make racially-based decisions in workforce hiring/firing illegal, but here we are, nearly 60 years later.

koheripbal• 4 years ago

Most state civil rights laws that list protected classes, specifically only minorities are protected - not white people.

That's how it is in NY state.

zwkrt2• 4 years ago

Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come off as racist even if on paper you were just focusing on QA.

In practice it probably just means some EA looked over the layoffs and made sure the optics wouldn't be horrible. I see this as more of a blow-hard CYA statement that they made sure there is no potential for a class action lawsuit. Putting it in the press release as a bullet point is pretty silly to me though.

anonym298• 4 years ago

I'll believe this was actually racially blind when Twilio releases a count of each race that was laid off, and the sum of each race for employees in the company prior to the layoff. It's very simple for everyone to verify whether there was racial targeting outside the statistically probable bounds of random selection from the parent group.

I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards a provable shared reality with data rather than rhetoric.

Humans lie. Sufficient amounts of data analyzed by a suficient number of people do not.

Assuming it was possible to look at the data I call for above, would you be opposed to the public dissemination and analysis of it?

fullshark3• 4 years ago

We have no idea what it means and you can rationalize it all you like. Quota or not they likely fired a white person instead of a another person because of their skin color. Or it’s just cheap talk and means nothing, those are the only two options.

nemo44x6• 4 years ago

Clearly a Civil Rights violation. I hope everyone impacted that isn't "marginalized" sues them for millions of dollars.

We either have equality codified as Civil Rights law and respect that or we don't have it all and we are free to associate with people we want to in every respect. But you need to pick one.

el_nahual• 4 years ago

The ideal person to sue would be a "marginalized" person who was laid off, since the "anti racist" bs could impact this person twice: it means they got laid off even when the bar was higher for people of color, which will disproportionately affect them in their next job search (and feelings, etc).

bena• 4 years ago

I really couldn't say because I can see how that language can be used to defend whatever decision you want to make.

Whether you fire star-bellied sneetches or non-star-bellied sneetches, you can just blame the algorithm. "Yes, the star-bellied sneetches were disproportionately affected and while that is tragic, we did carry it through a lens, so you know, we're good, right?"

darth_avocado2• 4 years ago

I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that.

What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?

wickedsickeune• 4 years ago

That's still racist!! The only way for it not being racist is not having anything to do with race at all!

the_doctah5• 4 years ago

Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

Until the discovery phase

mhb• 4 years ago

In addition to wishing that he could use "affected" instead of "impacted", I'm curious how the lens works. Is there a database with the races or colors of all their employees? And what query do you use to implement the lens?

testfoobar3• 4 years ago

What is the race field in their HR database and what range of values does it possess? What is the sorting algorithm?

jejeyyy77• 4 years ago

You can probably derive this data based on who they laid off.

gnicholas• 4 years ago

To what extent do companies announce layoffs (that they were preparing to do already) on the heels of other companies announcing layoffs? That way it becomes less memorable that 'Company X laid off 11% of their employees' and instead people remember that 'a few companies laid off some people last week'.

Perhaps this is too difficult to tweak the timing on, particularly at public companies. But at the very least, I'm sure some of the Twilio execs were glad to hear about Patreon's layoff yesterday.

bombcar4• 4 years ago

The layoffs take time to plan and get rolling, but the macro causes are often similar.

Once they start you may have a bit of PR adjusting things but I daresay this announcement was planned weeks in advance. I could see a company deciding to lay off a bit less to make their percentage look a tiny bit better but other than that, probably not.

Now some companies may have "perpetual layoff plans" where every manager has to identify X people he'd lay off if needed, even if they never use it, then I could see someone taking advantage of it.

propogandist• 4 years ago

Twilio won’t fall out of the news cycle like the the rest because of their CEO’s “anti-racist” comments.

It’ll, ideally, become a class action lawsuit, which should keep this story in the news for a long time, providing cover for other companies to do layoffs

geodel3• 4 years ago

It seems to be profitability is next generation technology like Web 4.0 or something. We will be hearing a lot in coming years.

pc865• 4 years ago

It used to be profitability was a core component of running a business.

lotsofpulp• 4 years ago

It still is, hence the security and rewards of working at businesses like Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, etc. and the same for shareholders/owners too.

jiveturkey2• 4 years ago

pepperidge farm remembers

John238326• 4 years ago

(I am a black man)

I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping.

