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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by bsder »

bdowling wrote: post #333
swyx wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

heres the list of folks who have publicly announced their departure: https://workflowy.com/s/basecamp-resignation/qrBBdTQydmTKLu0... probably has more context to each in their threads

I read the first tweet in each of those resignations. Out of 19 resignations, most give no reason for quitting. Five or so tweets cite "recent changes and new policies" as the reason. That reason is so vague that it may refer to the new policy of paying 6 months severance to employees who want to quit. edit: Excellent point below that the severance agreements probably included a non-disparagement clause, which would…

While everybody is latching onto "Hurrr... Durrr... Wokeness." apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff. Most devs read the tea leaves from that kind of thing as as a bellweather for time to GTFO.

My guess is that some of this has been building and the 6 months of severance simply put it into high gear.

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

#372

Post by pumaontheprowl »

dbt00 wrote: post #72
yosito wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as a third of the employees were more interested in taking 6 months salary than in keeping work conversations professional. Those aren't really people you want on your team.

head of marketing, head of design, entire ios team. Probably people they wanted on the team. If you read this news as "employees (who yosito disagrees with) should shut the fuck up", perhaps you think this is good. If you read this as, "I joined this company as a place where my voice mattered and now I'm being told to STFU by a founder on a rage bender", it makes more sense why people are leaving.

If they really cared about keeping those people, they wouldn't have offered an incentive for them to leave.

For example, they could have structured the incentive such that it only applied to employees below a certain level. They didn't do that though because they wanted to make sure every employee who disagreed with the policy left.

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

#373

Post by thinkingemote »

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.

Choosing a side is how you get polarisation.

If the trouble with the world is too much polarisation, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to take a side.

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

#374

Post by palijer »

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.

There is probably an overlap between attention seeking personalities and every group from which you hear individual voices.

Those attention seeking personalities are just the ones who get your attention and stand out.

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

#375

Post by mmmcookies »

I wouldn’t hire any of these people if they left due to the policy change. How about you put your money where you mouth is and join a non-profit if you care so much about these issues. Instead, it’s a bunch of incredibly privileged individuals throwing a tantrum from their ivory towers without any skin the game. It’s pathetic.

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

#376

Post by mortehu »

dbt00 wrote: post #19
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 more than a third of your employees think that a single policy change is enough for them to leave, then maybe your policy change is dumb.

This is confounded by the fact that they were also offered money to leave. I suspect the results would have been different if they paid 6 months of salary to the ones who stayed instead.

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

#377

Post by danjac »

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…

The thing is, it's not that Basecamp is apolitical. Politics is fine if it's the founders doing the politics.

DHH has been very vocal in the last few months in public tirades against Apple, government lobbying, etc. While he has every right to his views, he's also the public face of Basecamp. So it comes across as a teeny bit hypocritical to issue a no-politics diktat on his workforce.

The real problem with Basecamp isn't the no politics thing. The problem is that the company exists for the personal gratification of its two founders, and it's one rule for them and one rule for everyone else. If you're on board with that, fine, but maybe for some employees this was just the final straw.

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

#378

Post by distribot »

mfer wrote: post #159

Another way to look at this is... job openings are coming to Basecamp and people know the culture is a no politics at work place. I bet a lot of people will sign up for that. Enough to fill the openings.

Not really a buyers market rn. Maybe this ideological position will specifically attract people who feel alienated by SV culture, maybe not. But there's no way that losing a large fraction of your engineering team is anything but a disaster.

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

#379

Post by stcredzero »

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…

Placating "activists" in the work place may initially seem like the new norm in corporate responsibility, but it is actually a self-destructive spiral, as there are ever-changing foci for woke outrage. The risk of these same employees turning on the company is extremely high in the long term.

A big problem in 2021, going back some years, is that the internet makes it easy for anyone to put out their slate and call themselves an "activist." Years ago people used to say that politics was the last refuge of a scoundrel. This is what activists engage in: politics.

Outrage is one of the emotions that's easiest to garner virality. Many "activists" are not conversant in ethics and philosophy. Many of them aren't good people. Many of them seem to be quite bitter and hateful while they talk about justice.

Many of the loudest voices in this arena are engaging in outrage mongering.

They limit legal liabilities by removing easily-disgruntled employees.

"Easily disgruntled" is a signpost. Activism in 2021 needs better filters, because far too many people who should be in counseling and therapy are proselytizing to the masses and young people, with public results that corroborate this. At least in the 60's and 70's, one had to be capable of organization.

Post reply on HN