Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#291

Post by mwcampbell »

NationalPark wrote: post #207
jiofih wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?

I think the GP comment is referring to LGBT people who are out, willingly or not, to their coworkers. Which bathroom a trans person uses, for example, is considered a political issue by some people. But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleabl…

> but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.

And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work environment?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#292

Post by analogdreams »

tshaddox wrote: post #212
mwcampbell wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?

Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing…

Neither of those messages should be posted in the workplace.

And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.

Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#293

Post by drewbug01 »

bsima wrote: post #285
drewbug01 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work). I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”

> But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized

That’s not what they’re doing though - they’re not saying “we cannot say the word ‘gay’ any more because that makes the sentence a political sentence.” They’re saying you can’t talk about politics, and honestly specific words don’t even have to come into play. You can weaponize the policy easily without using specific words at all.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#294

Post by sokoloff »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #241
sokoloff wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

800 out of 135000 is 6 tenths of 1%. A Basecamp union organizer who was the only one to decide to join their own creation of a Basecamp Workers Union would already be 3 times as successful as the Google union on a per-capita basis.

I can only chuckle at the raw math, as if that’s the valuable datapoint. It seems impossible until it’s done. It took decades for America to ruin the idea of unions, they’re not coming back overnight.

A union derives its bargaining power from the amount of monopoly it has on the labor supply. (I don't say that as a bad thing; I mean it just as a factual thing.)

Tech industry turnover is around 13% per year, or 0.25% per week. The Google union could all quit at once and it would be like that week's turnover number was slightly higher than normal.

Google has more employees out sick on any given day than they have union members.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#295

Post by jakelazaroff »

lindy2021 wrote: post #255
villasv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR. Surely you must be joking.

If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?

Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#296

Post by vmception »

drewbug01 wrote: post #275
kiawe_fire wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear tha…

> Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people. I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it…

Exhibit A: Two people are hurt by not conforming to a privileged mold of what is considered political.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#297

Post by jakelazaroff »

analogdreams wrote: post #292
tshaddox wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing…

Neither of those messages should be posted in the workplace. And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either. Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.

Because people aren’t robots, and like to get to know the people with whom they spend ~40 hours every week?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#298

Post by vmception »

I was a fan when Coinbase did this, I am a fan when Basecamp did this, I don't want or expect companies to "use their platform" just because they have one. If that's the premise of the company, go for it, if not then don't.

I am not a white cis male, as some might assume.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#299

Post by nightski »

This is why I have been self employed for over a decade and there is no going back. I have no interest in dealing with any of this. I just want to work on solving problems.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#300

Post by lindy2021 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #295
lindy2021 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?

Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.

> is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees

This is an HR responsibility. You either trust them to avoid and eliminate discrimination or you don't.

Post reply on HN