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

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

#391

Post by ErikVandeWater » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:55 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".…

Politics is different than BeachBody talk because it is moralistic in nature. Politics turns people's brains off much better than other forms of discussion because it combines in-group out-group bias with moral righteousness. Same thing with religion, but religion is brought up much less frequently at work.

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

#392

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#393

Post by krrrh » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:57 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.

Comments like this make me worry that a lot of people don’t have lives outside of the office or their work identity.

Or maybe people keep their friend groups so tightly curated by ideology these days that the only chance they have to argue about politics is at work?

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

#394

Post by FemmeAndroid » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

mmmcookies wrote: post #375

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.

Off the top of my head, Jane Yang, who I believe has quit, left non-profits and joined Basecamp to explicitly pursue a strategy of earning to give (https://80000hours.org/articles/earning-to-give/). That seems like she's "put her money where her mouth is," as you say.

What's your basis for believing these people don't really care?

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

#395

Post by tootie » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #247

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…

Yeah, anybody who quits over a no politics policy is probably someone you don't want in the first place.

Just to be clear, they banned "politics" after people complained about what they considered to be racism and cultural belittlement. This is the inherent problem with people wanting to avoid politics when what they really want is to avoid difficult topics. Topics that aren't just ballot issues but may be palpably real for actual people you work with.

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

#396

Post by softwaredoug » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

Is there a TL; DR summary of what’s happening? I have no context other than something something basecamp mission driven company something something politics.

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

#397

Post by rodgerd » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #279

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…

> Let’s say you hire a gay employee, there very existence is political. It's not, though. I've worked with a lot of gay people, and none have ever brought politics into work. This is just a BS argument by the people who do. There is a legitimate point about where do you draw the line (e.g. is bitching about CA taxes "politics"), but this is not it.

"Cool, we need to you visit a client site in a country which will murder you for your sexual orientation" is about as political as it gets.

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

#398

Post by gkedzierski » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

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…

This reminds me of an incident they had years ago, when they blogged the name of the millionth (or something) uploaded file and then had to apologise for betraying their customer’s trust.

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

#399

Post by ErikVandeWater » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:59 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…

The vast majority of people don't have the self-control necessary to be polite and professional when confronted with political/religious disagreement. Better to let everyone enjoy false consensus bias than to take the risk.

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

#400

Post by DiNovi » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #280

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…

> 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 an issue, they refused to take any action on it. The list is not the issue here. In an ideal world, the list would be seen as an innocent inside joke, and be totally n…

In an ideal world you don’t work at a company that maintains a list of customer names to laugh it. And if you did and someone pointed out how it can become problematic to have foreign names in the list and they tell you why, you don’t self-immolate.

Pretending this list and subsequent lack of discipline isn’t about the founders vanity is very ignorant