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

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#121

Post by toomuchtodo »

anm89 wrote: post #115
toomuchtodo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might also consider forming a union with your fellow coworkers, and negotiating with management with said union. As you mentioned, if you have enough leverage, you win. If that's your jam, grab for the crowbar of labor rights. Organizing is federally protected.

Sure it's your legal right to form a union, go for it if you want. More power to you if you win. Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions. Also understand you are playing power politics so if you are going to play make sure you can win. These people at instacart didn't: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/21/22242676/instacart-firing...

> Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954710407/at-google-hundreds-... ("Google Workers Speak Out About Why They Formed A Union: 'To Protect Ourselves'")

https://www.wired.com/story/how-kickstarter-employees-formed... ("How Kickstarter Employees Formed a Union")

https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/02/following-unionization-gli... ("Following unionization, Glitch signs collective bargaining agreement ")

I admit there's still much work to be done with regards to tech organizing.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#122

Post by ashtonkem »

rangoon626 wrote: post #119
ashtonkem wrote: post #112

Taking away wellness benefits seems unbelievably petty and foolish. These are relatively cheap compared to payroll, but are fantastic for morale. Taking them away on top everything else feels like he’s just willfully poking his own employees in the eye with a stick for no good reason. Also, posting this publicly feels like a very, very bad idea.

Providing gym memberships is kind of problematic, if not outright insensitive. Body positivity is a thing and self-love can be expressed in more ways than just this one.

Problematic how?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#123

Post by gregd »

kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote: post #40
dmazin wrote: post #35

So like if I think not using master/slave is not only important morally, but also important for recruiting, is suggesting we remove it for business reasons a political discussion? Hmm.

Master/slave in the context of IT has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, black people, etc. So yes, it is political.

Actually there are legitimate arguments that master/slave in this context (IT) are precisely tied to slavery.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#125

Post by anm89 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #121
anm89 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it's your legal right to form a union, go for it if you want. More power to you if you win. Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions. Also understand you are playing power politics so if you are going to play make sure you can win. These people at instacart didn't: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/21/22242676/instacart-firing...

> Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954710407/at-google-hundreds-... ("Google Workers Speak Out About Why They Formed A Union: 'To Protect Ourselves'") https://www.wired.com/story/how-kickstarter-employees-formed... ("How Kickstarter Employees Formed a Union") https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/02/fol…

Yeah. That's the whole list...

Want to compile the 1000 page document that would be all the places who haven't unionized?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#126

Post by bradleyjg »

paxys wrote: post #27

Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"? In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp? People are going to say "obviously st…

> Is it really that hard to hire adults who can have reasonable adult conversations (with sometimes differing opinions) without it being a "major distraction"?

What do you do when you have someone that sits in a work slack channel all day fiercely debating politics? Counsel him, sure, but then ultimately you’ll need to fire him.

Inevitably people will wonder if he was fired because of the positions he took (which everyone is fully aware because he never shut up about them) rather than because he wasn’t doing any work. Modern HR best practices foreclose transparency (“we fired so-and-so because he committed just four lines of code in the last two months”).

What’s the best option here?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#127

Post by anm89 »

djrobstep wrote: post #113
anm89 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is how it should be. If that is a deal breaker then find a different employer. Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract. If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.

They frequently do. The contracts they sign often give them some rights in this regard. Companies also optionally give employees these rights all the time because they perceive it to be in their own best interest.

They aren't legally owed them though. So if the company doesn't want to give them that say, then they don't get that say.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#128

Post by djrobstep »

voidfunc wrote: post #120
djrobstep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.

You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment:

"Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord.

Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#129

Post by david38 »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #73
paxys wrote: post #27

Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"? In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp? People are going to say "obviously st…

A friend of mine is a software engineer in a conservative industry, and their company brought out the same "no politics at work" last summer. Their benefits package has some language specifically referring to only extending health insurance coverage to hetero spouses, and only permitting time off for a new child if the employee gave birth to it, so nothing for adoptions, fathers, or surrogate births. People have been…

I find it strange that even a hyper conservative company would prohibit time off for adoption.

I took one day off for the birth of my first daughter. I was in college. I couldn’t afford more time.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#130

Post by notwhereyouare »

rangoon626 wrote: post #119
ashtonkem wrote: post #112

Taking away wellness benefits seems unbelievably petty and foolish. These are relatively cheap compared to payroll, but are fantastic for morale. Taking them away on top everything else feels like he’s just willfully poking his own employees in the eye with a stick for no good reason. Also, posting this publicly feels like a very, very bad idea.

Providing gym memberships is kind of problematic, if not outright insensitive. Body positivity is a thing and self-love can be expressed in more ways than just this one.

You don’t have to use the gym membership though
Post reply on HN