If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are.

That then makes it harder for the minorities you claim to be "helping" to stay in the room anywhere else because of bad will generated by some company that wanted the headlines to include their diversity push.

Edit: In summation, do not conflate your layoffs with your "diversity".

LegitShady3• 4 years ago

If you're affected by layoffs described this way, you then question whether that was because of who you are.

I mean, this isn't a question. They're saying it outright. When picking who to layoff, race was a factor. If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

John238326• 4 years ago

It is still a question. There could people who are clearly not performing and then are let go that just so happen to not be a part of the "protected group". People are not being let go because of who they are, it's just a part of the calculus. It may not be the significant factor.

nemo44x6• 4 years ago

If you don't like it, take it up with people making those decisions.

Take it up with your lawyers. I can't believe they admitted it in an official filing. It's like they're begging to be sued.

sopooneo• 4 years ago

Perhaps when you do layoffs naively, you can accidentally adversely affect certain groups. For example, if your policy was last in - first out, you would likely be letting go a disproportional number of young workers.

I can't say wether anything like that was the case, nor would I counter the experience of responders here saying that they as minorities find actions like Twillio's harmful. Nor do I comment on whether the messaging was done well. Only that the situation can have nuance.

crackercrews16• 4 years ago

This creates three problems. The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. The second is that minorities who were not affected may be assumed to have been kept because of their minority status.

But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off. That signals that they were really subpar, even more than the average laid off person.

It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people. Some would say that's a disparate effect on minorities, and the policy is therefore racist. /s

edit: these are just the perception problems. There's also the fact that it is possibly illegal and unethical.

blockwriter• 4 years ago

Is the first problem not the immediate implication of laying people off through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens? You have to assume that the lens selected not exclusively on merit, but also on factors like race, gender, orientation, or creed, in some measure, or in at least one instance. Otherwise, the lens could be said the exist, ever vigilant in its purpose, and yet was not required in this particular batch of layoffs, thank God. The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, orientation, gender, or religion, may be far more pervasive due to the framing than is actually warranted; that I concede.

cuteboy19• 4 years ago

some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race

But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?

LeifCarrotson• 4 years ago

However, it avoids a perception problem which may be far worse: the hypothetical perception that the people drawing up the layoffs were racist and that they disproportionately affected minorities. They wrote "Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused.." on making sure they did not.

If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random, there's a chance that someone later would say "Twilio employees are 35% female, 33% Asian, 9% Latino, and 6% Black, but the laid-off employees were 11% Latino! Racism!" and turn a mob against them. Once the media/Twitter/mob believe that Twilio HR and Twilio executives are racist, those execs might try to defend themselves by saying: "We weighted based on performance reviews, added a bit of statistical noise, and then did a random selection. We believe those performance reviews to be objective and free of racial bias. We didn't even realize that Latinos were slightly over-represented in the layoffs until you mentioned it, but it looks to be merely statistical chance. We actually fired slightly more white people and more men than the statistics would suggest, we're not bigots."

...Do you think that would work?

It's far easier to defend against the accusation of being overly woke than it is to defend against the accusation of being racist, so while you'd rather be neither, it's better to overtly and publicly fail in the safer direction.

jrs235• 4 years ago

Imagine being a minority applying for a job after being laid off from twilio... Like you said this is awful as hiring managers will assume they must really suck. Horrible. Horrible. It would have been fine for twilio to do the layoff the way they did but they should have just kept their mouth quiet about it instead of virtue signaling. They have done more harm than good.

karmasimida• 4 years ago

The CEO pretty confirmed race is a factor, it is not believe, he said it.

Would this be legal even?

lr1970• 4 years ago

But is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?

pclmulqdq• 4 years ago

Everyone who was laid off here has strong grounds to sue for racial discrimination. White people and non-white people alike.

TigeriusKirk• 4 years ago

It also makes the company a political lightning rod, making whatever their business situation is worse. Irresponsible move by a CEO.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th• 4 years ago

It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people.

Yeah, but the minorities who kept their jobs even it out to 1 point for whites and 1 point for minorities.

