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

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

#641

Post by jimbokun » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

acjohnson55 wrote: post #571

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…

This pretty much nails it. The "politics" angle has been revealed to be a red herring by the subsequent accounts of everyone involved. The same contentious discussions would have happened had this policy already existed! I guess you could say the policy gives the founders a ban hammer to swing to end discussions they don't like. Separated from their justification, the 6 policies represent an assertion that Basecamp l…

Sounds like they will get applicants wanting to make successful products for their customers, instead of focusing their work time and resources on accomplishing a personal political agenda.

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

#642

Post by spyckie2 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

Yes, people are reacting to the policy. But it's definitely that the policy is a reaction to something as well.

Probably, the founders believed that the toxicity of the internal culture had reached a point where it was extremely detrimental to the workplace. And, knowing DHH, it was probably not only a financial decision but a lifestyle one. He may have realized that the advocates that actively discussed and promoted political issues within the org was making his life and others in the company miserable.

Would you allow a Jehovah's Witness to be a significant part of your life if they proselytize you every day? I definitely wouldn't. Some of these activists probably think that's their right to do so; so let them walk.

I'd be really surprised if this surprised the executive team. This seems to be a super intentional and very professionally executed cultural shift / purge. Professional, because you give them freaking 6 months of severance and you don't call them out or force them out. If that isn't recognized as goodwill, you're blinded by your political disagreements to seeing how nice of a treatment that is.

The people leaving probably grew with the company, and contributed a lot to the company, so giving them 6 months of severance is recognizing that. But it's also telling them, hey we are making a cultural shift in our identity, and if that identity is no longer you, sorry, we'll treat you really well as you find a place that supports your identity.

This reeks of professionalism and GOOD management to me.

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

#643

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #133

Funny names?

I used to work in a horrible outbound call centre a very long time ago and kept my own list. It cheered me up in an otherwise soul destroying job that had the most awful manager I've ever experienced in my life.

The list itself is lost to the sands of time but I remember at least three:

Mr and Mrs Hunnybun (yes, that was the spelling), Miss Cumcup, Dr Strangleman

so I guess it was something like that.

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

#644

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #504

jrochkind1 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#645

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

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…

> I’d hate to go into work and be harassed about being “silent is complicit” (which seems like it was one of the major drivers of the change)

What is the source for this?

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

#646

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #99

A big part of me wonders if this was the point of this whole exercise. A certain subset of employees are getting too uppity, so you just tell them to fuck off and then show them the door. Theoretically you could fire them, but that might risk lawsuits or even more turmoil. If you have the cash to do this, why not. Basecamp may be getting exactly what they wanted.

Sure, it was the master plan to light their reputation on fire in a single week

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

#647

Post by jrochkind1 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #504

jrochkind1 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's what I wrote, no?

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

#648

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:35 AM UTC

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.

Who says it’s a no politics work place? That’s not what the reporting this week suggests - just that it’s a “don’t disagree with the bosses” workplace.

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

#649

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

andrew_ wrote: post #559

Imagine being so insufferable that your CEO will half ruin his company to get you out. That's the takeaway here.

Imagine being such an insufferable CEO/CTO that 1/3rd of your company quits after you blindside them with new policies and benefit changes in a public blog post.

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

#650

Post by austhrow743 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

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…

>At least 1/3 of the staff, when confronted with their true relations with their management, then decided to quit.

At least 1/3 of staff, when offered either 3 or 6 months of salary just for switching employers, accepted it.

I feel like you'd get similar rates, potentially higher, at any employer recent incident or not. If you have the career power to quickly slot in to an equivalent job elsewhere, you just cut years off of your retirement date.

I don't think any "its really about" take can ignore that.