Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

antivalue.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#11

Post by ryanbrunner »

xupybd wrote: post #5
aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

Do you have any links to the incident for the uninitiated?

This is a good overview: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-politic...

For DHH's response: https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#12

Post by StavrosK »

aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud.

Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place.

I find myself being put off similarly, and it's completely irrational that I'd be put off that someone is against racism as much as I am, but has a different idea of what a solution might look like. Being aware of that is probably a good step towards fixing it, so I wanted to mention it here.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#13

Post by jpdus »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #2

I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship. This seems like a very narrow take on activism.

Came here to say the same.

I disagree strongly with the premise of the article and think it has logical flaws.

Aren't you more of a mercenary if you put personal believes and convictions aside, just to serve your employer as he wants, without asking questions or trying to do the right thing?

Can a fellowship or ("a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest") really form around an SaaS-/Adtech-/SocialMedia-Startup whose main goal is to make the founders rich?

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#15

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

I disagree that activism makes you a "mercenary". If anything, I think of myself at work as a mercenary who is good to his word, and does what he's fucking paid to do, without bringing his personal beliefs into it. If it grates on my conscience, I don't take the contract in the first place.

It's a professional thing to do, dammit.

Activism at the workplace is as far as one can get from either fellowship or a mercenary camp: it's your personal beliefs and values above all else, at all cost. Screw the work, screw the colleagues, screw the company, I need to preach on the company dime, or improve stuff no one has asked me to improve.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#17

Post by unityByFreedom »

aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

Thanks for posting this. The departure of so many employees didn't make sense until I read what you wrote. In light of this, I gather Basecamp didn't want to accept fault for allowing the list to spread. Or maybe there is more to it. At any rate, everyone probably would've been better off with more discussion rather than less, or simply a better decision by the decision makers.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#18

Post by xupybd »

blowski wrote: post #7
seibelj wrote: post #3

Another problem with politics-in-the-workplace is it seems like there is only one accepted political dogma. If people were constantly blasted in the face with my politics they would be very annoyed. But I’m supposed to accept their politics unquestionably. Totally agree with this article - just do your job and get on the soap box during your own time.

Your comment begs the question: what is politics? Discouraging people from voting for Trump? Pushing for equal pay across genders? Believing the business should do more to diversify its hiring? Pushing for transgender bathrooms? Being opposed to working on defense contracts? For some people, these conversations are “obvious facts”, not politics.

All of the above are highly political. There are people who feel very strongly on either side of those positions.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#19

Post by roenxi »

aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

Basecamp is a ~60 person company. The specifics of what happened aren't really big enough to catch anyone's interest. Honestly, who would actually care if 20 people kept a funny name list? It is beyond trivial.

Any firestorm is more people arguing over the role politics has in the workplace. The specifics of what happened are a helpful starting point but, going out on a limb here, probably not material to the people who want to discuss it.

Post reply on HN