Cause that's who this shit works, as a zero-sum game.

xanaxagoras• 4 years ago

The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race.

It literally was because of their race.

But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off

srs?

prottog3• 4 years ago

Imagine that in 2022 we would be told that we're hired or fired on the basis of race! Unbelievable.

donretag• 4 years ago

Making an assumption, so far I have only read the CNBC article.

Many of the recent tech layoffs included entire departments not entirely related to the operation of the business, the core product. For example: recruiting departments. When entire diversity departments were terminated, many considered the move racist. Perhaps Twilio found themselves in this scenario?

flatiron• 4 years ago

i think everyone's point is taking race into account in any shape or form is illegal, so not firing black people but still needing to fire 11% means in turn you are firing more non-black people to fill the gap, meaning those people were fired based on race and not performance, which IANAL is illegal

enumjorge3• 4 years ago

As a Latino, I too am growing tired of the way some leadership and HR departments in tech callously, carelessly push and promote these diversity initiatives in a way that creates resentment. Combating racial bias is a sensitive topic. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that. And yet companies continue to make statements like this without the tact it deserves.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that they really were trying to fight inequity in the system. Instead of saying something like "Historically layoffs in tech have disproportionately affected minorities, pregnant women, and older employees. Here's a link to a study showing that data. With these layoffs we ensured that no group was affected unfairly", they just throw out the term anti-racist, and let the audience draw their own conclusions.

Because at the end of the day, making sure their layoffs don't unfairly target X or Y disadvantaged group--or really any group--is just doing the right thing. Why brag about the fact that your HR policies are not systemically flawed? It's as if you came home to your partner and proudly stated that on your drive back home you did NOT run over any elders or toddlers with your car. You're expected to do that. If anything taking credit makes people wonder.

In this case, it comes across as virtue signaling by Twilio's leadership. The same desire to curry favor when laying off people that makes CEOs tell their employees how hard the decision was for him or her. Trying to pat yourself in the back while announcing layoffs seems wildly tone-deaf to me. And at the expense of the groups they're allegedly trying to protect.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250

subsubzero• 4 years ago

Curious how you feel about the term LatinX that all tech companies are embracing? Reason I ask is I have a few really good friends who are Hispanic(Nicaraguan, Dominican, Mexican) and they all despise that term. I don't know why its used and it seems strange as its been forced on us the past few years with no consulting or buy-in from any of the Hispanic employees at these companies. Even outside polls found that a huge majority (96%) of Hispanic people dislike this term but its still being used.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-prefere...

Natsu2• 4 years ago

they just throw out the term anti-racist, and let the audience draw their own conclusions.

It's pretty clear what antiracist means:

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

- Ibram X. Kendi, "How to Be an Antiracist"

https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-def...

8f2ab37a-ed6c2• 4 years ago

I don't get why they had to make that public statement in the first place. They could have kept that to themselves and complete the layoff just fine without the inflammatory statements, while still practicing whatever fashionable principles they choose. Is this a way to signal piety to the tech community in the hopes that more people aligned with those politics will apply there in the future?

SpicyLemonZest• 4 years ago

I think your religious metaphor is exactly on point and it makes perfect sense if you take it seriously. Why do Christian companies talk about God when they make business decisions? They're not implementing some complex sociopolitical strategy, they just think God is important so they like to spread His message whenever they get the opportunity. It's the same phenomenon.

coding123• 4 years ago

I think hardly anything should be conflated with diversity tbh. About 5 years ago nothing was really attributed to diversity, except maybe in some remote areas. The new push to call everything anti-racist is making everyone very racist. It's a very weird moment.

grapehut2• 4 years ago

The issue is that it becomes necessary as marginalized candidates are given preferences during the hiring phase. So if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.

notch656a• 4 years ago

if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.

By unfairly you mean fairly.

randomdata• 4 years ago

To be marginalized is to be cheaper. All else equal, the cheaper worker will be given preference during hiring. So long as the worker remains cheaper, all else equal, the cheaper worker will also be given preference during layoffs. If the worker works their way up into a position that they are no longer cheaper, they won't be given preference, but they also aren't marginalized anymore so you would't expect preference.

