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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by Quarrelsome »

throw14082020 wrote: post #433

I spent a lot of time reading about this... TLDR: Basecamp had a list of funny names which originated a long time ago. You can imagine that certain ethnicities have names which sound funnier than a common name, so these names go on the list. Some people think its racist, others don't. These people who don't think its racist still admit its rude/ unprofessional though, just not racist . Anyway, there was too much poli…

FWIW, DHH stated that only a handful of names were Asian. The vast majority of names on the list were English or Nordic. :|

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

#653

Post by gedy »

HNfriend234 wrote: post #509
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…

Man, I'd report that the HR as a hostile work environment.

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

#654

Post by jrochkind1 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #614
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…

> “no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hierarchy) It sounds like there was a self appointed DE&I committee that had proposals for every area of the business. That doesn’t strike me as a healthy dynamic. There’s a reason successful employee co-ops are rare and kibbutzim don’t exist anymore in anything close to their original form.

I'm not sure it was self-appointed, but either way, let's be clear, they decided there would be no more committees at all ever, right? Not just no more "self-appointed committees with unclear scope".

To the extent that "A long-standing group of managers called "Small Council" will disband — when we need advice or counsel we'll ask individuals with direct relevant experience rather than a pre-defined group at large."

To me this reads like a game-of-thrones-esque political maneuver, to make sure there are no loci of power that might challenge the bosses. The bosses will talk to you one-on-one if they think your opinion matters, you have no reason to be talking to your peers about anything, just keep your head down and do what you're told.

How you distinguish between "a group of people getting together to collaborate on something of importance to the company" (which the owners said DE&I was!), vs "an unpermitted committee"... I don't know if "no collaborating across reporting lines" is an intended or an unintended thing here, unclear.

If THAT strikes you as a healthy dynamic, I hope you get to experience it and find out sometime, and if it works for you, good on you. It didn't for 1/3rd of basecamp though -- I don't think it's about one specific policy, it's about this attitude toward employee involvement.

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

#655

Post by heartbreak »

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.

> if you care so much about these issues

What issues might those be?

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

#656

Post by aniforprez »

hparadiz wrote: post #599
Cyberdog wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people in charge of hiring, particularly outside of the SV bubble, are going to be eager to pick someone up who left their last job because they couldn't agree to stop bitching about politics on the company dime? I don't see how demonstrating the inability to follow basic company rules in the interest of productivity improves their career prospects. Even inside the SV bubble, things aren't that warped, a…

This is a weird take. The tech industry is all politics all the time. Even if all you're doing is discussing policy changes as it relates to the business. Even if literally everyone at the company agrees and is on the same political side you'll still occasionally discuss things like municipal broadband or the Affordable Care Act. By banning politics it creates a hush hush atmosphere where the mere mention of somethin…

I honestly don't understand the sentiment here when people are saying "do your job" and other things to that effect that strip all context from this. The biggest issue right now is COVID and when discussing it the topic can and will inevitable lead to something political. Is it helpful to have to think about the arbitrary line your employers have drawn and try to toe it? When do you know if you pissed off someone higher up? You cannot stop workplace discussions because programmers are people too and will want to find camaraderie and sympathy. Putting these rules and posting them publicly seems like a poor way of simply avoiding the issue rather than resolving it

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

#657

Post by DiNovi »

coldtea wrote: post #331

It's sad that the target for those employees' "political disruption" is Basecamp. One of the arguably nicest companies to work in, which treats employees well, has a sane work/life balance and advocates so, pays well, embraces remote work, gives back to open source (RoR, etc.), and has good products, with no shady anti-consumer practices, that people actually like and pay for (as opposed to somewhere where they sell…

If 1/3 of your company bolts at once you made a very poor leadership decision. Really, at that point, it has nothing to do with anything else

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

#658

Post by Lazare »

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.

I agree with you...except that I don't think this ties in to what's happening at Basecamp at all.

I don't think that Basecamp had an issue with "flame wars", I don't think that the company tried (or succeeded) in banning them, and I don't think the company's actions represented (or increased the level of) professionalism at Basecamp.

So while in general, yes, sure, professionalism is great and we should try and stop destructive flame wars, if you dig into what actually happened at Basecamp, and the timeline, and, eg, the exact reason DHH was reported to HR internally, it becomes rapidly clear that this was something else entirely, in my view.

The policy change was not triggered by people behaving unprofessionally or having a flame war, it was not tailored to prevent unprofessional behaviour or flame wars, it was executed in an unprofessional way, and it has now itself caused flamewars. In short, I think your argument is correct, but is a damning indictment of Basecamp/DHH, not a defense of them.

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

#659

Post by DiNovi »

norswap wrote: post #361
coldtea wrote: post #331

It's sad that the target for those employees' "political disruption" is Basecamp. One of the arguably nicest companies to work in, which treats employees well, has a sane work/life balance and advocates so, pays well, embraces remote work, gives back to open source (RoR, etc.), and has good products, with no shady anti-consumer practices, that people actually like and pay for (as opposed to somewhere where they sell…

The outrage crowd always prefers easy targets over good targets.

Again I don’t get this. 1/3 of basecamp left. They arw basecamp. Basecamp are the people who are leaving! Lol

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

#660

Post by [deleted] »

sircastor wrote: post #427
JauntTrooper wrote: post #28

They offered a severance of 6 months salary if you've worked there for 3+ years... I would be tempted by that offer regardless of any other circumstances, especially in today's competitive jobs market.

Four words come to my mind: “United States Healthcare System” Even with an amazing buyout like this, I feel like you have to be in that relatively narrow space of “no spouse, no kids, good health, pretty young” to be able to walk away from health insurance.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN