Live data from Hacker News

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

511–520 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has mandated that 40% of our recruiting contacts for engineers are women. We have spent weeks talking about bias in our interview process and despite having no metrics showing bias is a problem we have made changes to combat it (i.e. no video on the call) that have led to worse experiences for our candidates. Suffice to say we have had a lot of trouble hiring engineers. > Why wouldn't you want to bring the…

How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?

More importantly: who cares? The point of classical equal rights is the MLK, "my children won't be judged by the colour of their skin". The moment you ask a question like that, you are deliberately rolling back his vision by implying that a 100% male engineering group is a severe problem that needs a solution. It's not. It's an entirely expected statistical outcome given the demographics of people who study the profession. And it's inherently political to ask your question because by doing so, you're implying the answer matters, which is very much a political and left-wing stance. Whereas what's actually been encoded in law and up until very recently, culture, is that it's not even an allowed question to ask at all.

This blog post by Basecamp is excellent. What a fantastic company it must be to work for. It's too late now because I'm starting my own company and am fully dedicated to that, but part of the reason for doing so was the feeling that there weren't enough (any?) companies with these sorts of policies in the world. I'll add Basecamp to the small list of software firms I'd be willing to work at in future.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goals != Quotas. This is frequently misunderstood by people outside these companies (and frequently by people inside them too without integrity). You're supposed to meet goals without compromising on integrity or quality. e.g. you can't ship buggy messes. And you can't hire substandard employees. There are mechanisms ("bar raisers") in place to do this, at least at Amazon. I suppose I can't speak for Google, Facebook…

You're suggesting I'm playing broken telephone game, yet you're the one extrapolating your company's experience to all the other hundreds. I can't speak for Amazon's policies. But there are companies that have headcount for N people, and N/X slots will be for Y identity. Then you have companies like Twitter that literally say on their hiring boards: "Our vision for the future is clear. 50%. At least half of our globa…

Most of the large tech companies have similar hiring policies. It’s not unreasonable to think what goes at Amazon is fairly similar to what goes on at Apple, Google, etc. There’s a reason the FAANG acronym exists.

Also, if your takeaway from “at least half the employees will be women” as a goal, at a time when the breakdown is 43% women, and has been a lot lower for the past decade, is that “55% women is ok but 55% men is not”, it’s pretty obvious you’re arguing in bad faith.

It’s pretty obvious that’s a goal that at least half the workforce will be women in fewer than 4 years. What that actually means is that Twitter is likely gonna barely cross the 50% mark, if they are even gonna meet it.

The reality is that the moment they hit 50% they will ease off on the effort to recruit more women than men, which, thanks to structural factors that have led to the current unbalanced distribution of employees, will only make their hiring easier ans allow them to continue hiring equitably.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political to…

> You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. pssst those two things are connected > Discrimination happens against an individual. This is just weirdly wrong? > If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, wi…

It's hard not to escape the conclusion that the goal of Basecamp's new policy is to quietly suppress or ultimately evict people who think like you.

There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee diversity and product design before, and it's always a joke. You get anecdotes about face recognition not working on black people (reality: the software in question just had trouble with low contrast images and also struggled with white people's faces). And that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing someone actually argue that more women == better product because, well, that's a pretty sexist thing to believe isn't it? It implies men have no empathy, or that there's a universe of product requirements women will only tell to other women, etc.

If discrimination is happening against an individual and you work with the management chain to resolve it, that's not a political act, because you aren't attempting to radically remake the entire organisation for everyone (politics), but only address the specific problem that was actually observed.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#514
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?

How much does being a woman affect your ability to engineer? Should a woman only be hired because they're a woman, even if they're a poor engineer? That seems way more sexist than the alternative.

An alternative interpretation is that by opening more positions for women, they're trying to make a societal improvement, by opening doors to people (women, in this case), that meet too many closed doors.

Given their (in relative terms) failure, one could say that this is a complex problem, and addressing one issue is unfortunately not enough.

> even if they're a poor engineer?