Consultant324522• 4 years ago

A Minnesota public school district created a plan to prioritize laying off white teachers. https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/minneapolis-schools-defend-pla...

HideousKojima3• 4 years ago

And in doing so, they almost perfectly matched what a school district did back in 1985 and got wrecked by SCOTUS over: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/267.html

A bold move, especially since the court looks even less favorably on affirmative action than it did 40 years ago.

ransom1538• 4 years ago

"I feel like the statement that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" puts a target on the backs of the people who you claim to be helping."

How do they know who is what race though? If I am 50% latino / 50% asian what does that mean? Do you get to pick? Or do they test my skin color? Do they have forms to fill out what race you are? Do they do genetic testing? Depressing racism is back.

slt20212• 4 years ago

your race is saved in HR system once you apply for the job

peanuty12• 4 years ago

I work at a Bay Area tech company with over 10k employees and we are asked to log our ethnic and gender identity in Workday.

tick_tock_tick• 4 years ago

Latino gives +1 point while Asian in tech gives -0.90 not quite the -1 for white but pretty close. Good news is you come out net positive.

BonoboIO3• 4 years ago

Mindblowing ... they think they do something good, but they make it worse for everybody.

skrbjc• 4 years ago

When I refused to log my race in our HR system they said they would use “perceived race” to report my race to the government. I specifically asked them to not guess my race and they said tough luck they are doing it anyway. It’s outrageous.

foofoo4u4• 4 years ago

Soon after George Floyd, my manager came under immense pressure from HR to inquire me about my race. I declined to comment. So they decided to mark me as a minority based on my ethnic name. It still bothers me to this day that my race is so outright asked in the office to used to determine my employability, recognition, bonuses, and promotion. It was a turning point in my career. I thought to myself, "wow, here we are. I didn't think we'd get here, but I now work for a racist company and society at large."

silent_cal• 4 years ago

I agree with you but it's nothing new. The same thing happens all the time during hiring and college admission decisions. I think the unintended consequence of all such programs will be resentment and mistrust.

kache_• 4 years ago

https://imgur.com/a/FZRAMhf

yesiamyourdad• 4 years ago

When one looks at the industry as a whole, one might conclude that the aim is to turn the working class against each other. It's almost as if the thing corporate America is most afraid of is a unified workforce.

Ozzie_osman• 4 years ago

(White male, minority religion)

I read this just as "we were careful not to have our layoff unfairly impact minorities", not "we unfairly fired non-minorities".

Unfortunately, reading the comments here, it sounds like most people assumed the latter, which I found quite sad.

christophilus2• 4 years ago

Reading the post in context, I think it seems like they were trying to say that they went out of their way to ensure race was not a factor in the layoff decision process, but it does come across… as not a great look.

It reminds me a bit of the “asbestos free” xkcd comic. Like, I’m sure there are some companies still who would try to first fire the black folk or the Indian folk or whatever. But… is there really a big tech firm where that’s a possibility? I kinda doubt it.

drc500free2• 4 years ago

Every layoff I've seen is analyzed for a disparate impact against protected classes. This is straightforward defense against a discrimination lawsuit, where the demographics of the layed off population and the retained population will be compared as exhibit 1.

I suspect this is just Twilio trying to get social justice credit for standard HR practices.

nonethewiser4• 4 years ago

They should clarify that race, gender, etc. was not a factor in their decision making process. Although then it would be hard to make sense of their statement.

rdl• 4 years ago

I'd quit if I were working at a company which announced its layoffs like that and I somehow failed to get laid off.

mgarfias• 4 years ago

You, sir, are 100% correct. And yet, I am happy, that if this kinda BS is to continue, that I am a mexican. I gotta family to feed.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 4 years ago

Why do these companies blow their load and lay people off at the slightest sign of trouble? Layoffs should be a last resort because of the pain that they cause.

orthecreedence• 4 years ago

Shareholders are looking at the next quarter, not the next decade. The entire system is optimized for extremely short-term gains.

guywithabike• 4 years ago

TWLO is down 80% from its 52 week high, even after today's 10% rise. Do you really believe that this is the "slightest sign of trouble"?

xeromal2• 4 years ago

So I'm a big dummy, but I STILL don't understand how current stock price affects companies. They've already raised their money. How does the stock going down make them lose money other than lowering their chance at another seed round?

bjt2n3904• 4 years ago

Many people are trying to rationalize the "anti-racist lens" remark as a simple post-hoc analysis to make sure there wasn't racial bias. (This seems plausible, and I don't think many people would have an issue with that, in theory.)

