from Hacker News

‘Tokenized’: Black Workers’ Struggles at Coinbase

by xwvvvvwx on 11/27/20, 3:44 PM with 623 comments

  • by RestlessMind on 11/27/20, 6:13 PM

    From Coinbase's preemptive rebuttal[1]:

    "we hired an external consultant in August of this year who specializes in data science and diversity and inclusion to cull through all of our historic data related to diversity ... and conduct a high volume of interviews with employees representing all background, functions, and tenures to understand the employee experience. The independent investigation concluded that there was no evidence of structural bias in hiring, promotions or performance evaluations."

    "All of those complaints were thoroughly investigated, one through an internal investigation and two by separate third-party investigators, all of whom found no evidence of wrongdoing and concluded the claims were unsubstantiated. We have shared this information with the reporter."

    So external investigators didn't find anything wrong and the data was shared with the NYT reporter. What else can they do if they are really innocent?

    [1] https://blog.coinbase.com/upcoming-story-about-coinbase-2012...

  • by NelsonMinar on 11/27/20, 5:38 PM

    11 of then ~20 Black employees by early 2019* had complained to HR about racism. That's over half! And that's only the people with the fortitude or optimism to talk to HR (HR is notoriously useless at many companies). That's a complete disaster. 15 of that 20 quit! Why wasn't that treated as an emergency?

    *At the end the article says at the end of 2019 there's 31 Black employees of 1000. At the beginning of the article about the beginning of 2019 it's about 20 of 600 before 15 Black employees quit.

  • by chandra381 on 11/27/20, 5:05 PM

    > One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes. Another said a co-worker at a recruiting meeting broadly described Black employees as less capable. Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees. The accumulation of incidents, they said, led to the wave of departures.

    Wow.

  • by siberianbear on 11/27/20, 4:49 PM

    Posting a link to Coinbase's peremptory rebuttal seems apropos.

    https://blog.coinbase.com/upcoming-story-about-coinbase-2012...

  • by nshepperd on 11/27/20, 11:37 PM

    It's interesting how spot-on Coinbase's 'prebuttal' was (https://blog.coinbase.com/upcoming-story-about-coinbase-2012...). There's very little in the NYT article that isn't mentioned. The only point of inaccuracy seems to be that the story was published on Friday morning, the day right after the prebuttal, not Sunday as originally suggested. Maybe the prebuttal forced NYT's hand?

  • by bArray on 11/28/20, 4:23 AM

    I've spoken to multiple people employed at tech companies that believe they were 'token' hires, I can summarize their thoughts as thinking the situation was "awful". Biased hiring practices are in quite a few cases hurting the people they aim to help.

  • by snicksnak on 11/27/20, 5:27 PM

    This piece paints coinbase as a company with racist tendencies and a hostile place to work for black people. Based on the evidence or lack there of provided the article and after reading coinbase's rebuttal, I must say this NYT piece feels like an attempt to bully coinbase/armstrong into reverting its/his stance on engagement in issues unrelated to coinbase core mission and into submission to the cause.

  • by slg on 11/27/20, 5:05 PM

    This is in the wake of Coinbase decision to be a "mission focused company" and prevent their employees from speaking out about political issues at the workplace. It shows the dangers of being apolitical when saying "Blank employees should feel safe and welcome at their job" is apparently still a political statement.

  • by throwmylifawy on 11/28/20, 12:08 AM

    Reading through the comments as black person is depressing.

    Many of the comments question whether the accusations are even true or collusive attack because of an unfounded accusation that black people tend to be SJWs (stereotyping). Others blame affirmative-action, bad schools, etc. (classic misdirection). Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion might just not be good enough for the job and then just blame discrimination rather than facing the truth (pure gaslighting). Others just go on to attack the New York Times (attacking the messenger). I am waiting for the data science guru to synthesize statistics about how everything is just fine!

    I am not going to pretend to be the arbiter of truth here, but can we just take a moment to imagine the possibility that racism (specifically against black Americans) is a problem in America in 2020? Is it such a stretch of the imagination? I mean if we can unquestioningly believe that cryptocurrency is viable currency, we can certainly give the benefit of the doubt to the black workers who have abandoned the company.

  • by xoxoy on 11/27/20, 6:34 PM

    this seems like it’s also a struggle between different teams at the same company. Customer Service teams are very often looked down upon as “less than” other teams like engineering, and this article states that a disproportionate number of the black employees were on that team.

  • by vmception on 11/27/20, 7:01 PM

    I was willing to support the general message Brian Armstrong put out, but with the added context and chronology I cannot.

    I would say that this kind of mission statement can only work if done at the beginning, as reacting in response to the work environment described by their employees was doomed for failure.

    I know many people like Brian Armstrong, and the investors. They are all cut from a similar cloth and they honestly have no clue how to react. They don't know how to get women on a panel, they don't know how to get qualified people of color in positions to change things. They are just told what they did wrong and just shut themselves off from it. The very people with power to change anything get marginalized themselves. And yes, some - not all - of them actually are not interested in inclusion or really are racist and sexist. But for the former, there is room to empathize with these kind of people to steer their energy in more productive ways.

