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

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

#781

Post by skinkestek » Sat, May 01, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

ethnt wrote: post #523

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…

Well, you say that it's one of the nicest companies to work in, but clearly not if 1/3 of their employees are willing to leave over a policy decision. Some of the employees that left had been there for over 15 years — it used to be a good place to work, but this made it untenable for them.

> Well, you say that it's one of the nicest companies to work in, but clearly not if 1/3 of their employees are willing to leave over a policy decision.

I'm afraid many of them will be in for a rude awakening.

Basecamp has really stood out it seems.

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

#782

Post by lcpriest » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:01 AM UTC

etempleton wrote: post #776

I don't pretend to know what the culture is like at Basecamp, nor do I have a dog in this fight, but as a general observation I have found the recent openness of people to discuss their feelings and opinions about anything and everything at any place, including at work, a bit...weird. I guess growing up an emphasis was placed on knowing my "place," so it is a foreign concept to me in that regard. I do not judge peopl…

I think part of it is how much work has encroached into our lives - long commutes and long work hours tend to prevent people from finding/existing in social spaces where it is appropriate to talk about these things. For many people, work is the only place in their life where they see other adults en masse (especially if they are parents).

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

#783

Post by Igelau » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:01 AM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #589

jollybean wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an unfair representation and you are straw-manning the situation at least somewhat. The company doesn't think that 'name calling' is appropriate, rather, they don't believe that this activity is the beginnings of some kind of 'race war' and object to language such as 'leads to genocide' as hyperbolic. "unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace," Yes, if your staff are exer…

This is not the appropriate language: it's their company, and their responsibility. It's not a 'personal fiefdom'. I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not. It's unreasonable to believe that excessive fear-mongering such as language regarding 'leads to genocide' should be accepted at face value. I imagine gentle disagreeme…

> I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one

Feudalism:

"the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."

Got it. Wait. No, lost it.

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

#784

Post by fighterpilot » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

pochamago wrote: post #203

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 think for the people who are so passionate they can't imagine not engaging with politics at work should look for careers in NGOs. I don't feel any disdain for activists, I just don't really want to work with them, and I think we'd both be happier if they were engaged in work that had first order effects on their beliefs instead of second or third

This assumes that it's an earnest desire to improve society (which it sometimes is), and not a desire to gain/maintain status or power through virtue signalling.

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

#785

Post by overgard » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:06 AM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #589

jollybean wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an unfair representation and you are straw-manning the situation at least somewhat. The company doesn't think that 'name calling' is appropriate, rather, they don't believe that this activity is the beginnings of some kind of 'race war' and object to language such as 'leads to genocide' as hyperbolic. "unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace," Yes, if your staff are exer…

This is not the appropriate language: it's their company, and their responsibility. It's not a 'personal fiefdom'. I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not. It's unreasonable to believe that excessive fear-mongering such as language regarding 'leads to genocide' should be accepted at face value. I imagine gentle disagreeme…

Offering severance like that doesn't seem like a retaliation. The owners of the company decided that the culture of the company was going a route they didn't like and made a decision that was overall very generous. It's both professional and how managers should act. I'm baffled that this is viewed so harshly, or that anyone outside of Basecamp even really cares about this.

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

#786

Post by kyawzazaw » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:09 AM UTC

542458 wrote: post #275

Wolfr_ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if 1/3 of your company leaves there is short-term morale loss for the ones that remain. But the loss of internal IP will be devastating. Especially if you are not big on docs and have that “just be smart and ship” approach that Basecamp has. Basecamp has a real problem hand here... they probably never expected this.

From what I’m seeing basically the entire iOS team is gone, and that app is nontrivial. It’s going to be a nightmare to get new developers up to speed without any of the existing expertise around.

There's only 58 employees there too

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

#787

Post by baryphonic » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:13 AM UTC

_jal wrote: post #84

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.

Any employer that abruptly told me I needed to watch what I said at work would lose me, too. I'm not saying I demand the ability to be rude and awful, or go on political tirades, or anything even vaguely like that. But I spend more time talking to people I work with than any other set of people. Telling me I have to avoid entire categories of normal conversation is itself authoritarian politicization of the workplace…

I wholeheartedly disagree. I have very different political views from the vast majority of people I work with. 99% of the time, those topics never come up. But if they do, I have to shut my mouth and smile and pretend I find it amusing. To call this woke improv theater I have to do "no fun" would be an understatement. It feels like being gay in the time when that could completely ostracize someone, not to mention send him to jail.

But it's even worse because I care about my colleagues. We've worked hard together and produced some pretty amazing things. When I hear them sometimes say things that are frankly ignorant, bad-faith, uncharitable, etc. about their political out-group, I just have to shake my head.

Somehow I get through my day at work avoiding discussing much about my beliefs. We chat about our families, recent happenings in our lives, hobbies, trips, interesting articles we saw recently on HN, etc. Turns out none of those things is a terribly political topic. Maybe a small part of me wishes that the tables were turned, and the people I disagree with had to hold their tongues for fear of ostracism when "political" opinions arise. But in reality, I don't want them to feel this way either. I'd rather work at a place that strongly discouraged political chatter and activism using work resources.

I'd hope that we could at least get a balance where there enough companies like Basecamp or Coinbase that can meet my needs so that the companies like Google or Spotify can continue to meet yours, and we can sort into the places where we work best.

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

#788

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

gifnamething wrote: post #580

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…

Management took a stance against the employees. Management cancelled their employees, removing their platform to talk about internal politics. Framing this as 'these people' vs Basecamp is ludicrous. It's 1/3 or more of Basecamp vs. Basecamp's management. Important people in important roles, entire teams. They are this company. Or were.

>Management took a stance against the employees.

Management took a stance. "Against the employees" is a reading, not a fact.

As I see it, there was nothing against the employees in the stance.

>Management cancelled their employees, removing their platform to talk about internal politics.

Because other companies have such a thing?

Or because it wasn't being abused to talk about BS (genocide accusations, and such).

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

#789

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

DiNovi wrote: post #659

norswap wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Basecamp are the people who built it and wrote it from scratch, like DHH. Not 1/3rd who came later, landed on cushy jobs, and now leaves with a buyout.

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

#790

Post by overgard » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:20 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…

I think that is a pretty bold statement. In my experience, while some openness and reflection in a company is healthy, when a team or a company gets too meta and spends a lot of time talking about their own interpersonal feelings and relationships, it can overall create a really uncomfortable vibe where everyone feels as if their behavior is constantly being judged. I can see how they might want to reduce that without it being a flex of power. I can also see how some employees might see it as a flex. I think calling it feudal really goes too far.