However, if this is what the CEO did, then he did not use an anti-racist lens -- merely a "not-racist" lens.

Kendi is explicit in his book, "How to be an Anti-Racist", that there is no neutrality. You simply cannot say "the layoff is not racist". You can either have the layoff be racist, or antiracist, there is no middle ground.

DiAngelo agrees in her assessment. She says that people should not ask, "Did racism occur", but rather, "How did racism occur?" When looking at the roster of layoffs, one must come to the conclusion that racism occurred, no matter how unbiased the results appear.

How does Kendi say anti racism rectifies past prejudice? Present prejudice. How to rectify present prejudice? With future prejudice.

If the CEO actually used an anti-racist lens in the layoff decisions, then by definition, he used prejudice based on race.

ajsnigrutin5• 4 years ago

Back in my time, we called "treating people differently, based on their race" racism.

forgingahead• 4 years ago

Yes, quite an interesting magic trick that has been performed by people from certain political persuasions about how they now make everything about race, yet claim while patting us minorities on the head about how "they're not racist". It's barking mad.

yojo4• 4 years ago

People are treated unequally because of their race everyday. My wife’s former boss (CEO of an education non-profit) was a black man. He was walking in downtown Paulo Alto, wearing a suit, on a way to a business meeting.

A cop stopped him at gunpoint and had him lie face-down on the ground and frisked him. Eventually, finding nothing, he let him go. “Mistaken identity.”

This is the kind of shit black people have to live with. None of my white bosses have ever had interaction with law enforcement - other than the time a cop helped one find his keys to his BMW after he’d accidentally tossed them in the bushes.

Our country is getting better. Most people don’t want to be racist. But this stuff still happens in the modern era. Acknowledging the problem and taking reasonable steps to try and improve it is not racist.

Now, as the GP pointed out, this particular incidence probably did more harm than good/looks like a PR stunt.

choko5• 4 years ago

What evidence do you have that it was because your boss was black? X happened and the target was black doesn't mean X happened BECAUSE the target was black. Did the cop use any sort of racial insult? I can share all kinds of negative interactions I've had and other white friends and family members have had with police for reasons unknown - including with black officers.

crackercrews16• 4 years ago

None of my white bosses have ever had interaction with law enforcement

You must be very good friends with your bosses to know this. People I work with have no idea what interactions I've had with the police.

pastor_bob2• 4 years ago

Coincidentally, back then everyone in an important role was white, so one didn't even really have to think about race!

dang• 4 years ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. It's against the site guidelines and your comment was a big step in that direction.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32838754.

rglover2• 4 years ago

"were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"

People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.

I wouldn't work for these people in a million years, but I really do wonder how I'd fit into their shallow models (I'm mixed race b/w).

bombcar4• 4 years ago

That’s the creepiest thing to me - employers tracking your race seems … strange. And if they’re not tracking it it’s even worse because that means they’re deciding your race for you!

foofoo4u4• 4 years ago

True. My race is listed on Workday. And that was determined by HR after I declined to declare what I am. They just decided to look at me, my name, and choose what they thought most suiting.

testfoobar3• 4 years ago

Well, where exactly are you on the RGB scale? This a strict 8 bit operation. If you expect HDR level fidelity here, just move along.

rglover2• 4 years ago

Depends on the time of year. During the winter I trend toward toasted marshmallow but during the summer with ample sun I'm somewhere between Obama and Denzel.

chasd00• 4 years ago

i think this is really a problem of the CEO living in a bubble (hard to imagine i know) and not running that by legal. I think the CEO really stepped in it with that statement. I can hear the clanging of all the attack lawyers coming out of their cages.

nonethewiser4• 4 years ago

Seems pretty typical PR language. Ever been on LinkedIn?

rocket_surgeron• 4 years ago

Twilio had 7,867 employees as of Dec. 31, 2021.

Every single layoff story stupefies me. Confuses. Flabbergasts.

What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks?