  • by nilkn on 11/28/20, 2:16 AM

    [Thank you for all your advice -- it's greatly appreciated. I've edited this post since it included a few personal details that I don't want permanently attached to my account on here. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.]

  • by throw98721 on 11/28/20, 6:05 AM

    Racism won’t be a problem once color of the skin is no longer a point of the argument.

    As long as people demand x/y hires to be of a certain race or color, the companies will have to continue hiring for diversity, and not for the best qualified candidates.

    Stop counting who is who, and the market will take of itself.

  • by ausbah on 11/28/20, 1:01 AM

    frankly its a little surprising to me how quickly some people in this comment section are to instantly dismiss the experiences of the people in this article

    yes the truth is shades of gray that article doesn't really give any answers to, but the unwillingness of others in these comments to even consider the possibility of some racism, discrimination, etc. experienced by others is just disheartening

  • by citizenpaul on 11/30/20, 3:40 PM

    Here's a thought. Perhaps they were bad workers. I'll explain how affirmative action causes this problem.

    You are forced to hire a certain percent of POC. Doesn't matter if they are a poor fit for the company. Doesn't matter if they are not even a good fit for the job. Doesn't matter if they are not even capable of doing the job. You can't wait to hire a POC that is a good fit or capable, or you are violating the law.

    It is also difficult to fire the forced hires once you are forced to hire them. Instead of just saying "they sucked at their job" you have to play all kinds of games to fire someone that is a POC hire. All companies face this issue and until its addressed (By removing affirmative action) there will always be this dysfunctional divide.

    This also causes a harmful feedback loop to POC that are simply not up to the task and always think they are being targeted (because they are) rather than upping their skill set or working on their professionalism.

    And here come the downvotes.

  • by goatinaboat on 11/27/20, 8:35 PM

    “Most people of color working in tech know that there’s a diversity problem,”

    Interesting. Are Asians or Indians not “people” or “of color” in this worldview?

  • by dmurray on 11/28/20, 12:12 AM

    "Tokenized" is brilliant headline writing. I'm not qualified to comment on the rest!

  • by jl2718 on 11/28/20, 2:38 AM

    Simple question: have race issues become more or less of a problem since going 100% remote?

  • by Chris2048 on 11/27/20, 5:27 PM

    > Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees

    I hate this kind of sloppy writing. who added that, the colleague or the manager?

    EDIT: Downvoted. I guess clarity in the NYT isn't allowed to be questioned..

  • by unityByFreedom on 11/28/20, 3:19 AM

    Dear CEO, practice what you preach,

    > Default to trust: We assume positive intent amongst our teammates, and assume ignorance over malice. We have each other’s backs.

    > some of what I’ve written above will be misinterpreted, whether accidentally or on purpose. [1]

    If you assume positive intent then no one would misinterpret your words "on purpose".

    [1] https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...

  • by synaesthesisx on 11/28/20, 5:26 AM

    This is quite a surprise for a "mission-focused" company such as CB.

    Racism deserves no place in modern society, and Coinbase execs should be ashamed.

  • by tonfreed on 11/29/20, 11:45 AM

    Race grifters gonna race grift.

  • by bertomart on 11/28/20, 6:24 AM

    this is pretty much a every company thing...at every company i've worked at...not surprised

  • by bra-ket on 11/27/20, 11:36 PM

  • by scottlocklin on 11/27/20, 5:20 PM

    This is a ridiculous political hatchet job.

  • by roenxi on 11/27/20, 11:27 PM

    > ... an “all star” culture, with mostly young white and Asian men.

    Up until yesterday I was very confused at how a tech company could be accused of racism while simultaneously having a (presumably) vast over-representation of Asians who - to the surprise of some - are a minority.

    I have since learned [0] that there are literally a large group of people who have redefined "racism" to "unequal distribution of privileges between white people and people of color".

    I think it would be necessary for the NYT to be using that definition here to distinguish this from an ordinary labour dispute. I've seen non-black teams where half or more the people quit.

    [0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/white-fragility-de...

  • by bJGVygG7MQVF8c on 11/27/20, 10:28 PM

    Techies are usually too naive about how the media works. This is a hit piece. Cui bono? Who are Coinbase's competitors? Who would stand to gain from Coinbase taking a hit?

  • by disown on 11/28/20, 1:43 AM

    > at least 11 of them informed the human resources department or their managers about what they said was racist or discriminatory treatment ... One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes.

    In an era of smartphones and viral videos, the fact that we don't have a single audio/video recording exposing the racism seems rather suspect. I'm not saying that is proof of anything. But something to consider.

    The idea that coinbase, a silicon valley/SF/etc company, would discriminate, especially against black people, is hard for me to believe. But I'm open to anything. Certainly even if the company doesn't have a culture of bias, it may have a few bad apples.

    > If the numbers haven’t changed, it’s definitely because there wasn’t a real intention to do so

    This is a lie. Everyone who works in tech knows that companies are bending over backwards to hire black employees. The problem is the lack of qualified employees. Even unqualified black employees are being hired just to say "we have more black employees today than last year". It's been like this for a few years now. That tech companies had no real intention to hire black employees is simply a lie.