This is not something GP wrote. They wrote they had significant issues because, in a sense, they created a problem (hiring methodologies) in order to solve one that didn't previously exist (gender bias).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#515
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? I really detest such things, and the "problem"…

That's a position of privilege. Only people who aren't discriminated against can afford to take a position of indifference.

I am not indifferent towards people who discriminate, whether that is positive or negative discrimination. But thankfully those people are a minority.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#516

DHH, Basecamp’s co-founder and CTO, literally testified before Congress and wrote about it on the official company blog [1]. But it’s “distracting” when the rank and file talk politics in the office. Oooookay. [1] https://m.signalvnoise.com/testimony-before-the-house-antitr...

They say antitrust discussions are okay.

> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#517
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are actively misinterpreting what they said. a) They explicitly state that employees are allowed to actively discuss these things, just not in group chat. b) They explicitly state that this isn't "some high consequences zero tolerance policy" and that the consequence for violating the rule will be that you are reminded of the rule. It's sad that this is the top comment.

No, original post had don't discuss. They backtracked to "not on main", maybe after realizing this could be read as barring protected activities.

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Basecamp is their company, isn’t it? If they don’t have the right to make those changes... who has?

The people who do the work that produces the value.

This is such a hilarious statement that you see all the time here.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#519
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? I really detest such things, and the "problem"…

That's a position of privilege. Only people who aren't discriminated against can afford to take a position of indifference.

Most guys I know in the tech industry see it rather differently. The way they (we) see it is simple: there is rampant illegal discrimination in tech, and it's all against straight white guys like us. That's Europe. In the USA you'd probably include Asians too. Nonetheless I don't know a single guy who argues for affirmative action in favour of straight white guys: everyone argues for simply caring only about who does good work and damn the rest. That's not a position of indifference of course, it's a strongly held belief.

Look at this very thread. Just a few posts above this one is a guy who says he works at a firm where 40% of all recruitment efforts have to be for female engineers. Those sorts of policies are everywhere. That's actual, concrete discrimination. Firms put bonus pots aside for women, they set up competitions and career opportunities from which men are banned. Men are being barred from board positions and top executive roles all over the place.

At the last place I worked, after firing the head of sales the CEO announced at a company all hands that the next head of sales had to be a woman, and that's why the firm had been without one for so many months. It's of course illegal but the agencies that enforce these laws are run by people steeped in identity politics, so they aren't enforced. When one was finally located she turned out to be wildly incompetent. In the first management offsite she got up and said she had no idea why anyone bought our product. She didn't mean this in a "the product is bad, I'll shock them out of denial" way. She meant it in the sense that she really didn't understand what the product actually did (it was a rather obscure product for software developers). In a sales meeting with a customer she started trying to convince the customer not to use our product, apparently without realising she was doing so. The prior male head of sales had been fired simply for displaying low energy, this woman is of course un-fireable despite demonstrating repeatedly she has zero understanding of the companies products!

That same company invited a third party training company to use the offices at the weekend to run programming classes. These classes were open to everyone except straight, white men. I kid you not, that was the actual rule. If you were a white male you were expected to bring social media evidence that you were gay. Like, photos of you making out with other men or something like that. The justification for this was to keep the lessons "safe". Myself and my (gay) manager went to HR to complain, the head of HR spent 30 minutes trying to defend it. There was no apology and nothing was done about it.

This stuff is routine, it is daily life. It passes by without notice. If even one of these things happened in the reverse direction at a large company it'd make international news.

It's this kind of poisonous ideology that Basecamp are trying to expunge from their firm with this announcement, and what can the average man do but applaud? Who doesn't want to just come to work and have peaceful relations with their co-workers, regardless of race or gender? Only leftist activists, and which firms really need them? They're far more trouble than they're worth.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Basecamp is their company, isn’t it? If they don’t have the right to make those changes... who has?

The people who do the work that produces the value.

Unfortunately this won’t happen until the employee:employer power imbalance is changed, which effectively means a worker co-op.
Post reply on HN