My employer has more people but we build nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Our revenue per employee is nearly double Twilio's and is low for a "tech" firm due to the extremely high capital costs and labor-intensive nature of our work.

Nearly 8,000 people (surely, 8,000 with contractors) to build an SMS and VOIP marketing spam, sorry, ahem, communications, platform?

Are they all in marketing or customer support?

It is incomprehensible.

hudsonjr2• 4 years ago

Based on my experience bloat causes more bloat. People get hired to work on fringe projects/products, those people cause work for other staff that are already at 100% capacity on higher priority work, so additional staff are hired.

foobiekr• 4 years ago

I wrote about what drives this previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32171468

peckrob• 4 years ago

I am glad I'm not the only person who has had this thought, and I think it every time I see how many people some of these random tech companies employ. Those are the kinds of employee numbers I would expect from a much larger company than Twilio.

For reference, in the past I worked for an immensely profitable eCommerce business and I don't think our entire engineering department ever reached more than 40 people at its absolute largest.

I know all those employees aren't engineers, and I've been around long enough to know that what we see from the outside is just the tip of the iceberg. But if we assume even 25% of them are engineers directly working on the product, that is still nearly 2,000 people. That must be a huge iceberg.

So what on Earth are all those people doing? I am not being sarcastic or obtuse, I am genuinely curious because the only organization that I have ever worked for that was that size or larger was the US government. Is it administrative/managerial bloat? Are there a bunch of different pivot projects going on? What does Twilio have going on that needs nearly 8,000 employees?

christophilus2• 4 years ago

When I worked at a VC-backed firm, headcount was a bragging point and seemed to be a metric they were concerned about in the opposite direction you’d expect— that is, if I was a business owner, I’d be concerned about having too much headcount. They were always busy seemingly trying to maximize headcount. I never understood it.

polski-g2• 4 years ago

Twitter has 7500 employees. Its absurd. You could fire 7000 of them and still run the infrastructure just fine.

rsync• 4 years ago

"What are these companies doing with so many people? What are they doing? Like, what are their day-to-day tasks?"

I don't know but I will say that I had the time of my life at the Signal 2018 conference where they rented out Bill Graham Arena and booked OK GO to play ... open bar and an arena full of indoor food trucks ...

... and earlier that day Tony Hawk was doing a halfpipe demo ... related to Twilio somehow ... ?

Hard to say where their business is going but it has all worked out very well for me.

ZephyrBlu• 4 years ago

Silicon Valley was a documentary.

smileysteve• 4 years ago

Twilio recentky acquired Segment and Sendgrid.

There is overhead per customer in each of their segments for compliance, revenue retention, contract growth, and support.

From a technical standpoint, engineers are required for each of these aspects as well.

Then there is overhead for employees, in terms of managers, human resources, and it.

therealdrag0• 4 years ago

Maybe I should be able to guess but mind providing your employer, curious who makes reactors and space craft?

zo12• 4 years ago

This is not going to be a pretty thread. Hopefully we can keep this civil and maybe move the conversation forward, as this could be a big tipping point in the landscape wrt DEI.

nomel2• 4 years ago

and maybe move the conversation forward

What does this actually mean, in the context of "when we fired people, we considered their race"?

Ensorceled5• 4 years ago

Or, "when we fired people, we tried NOT to consider their race" ... the idea that a layoff would, by default, be fair and not a racist or bigoted decision is a very privileged world view.

trention• 4 years ago

So, a company explicitly states that when push comes to shove, if you are white, you move to the front of the firing queue.

Remind me again, why would a white person (especially man) not put them on the back of the queue when deciding where to apply for a job?

Despite not living in the states (and in a country where this sh*t is illegal), I think I will make it my policy to never work for a (parent) company that has a diversity policy from now on.

csa• 4 years ago

Indeed.

They may not realize it, but they will quietly lose business over time to folks who are not fans of the style of this layoff.

peanuty12• 4 years ago

In tech, Indians and East Asians are also not considered a minority.

