“About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today” • Hacker News Board

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#321

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #170

quadcore wrote: post #144

Can someone explains a bit more what it's all about for outsiders so we can understand whats intellectually interesting in that news?

Seems like there was internal chatter about the fact that some Basecamp employees had kept a list of funny customer names over the years as a joke. And people were discussing how this happened, what they could do to change the internal culture so it doesn't happen again, how it portrays on their internal inclusivity, etc. And it looks like the founders were annoyed by all these discussions about it, so they made a po…

[deleted]

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#322

Post by FemmeAndroid » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

It's very hard for me to take all the talk of the pros and cons of talking politics at work seriously when it seems like this issue was about a list of 'funny names' of customers, including a number of names from people of different cultures. Then someone posted this one page PDF:

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of...

And DHH seems to have taken that pdf wildly out of context, calling it the "genocide pyramid":

https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e

It seems like if your co-founders are escalating tensions at work when people bring up reasonable issues (like not making fun of your customers), I don't know what to say.

The one other time politics has come up at Basecamp seems to have been a group of people commenting to DHH and Jason that their upcoming book's title may be ablest due to the use of the word "crazy."

I work at a company where we don't talk 'politics' at work. We're a fairly professional group who frankly have a limited set of interactions. But I think both of these would be reasonable things to bring up, and at least once I did bring up what I thought was some problematic use of racially insensitive language in my team. It was changed, and we've moved on.

I'm all for getting to work, and doing good work, but when the 'politics' you're trying to remove is suggestions to improve a legitimate issue at a company, I think that leads to this kind of mass resignation.

One can imagine a situation where there really are a group of people in a company just discussing and fighting over politics all day and not getting anything done. But after reading the tweets of dozens of Basecamp employees over the past few days, I see no evidence of that happening here. If anything, it seems like the founders of Basecamp continually failed to de-escalate the situation.

See the list of Basecamp employees comments over the past few days:

https://twitter.com/i/lists/1202647

Many people whose work I've followed closely as a Rails dev have left today. People whose work I used and relied on. I appreciate all they've done for the Rails community, and wish them luck in the months ahead.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#323

Post by klelatti » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

reachtarunhere wrote: post #176

klelatti wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really sounds like JF / DHH really didn't want to have to deal with the issue - minimal disciplinary action and then push all discussion away from official channels. But I guess that it reveals what probably should have been clear about Basecamp - it's a vehicle for the expression / gratification of the founders - financially, emotionally and intellectually. And the loss of staff / possible impact on the company (…

I don't see any issue with that. They get their gratification and the employees get paid for providing their work as a service.

It wasn't meant to be criticism.

However, losing 1/3 of your staff overnight over an issue like this does somewhat undermine the JF / DHH narrative of extreme managerial competence.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#324

Post by najtdale » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #105

I have a different take on this, different than most comments here: I think that the founders/owners knew what they were doing based on reading their book and lightly following them. I have never been a customer. I know that I am just guessing, but they might have been making the lifestyle decision that they wanted a smaller and more focused company that was more joyful to manage/run. Also, I have some sympathy for a…

What an employer cannot ask at job interview, should not be discussed at the workplace

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#325

Post by williamtwild » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

Baeocystin wrote: post #267

tashoecraft wrote: post #241

The problem with no religion and no politics is that it’s impossible to draw a line on what is politics or religion. Let’s say you hire a gay employee, there very existence is political. Are they wrong for mentioning that they are gay (no), but to some at the company that may be trying to advance their gay political agenda. Idk what the solution is, but just blanket “No religion/no politics” is just a way to say you…

It genuinely isn't difficult in practice. Be polite and professional to your co-workers. That's it. If someone is gay, straight, whatever, it doesn't have any bearing on their work, so it's not something that's discussed. I have literally zero desire to hear about anybody's sexual relationships at work. If someone thinks that the mere presence of a gay person is an agenda, then they fail rule 1, which is be polite an…

Exactly . I dont know how he could consider as he / she put it "gay persons very presence is political". Thats is a very sad position to have . Thier presence is just like any other persons presence. I could easily see where a person with that mindset would not last long at my company.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#326

Post by Trasmatta » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #290

grumblestumble wrote: post #89

A lot of the conversation from the "no politics at work" crowd here is centered around "these folks were wasting company time and losing productivity protesting this". That entirely misses the point. The loss of productivity around this issue is entirely on the leadership team. They let this fester - they were complicit in allowing this dumb-ass list to be circulated around the company for years, and when it became a…

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” -Elie Wiesel Choosing to not discuss politics is fine. But if you do that, you’re making a choice: you’re choosing to take the side of those who prefer political decisions to be made by a small elite, without feedback from people like us. You’re choosing not to weigh in.

Trying to keep politics out of work != Never discussing politics, and refusing to choose a side

And I'm saying this as somebody who's very critical of how Basecamp has handled this situation.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#327

Post by WDCDev » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

pantulis wrote: post #175

ipaddr wrote: post #152

Interestingly the employees who left have the best career prospects. Entire iOS team, head of marketing and head of product team. The 6 months free money is hard for anyone entering a strong job market to pass up. A lot of comments seem to think 1/3 left because of the no politics policy. 1 / 3 left because it would increase their wealth or give them the summer covid took away last year. How many people would leave y…

Some of them are also world-class Ruby developers. They seem to be mostly north americans (i could be wrong).

It doesn't take much to be a world class Ruby developer.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#328

Post by handoflixue » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #290

grumblestumble wrote: post #89

A lot of the conversation from the "no politics at work" crowd here is centered around "these folks were wasting company time and losing productivity protesting this". That entirely misses the point. The loss of productivity around this issue is entirely on the leadership team. They let this fester - they were complicit in allowing this dumb-ass list to be circulated around the company for years, and when it became a…

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” -Elie Wiesel Choosing to not discuss politics is fine. But if you do that, you’re making a choice: you’re choosing to take the side of those who prefer political decisions to be made by a small elite, without feedback from people like us. You’re choosing not to weigh in.

> you’re choosing to take the side of those who prefer political decisions to be made by a small elite, without feedback from people like us.

If you're talking about life in general, yes, but "don't talk politics at work" is very different from "leaving all politics to a small elite because they never get feedback from people like us"

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#329

Post by benhurmarcel » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

mendelmaleh wrote: post #44

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #10

If a third of the people were willing to leave the company over a decision, it sounds like there was a real, meaningful mismatch in priorities. Which is fine, but it's for the best for everyone to end that mismatch.

If two thirds were willing to stay even with such a good severance package, it sounds like most agree with the decision...

Not everyone is a developer in the US. Job prospects aren't that great for everyone.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#330

Post by wakeupbakeup » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #317

corey_moncure wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someday you will look back on a world where it was okay to laugh at things, and perhaps you will even remember writing this comment.

They were laughing at people , not things.

They were laughing at people's names.

They were amused by a double meaning found in an arrangement of alphabetic characters.

It's really not a big deal.