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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by klelatti »

grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

> Treating people right is fundamental to how we do business. We treat our customers as we’d want to be treated, we treat each other like family ... [1]

Absolutely spot on. I think they had an implicit contract with their team which they broke in a fundamental way.

Notable that DHH's twitter hasn't seen any expression of regret or thanks to the people who have worked hard to build Basecamp and now feel they have to go.

[1] https://basecamp.com/about

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

#502

Post by digitaltrees »

madeofpalk wrote: post #496
grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

It cannot be understated just how great the two leaders think they are. For the entirety of their career they've been literally telling everyone else they're running their company the wrong way. They thought this was just another instance of them having a stroke of thoughtleadership brilliance and everyone else is wrong.

No. They have just presented an alternative so others have a point of validation if they want to not be on a hyper path to unicorn billions.

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

#503

Post by madeofpalk »

mrandish wrote: post #494
jrochkind1 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would depend on how much I liked my job. My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Note the "changes" [1] are not just "no politics" but also "no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hieararchy), no more 360 degree reviews (no way to formally give feedback to your boss), and no more bringing up past decisions you disagree…

> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Interesting. I've read everything posted officially about this by the two founders as it unfolded and I've been super impressed by how well-considered these new policies are. As someone with several decades of experience as an employee, manager and then founder in both large and smaller orgs, I felt these changes were in the best interests of all stakeholders. With the…

> I felt these changes were made with the best interests of all stakeholders.

Then why where a significant portion of their employees - the only stakeholders (apart from literally Bezos) - extremely vocal in their disappointment the minute it went out?

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

#504

Post by digitaltrees »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #488
grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

bingo. I think they realized the boss didn't respect them and wouldn't tolerate dissent, and that therefore they didn't respect the boss. More than about "talking about politics at work".

So employees should be able to do raunchy stand up comedy about farts and sex then? Some topics are unprofessional in a work environment. Politics has become one of them.

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

#505

Post by failwhaleshark »

It's never been professional or a good place to have political discussions at work because it's awkward and causes problems. And a racist list of names doesn't set a good example either.

As long as employees aren't told what opinions, beliefs to hold, and causes to rally behind, carry on.

To not be able to express an opinion related to work, or say, the weather, would just be ridiculously-insane.

Complaining does lead to more complaining, winging, and whining. It's best to not tolerate it but to do so softly: tease and suggest action. Complaining about what is "wrong" is sometimes rooted in a shared experience observation but it can just as well be people passively seeking others to fix things for them. The point being one could spend that time and energy complaining working to try to fix it.

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

#506

Post by detaro »

digitaltrees wrote: post #499
grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

I disagree. It’s about professionalism. Flame wars at work create a hostile environment where quiet voices are silenced. It’s the same reason HN bans political flame wars.

But you might remember the disaster as HN as an experiment tried to get rid of those by banning all politics topics... Of course not 100% identical, but some analogues hold. Going against flamewars is quite different than banning topics wholesale - and if you are a "quiet voice", are you going to dare touch anything potentially political now?

And if it's about professionalism, you probably shouldn't communicate your policy change to your employees through the personal blog of an executive...

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

#507

Post by zebnyc »

I for one would be glad if more companies mandated No Politics / No Religion" policies. As some one who used to bring up politics intermittently at work, I realized the error of my ways. There is nothing to gain in bringing up politics. If they are in the opposite camp, now you have built a new trust barrier between the two of you. Even if they are on the same camp, it is very rare to be perfectly on the same page and you will be damned for not being sincere / believing enough. Creates a circular firing squad scenario akin to what President Obama warned against.

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

#508

Post by madeofpalk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #497
jrochkind1 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would depend on how much I liked my job. My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Note the "changes" [1] are not just "no politics" but also "no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hieararchy), no more 360 degree reviews (no way to formally give feedback to your boss), and no more bringing up past decisions you disagree…

> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss Not all the people who left worked for DHH, who is the CTO. OTOH, if the CTO is a terrible boss, there’s a very good chance that the rest of the C-suite is suboptimal, since executives generally aren’t picked at random, so there is probably some correlation across the group. And, then, down the chain of management, for the same reasons.

DHH is a co-founder. He's a boss of everyone, whether he's in the reporting line or not.

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

#509

Post by HNfriend234 »

baron816 wrote: post #181

What I think is lost in the conversation here is that people don’t really have organizations they can go to to advocate their political positions. People have their families, their jobs, and maybe a couple of friends and that’s about it. They need an outlet to push the ideas and causes they care about. The workplace is one of the few places where they can feel like they’re having an impact, but that’s not really appr…

There are non-profit organizations or similar private organizations that are better suited for political activity. The workplace is not the correct place. I was also harassed by the "silence is complicit" attitude. Some other employees I work with would go up to me and ask me questions like "we want to know where you stand on xyz political issue".....and I'm like.....it is really none of your business. They then take that response as you "being part of the problem" and then start going after you personally. Like who the heck does that? Especially to coworkers.
Post reply on HN