Crash0v3rid3• 4 years ago

+1. I bet Indians and East Asians were bucketed with white people.

happyopossum2• 4 years ago

Strangely enough, it’s pretty darned illegal here too. I expect well see multiple lawsuits and some corporate backtracking on this.

foofoo4u4• 4 years ago

Is there a list of employers that I can reference that reject DIE (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)? That way I know who to interview with.

immigrantheart• 4 years ago

These virtue signaling needs to stop.

jballer3• 4 years ago

Maybe they’re just trying to get more people to walk out voluntarily

callalex• 4 years ago

Not in this case, anyone who has worked at Twilio for any amount of time would not be surprised by this language. It has been prevalent as a core part of management’s communications since the pre-IPO days.

cpursley• 4 years ago

Seems like a good time to switch to Mailersend. They just introduces SMS:

https://www.mailersend.com/blog/introducing-transactional-sm...

I'm very happy with their support and email product.

Ensorceled5• 4 years ago

This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments:

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.

Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

But so many comments are making the leap to they are targeting white people for layoffs and claiming this layoff is racist against white people.

For example this comment:

People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.

and this:

I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

You can find more.

jballer3• 4 years ago

“We avoided firing people who aren’t white” vs “we preferred firing people who are white.”

This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.

They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.

Ensorceled5• 4 years ago

Or, more charitably, "We avoided laying off racial/oppressed minorities for racist/bigoted reasons"

mdcds2• 4 years ago

See what Dr. Kendi is advocating for and his "anti-racist" ideas. I think it will make sense to you why some people write things like "People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism."

whymauri2• 4 years ago

Kendi is one person with one interpretation and doesn't work for nor represent the policies of Twilio, a completely separate institution.

I read the statement the same as the GP comment.

quantum_solanum• 4 years ago

I really need to make a HN bingo board one of these days, though it'll have to be like 12x12 or it'll be way too easy.

whymauri2• 4 years ago

I'm tempted to build a filter that automatically ignores any comment on HN with the word 'woke.' It is, legitimately, the most annoying culture war I have seen on any forum.

DeWilde• 4 years ago

Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

Doing so is illegal and makes little sense to put it in a public announcement. Might as well state that they don't intend to murder anyone.

noelsusman2• 4 years ago

HN is full of reactionaries who are easily triggered by any sort of diversity-related language and seem to lose their ability to think critically. Everyone complaining about that line is making a whole lot of assumptions about what it actually means.

FWIW I would be interested to know what the CEO actually meant by that. My assumption is it's more lip service than anything else.

monocularvision• 4 years ago

I love seeing people defend this statement by basically saying “it actually meant nothing”… as if that is a really strong defense.

dilap2• 4 years ago

I agree the statement is ambiguous. However, it does seem to be hinting at something.

What do you think "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means?

Like, what concrete actions do you think they took to justify that statement?

Do you think it's purely window-dressing? That they did absolutely nothing different, and just included the statement?

I don't know if it's an authoritative source, but here's one of the top Google results for "what is anti-racisim":

"Anti-racism is also a system – a system in which we create policies, practices, and procedures to promote racial equity."

and

"Anti-racist policy creates systems that center the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color"

and

"We refer to ‘racism’ as an interpersonal display of prejudice toward Black, Indigenous, and People of Color."

Given the above understanding of the term "anti-racist", if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.

What do you think?

(Link to anti-racist information: https://www.nlc.org/article/2020/07/21/what-does-it-mean-to-...)

vdnkh• 4 years ago

This, and HN in aggregate is pretty right wing, so anything "woke" is bound to trigger a lot of people. I suppose there's always been a libertarian bend here in line tech workers in general, but ever since Trump (and especially Trump's loss), topics vaguely supporting progressive ideas are home to tons of comments airing right-wing grievances.

kareemsabri• 4 years ago

I don't think it's reactionary to oppose choosing who to fire based on their race.

mattalex• 4 years ago

Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

that would have been illegal either way. Really there are two options here: Either they did something questionable and want to deflect (like being racist against white people. I'm not saying this is the case but it is a possibility), or they want to get a pat on the back for not breaking the law.

It's one of those sentences that immediately puts your mind to why it was placed in there: "[..] so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out without clubbing any seals."

Why would one say that? Why does one explicitly mention this? To what gain?

