Seems like very poor management and people skills. Also it's probably not a good idea to backstop a pre-product startup with bootcamp engineers regardless of gender. The foundation is set early on which is very costly to change. No wants to be changing data models and relationships when there are mission critical features that need to be done.

Is the implication that bootcamp engineers will come up with the wrong data models and relationships? I bet Hackbright teaches you more about SQL than my entire CS degree from MIT did. (I took a graduate-level database class for a few weeks before dropping it; apart from that, I can't remember anything else about databases in theory, let alone SQL and ORMs in practice.)

The origin of the education doesn't matter so much as the implied lack of real-world experience. I'd hazard a guess that a third of the engineers I've worked with had a CS degree, and in the world of web and mobile there aren't many places that matters.

On the other hand, bootcamps in particular teach you a basic grasp of the "in" technologies that will look good on a resume. Having a few on your team is often a good thing. Having too many, or having too pressing of a deadline to properly mentor them is a terrible thing for everyone involved.

The following quote makes it clear:

> “It became increasingly clear that their strategy was divide and conquer—flatter a handful of us in the hopes that we would go along with their plans, and not put up a fight when they fired half of our co-workers,” Westergard adds.

But seriously, what were they thinking? How could they have been so blatant?

> In mid-January, after most of the unit signed authorization cards to be represented by the union, Lanetix was informed and the union filed papers with the NLRB. Ten days later, the engineers were fired.

That the firing of the whole staff was stupid and illegal was not in doubt, which is why I didn't really bother addressing it.

Rather, I wish the article had bothered to answer your question. I can hypothesize all day that they were in financial trouble and making rash decisions as a result, but the author didn't bother trying to find the truth, only present a narrative.

OK, maybe they were desperate. But couldn't they have admitted that, and tried to negotiate deals with their engineers? Although I guess it's arguable that they were trying, with the offers to senior staff. But still, it was poorly done.

>There was a very small detail that was almost overlooked in the article- it seemed like they were planning on keeping their more senior engineers and fire their junior ones.

This seemed pretty clear in the article? They tried to buy off senior male employees with extra stock options last minute.

>Maybe that really is the story, but so many details were left out to focus on the narrative that we won't know without better journalism.

It felt like there was a fair amount of detail to me. If anything, it exposed how much sexism in tech is something management sees as a useful wedge to divide and conquer workers.

My point was that, without knowing the management's perspective, it's entirely possible that gender was merely a coincidence of having senior males available, and hiring junior females either because they were the best available or the company wanted to look diverse. Perhaps they were flagging and needed to cut the junior developers so the senior developers could focus on getting back on track.

Either way, it's impossible to know, because without more details all we are left with is the agenda of an author who isn't interested in presenting the truth (or providing sufficient evidence to support it).

Edit: consider the following scenario: you have a team of male developerd; maybe they were friends when they pitched the idea for a product to you. After a few months, there's a big backlog, and they want to hire junior developers to train and take off some of the pressure. To embrace diversity, you hire a bunch of women who recently graduated from a boot camp to round out your all white male staff.

Fast forward a year. Everyone has become a tight knit team, but the pressure to deliver mounts. Instead of getting faster, they're all bogged down with refactors and endless pull request revisions of things that aren't working out. You are running out of money, so you decide to cut the junior developers, and try to bribe the senior devs with some of the cost savings to make up for all the extra hours they'll now be working. Uh oh! You're only firing the women! They all band together, oblivious to the fact that you literally won't be able to keep them all on.

I'm not saying this is what happened. What happened could have been pure sexism and anti-labor mentality. BUT pushing such an agenda without KNOWING that is the case here doesn't do anyone any favors.

I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management seemingly handled the situation so poorly and in violation of labor laws, it’s not like they’re going to go on the record anyway...

that's the point; it isn't at all. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on information that is missing from the article.

The fact that the article is missing such important information could be because it's not available, or it might not fit the author's agenda.

The company is very clearly in the wrong here; I'm taking issue with the heavy handedness of forcing gender into a story that, based on the evidence presented, could easily be a clear cut labor issue.

It’s not pure speculation- it’s the worker’s side of the story. You can’t discredit their experience because the other side behaved in such a brazenly stupid fashion that they’re probably being advised to not speak to the press at all. Even if management’s perspective was included in the article, corresponded to your framing, the same would hold true. Your skepticism isn’t really skepticism when it leans consistently in favor of one party or the other.

What is there to be skeptical about regarding the management? We know nothing about their motives, only a few facts. Without the remaining facts, or their perspective, there's nothing to be skeptical about.

I've tried to be clear that I'm open to the possibility that this really is about sexism. I don't think that exclusively presenting one side of the story will lead us to the truth, though.

Were junior male engineers also fired? We’re female senior engineers retained? It seems like seniority was the issue.