    > When Mr. Armstrong wrote his blog post in September asking employees to leave their outside interests at the door, he was celebrated and praised by several tech investors.

    So this is why we have a nytimes article. It's a political attack masquerading as a employment bias issue. Got it.

  • by whoknew1122 on 11/27/20, 10:51 PM

    Hmmm. A 'mission focused' company that bans discusses political and societal issues also has issues with diversity and how it treats its non-white workers?

    I'll go ahead and file this in the 'In other news, water is wet' category.

  • by mudlus on 11/28/20, 2:07 AM

    Coinbase sucks for other reasons besides racism and libertarian ideals that suddenly are complacent with authoritarianism when it involves property law. Ask any libertarian like Brian Armstrong if they want to defund the police. Coinbase believes everyone should have equal access to an un-regulated digital Las Vegas, despite the understanding that humans have irrational behaviors associated with gambling (i.e. the sunk-cost fallacy).

    Bitcoin NOT Coinbase.

  • by wolverine876 on 11/27/20, 11:53 PM

    Core to attitudes like Coinbase's (as described in the article) the theory that their only responsibility is profit for their shareholders.

    IMHO, that theory is like many others today: It's attractive - it simplifies everything and even makes it quantifiable - but does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

    Almost everything Coinbase has comes from their community: Liberty; peace; political functionality and stability; economic stability; the rule of law; property rights; the free market; the wealth of the market they sell to; the education and wealth of employees, customers, and partners (including the massive public education and healthcare systems - imagine how their company would survive Coronavirus without the public health system and eventual free vaccine); the physical infrastructure of housing, roads, food, power, etc., all kept functioning and safe; the incredible technology stack they build upon, from mathematics to basic literacy to electricity to materials to more proximate tech (the Internet, Web, TCP/IP, and of course the cryptocurrency technology). No matter what Coinbase does, they add only a sliver on top of what's come before.

    It's just an absurd, transparent rationalization for selfishness to try to justify being a parasite, for not contributing to it and being responsible for making it work. Our community is us; nobody else will make it work. And it's sociopathic to say that, about part of our community, 'I don't care what happens to African-Americans'.

    But being a sociopath and buying into this transparently false argument has become trendy and admired by a vast swath of powerful people in American business, as if ignoring problems will solve them. I used to wonder if they really were smarter than others, but recently I've concluded that they follow the herd and are easily manipulated as much as other people are (and I could have seen it earlier in financial bubbles, etc.). And as they've followed the herd in disparaging liberalism and postmodernism, rather than thinking critically about them, they've unilaterally disarmed themselves, willingly discarded the tools that would protect them from being deceived, confused, and led.

  • by cblconfederate on 11/28/20, 12:07 AM

    Eagerly anticipated and Streisandeffected piece but i got rather bored. I hope i won't be disappointed by the ensuing drama at least.

    In other news, What is a crypto company even doing in SV?

  • by throwaway2048 on 11/27/20, 4:48 PM

    This a great example of how being against "politics" is really just upholding the (garbage) status quo.

  • by CyanLite4 on 11/28/20, 1:11 AM

    I’m not a fan of cancel culture, but I’ve seen enough to know that I want to move my Bitcoin trading elsewhere. Their prebuttal seemed odd, and now this article confirms the worst of my suspicions.

    I’m not saying they’re racist, but they’re clearly not anti-racist.

  • by demarq on 11/27/20, 5:14 PM

    > I know it’s frustrating and distracting. Let’s keep focused on building an amazing company together.

    One would hope an amazing company that doesn't cover it's ass when it turns out the executive couldn't give a hoot about the treatment of black people and now everyone knows

  • by jasonhansel on 11/27/20, 11:16 PM

    Their original blog post ("Coinbase is a mission focused company") was an obvious dog whistle. How is this unexpected or surprising?

  • by xrd on 11/28/20, 4:33 AM

    After reading this, I then wanted to reread the response from Coinbase.

    It feels very unfortunate that Coinbase's response on Medium has turned off commenting. There is no way to ask questions such as what is the third party firm that investigated and are those results public.

    It is funny that Coinbase says we talked to our ColorBlock ERG (the internal diversity group) to hear their comments and questions. Then, the very next sentence says Brian told them what he thinks, but nothing about what they think or had questions about.

  • by an_opabinia on 11/27/20, 5:01 PM

    > [Brian Armstrong] attributed [bad stuff] to being “on the spectrum,” according to a recording of the event.

    Ah, the ol’ James Damore defense.

  • by cadaadar on 11/28/20, 3:47 AM

    Everyone in this thread is missing the forest for the trees.

    Coinbase is a medium-sized privately-held company. Reading through those comments, they had some minor issue with a few employees and a relocation plan. This may or may not have involved discriminatory and/or racist behavior.

    How is that a story in the New York Times? Or rather: Why is that a story in the New York Times?

    It's obviously not because a particularly terrible thing has allegedly been done to those 15 people. This kind of labor case is literally business as usual for courts.

    The NYT pursuing an agenda that has probably more to do with the company's stance on politics, and perhaps also an agenda wrt. crypto-currencies.