Either you want brownie-points for something that should be a given, or you want to get ahead of something.

foofoo4u4• 4 years ago

There is good reason to believe that white people will be the primary targets of this layoff. I work for an employer in the Bay Area and the messaging echos many others in the region. We have been subjected to lectures and presentations for the past two years telling us that white people are a problem in society. That white people are privileged, are biased, and are oppressors. Management openly suggests to us through broadcasts that we should read the books, "How to be an anti-racist" and "White fragility". Leaders in the organization have these quasi-struggle sessions where they publicly confess their white privilege via broadcast. Management also openly states that race will be a factor in bonuses and promotions to help uplift minorities. They proudly state in their marketing that they will increase hiring of colored people and give charitable donations to black organizations.

Given this pattern of messaging, how else can someone conclude that white people are not the primary targets of a layoff of a San Francisco based company? Especially when the statement contains, "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens".

locusofself• 4 years ago

I left a company just over two years ago that was aq

NaturalPhallacy3• 4 years ago

I recently had a preliminary phone screen with their HR and I told them to pound sand when they wanted me to do a coding challenge before even talking to the hiring manager to know if I wanted the job.

Even more happy with that decision now.

SnowHill9902• 4 years ago

While you are busy worrying about being woke there is a competitor getting ready to kick your ass.

syspec• 4 years ago

Which one is that?

datalopers• 4 years ago

Not nearly enough. Should have been 30%.

mooreds• 4 years ago

Here's the statement on the Twilio blog: https://www.twilio.com/blog/a-message-from-twilio-ceo-jeff-l...

tonymet2• 4 years ago

What's to stop everyone from declaring themselves hispanic or black when they are hired? First off, it's probably true to some degree (we're all mixed). Secondly, it's a self selected category. Third, your employer cannot question your selection.

Given that it's basically all downside to declare yourself white or asian, I'm expecting almost everyone to start electing black or hispanic in the coming months.

For those who cry it's unfair – there's presently no justice or transparency in how these "anti racist" aka affirmative action policies are being implemented. It's a black box, private committee selecting person A or person B , based on some criteria: likely a self-selected category or worse a stereotypical naming pattern. (and if you don't believe me, look into university admissions processes).

BonoboIO3• 4 years ago

You can be anything you want, look at Elizabeth Warren.

She pretended to be a Native American for more than 30 years. Trump called her Pocahontas and she challenged trump with a dna test. This test is kind of bogus but it proved that she is like 1/1024 Native American.

How can that fly.

tonymet2• 4 years ago

Of course she should have stopped that as a tenured professional / politician, but it's perfectly understandable she did that as a young applicant based on her family lore.

It goes to show these policies are clumsy and absurd. They will only make matters so much worse.

Is it reasonable to ask someone to make an election that will result in them not getting or getting fired prematurely ? We're talking about food on the table here.

terryneo3• 4 years ago

Well. Job cuts are a serious problem right now. A report from CouponBirds shows that the US unemployment rate rose to 3.7 percent in August of 2022, the highest since February and above market expectations of 3.5 percent. The number of unemployed people increased by 344 thousand to 6.014 million, while employment levels went up by 442 thousand to 158.732 million. And according to the survey, the District of Columbia had the highest unemployment rate in August at 5.2 percent, followed by Alaska and New Mexico, both at 4.5. Minnesota had the lowest unemployment rate, at 1.8 percent.

https://www.couponbirds.com/research-center/data/unemploymen...

SV_BubbleTime3• 4 years ago

A. [Don’t worry, we only fired whites!] is the an absolutely awful thing to do, and a worse pat yuorself on the back for. Racists. The term “anti racist” is a dog whistle that means racists for everyone, but justified for some.

B. I appreciate they made their idiocy public. I will make sure to 100 percent shut down any possibility of my company using their services. We’re still using Expensify which does upset me, cut from the same cloth as Twillio but they were more sneaky about it, will cut them asap.

RSieger• 4 years ago

If any evidence emerges that race or lack of melanin played a role in who was laid off then there must be lawsuits.

RSieger16• 4 years ago

If real evidence emerges/has emerged that race played a role in which people were laid off then there must be lawsuits. Otherwise, it will keep happening.

HereIGoAgain• 4 years ago

"so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs -- while a business necessity today -- were carried out through a Racist/Racially-Oppression lens."

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

Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce

Related Stories