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

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

#341

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:38 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.

[deleted]

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

#342

Post by 40acres » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

Does anyone remember when DHH went on a long Twitter rant accusing the Apple Card as sexist? These guys built a culture that they couldn't control and when they tried to take a step back lost a third of their workforce.

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

#343

Post by Rapzid » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #172

koheripbal wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our experience when we issued our "No Politics / No Religion" policy at work was very positive. The few people who had an issue with it, subsequently quit or were terminated, and many of their co-workers actually thanked us afterwards for it. We didn't have to pay them to leave. One tried to use the company social media accounts to advance her politics, so we fired her, and the other person became frustrated that she…

I've noticed an overlap between activist personalities and attention seeking personalities. Some people, either consciously or subconsciously, enjoy the dopamine hit from anger and confrontation and they will seek it out at work.

I think there is a difference between an activist personality and somebody leaching off those groups for their own means. Perhaps certain personality types are drawn to those activist circles because they sense an opportunity to acquire some sense of power over other people. Like a parasite. Saying they are parasitic sounds somewhat accurate.

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

#344

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #146

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…

Our experience when we issued our "No Politics / No Religion" policy at work was very positive. The few people who had an issue with it, subsequently quit or were terminated, and many of their co-workers actually thanked us afterwards for it. We didn't have to pay them to leave. One tried to use the company social media accounts to advance her politics, so we fired her, and the other person became frustrated that she…

To me, that doesn’t look like a strong defense of the “no politics/religion” policy, because the actual reasons those people were fired seem mostly unrelated and obvious grounds to fire someone, regardless of any particular workplace discussion policy. Deliberate unauthorized usage of the company Twitter account is certainly grounds for firing, as is using company time and resources for a plan to report the company to authorities (assuming the report was frivolous and the employee knew it). I honestly don’t see where the policy about political discussions is relevant here at all.

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

#345

Post by nickff » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

xbar wrote: post #289

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Workplace is inappropriate for politics" is a really ahistorical stance to take. All the things that you enjoy nowadays (8 hr work day, 5 day work week, no child labour, etc) came about as a result of organized politics at the workplace.

Nope. Those are all the results of laws which came from politically elected officials who made policy. None of my employers limited work hours or work days or children at work because of political discourse in the office. Nor did historical companies from 3 generations ago when such laws were passed. All of those laws were created because companies did NOT implement such limits.

>All of those laws were created because companies did NOT implement such limits.

Many of the 'work standards' laws (including child labor laws) were actually enforcing standards and best-practices which originated from industry leaders. One example is how the mechanized textile manufacturers eliminated child labor (as it was unnecessary and uneconomical), then lobbied governments to ban child labor (probably to 'punish' their competitors). The 40-hour work week (largely) originated at various industry-leaders (notably including Ford, which was very efficient, and preferred energetic and loyal workers over tired and seasonal ones).

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...

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

#346

Post by koonsolo » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:42 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.

1. Voting is done in private for a reason.

2. You discussing politics with your colleague has 0 effect on political decisions.

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

#347

Post by segmondy » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #146

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…

Our experience when we issued our "No Politics / No Religion" policy at work was very positive. The few people who had an issue with it, subsequently quit or were terminated, and many of their co-workers actually thanked us afterwards for it. We didn't have to pay them to leave. One tried to use the company social media accounts to advance her politics, so we fired her, and the other person became frustrated that she…

It's the season of ramadan, how would you support muslims that are fasting now or need to take off time to pray or go to their mosque on Fridays?

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

#348

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #302

koheripbal wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our experience when we issued our "No Politics / No Religion" policy at work was very positive. The few people who had an issue with it, subsequently quit or were terminated, and many of their co-workers actually thanked us afterwards for it. We didn't have to pay them to leave. One tried to use the company social media accounts to advance her politics, so we fired her, and the other person became frustrated that she…

Why not just... manage people well? No need to make it no politics/no religion at work. Endless talking about keto or veganism or BeachBody or CrossFit or vaccines or children or being anti-child or emacs or vim or whatever can be just as divisive and counterproductive if it's not managed . Lots of people are assholes or misinformed about a lot of stuff. Big deal. Manage. That's the active part of the word "manager".…

The problem with managing people, is that they are managed by people.

Managing people is hard to do well. It's like writing code. There are bugs, everyone has their own style, everyone thinks the other person's management process was faulty.

At some point, your organization needs to set company wide standards. ...and like coding standards, they aren't perfect, they can have grey areas, and in some contexts they don't even make sense. But on the whole, they do more good than bad.

Don't put GOTO statements in your code. Don't hard code passwords in your scripts. Don't talk about politics or religion in the office.

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

#349

Post by kelnos » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #316

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…

> a gay employee, there very existence is political. If someone considers their very existence political, I think that's a big red flag. Whether it's because they think society is persecuting them for being Christian, or for being gay, it will still be a high confidence predictor that they will create drama in the office.

No, I think you're missing the sense of the phrase. Gay people don't consider their existence political, but unfortunately others (through desired public/social policy) have politicized the existence of gay people.

As in, "let's pretend they don't exist, ban them from anything that straight couples can do, and push them to get conversion therapy so they behave like us 'normal' folks".

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

#350

Post by totony » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

I'd be curious if someone could explain why they offer such steep buyouts? A company can always change policies and mostly does not pay you if you disagree with them. What makes this different?

I agree an employee could become disgruntled after a policy their disagree with is implemented, but what entitles them to a payout? I assume a 6 months payout is attractive to everyone, that you agree or not with their decision. Isn't that way more dangerous than a few disgruntled employees? (You could also offer less than 6 months and still eliminate those)