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

131–140 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#131

Post by toomuchtodo »

anm89 wrote: post #125
toomuchtodo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's unnecessary. I'm simply demonstrating that unionization has occurred in businesses far larger and with arguably more difficult organizing environments than Basecamp (with a total of ~60 employees). 800 Google workers thought it important enough to join their union.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#132

Post by paxys »

bradleyjg wrote: post #126
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 eve…

You just outlined the solution yourself. If someone isn't doing enough productive work then fire them for that. Whether they were talking about politics or anime doesn't really matter.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#133

Post by djrobstep »

anm89 wrote: post #127
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.

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.

What a contract says does not determine what is ethical. I'm interested in worker control over their own workplaces. Plenty of countries already do this, Germany for instance has board seats reserved for workers as mandatory for all large companies.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#135

Post by gamesbrainiac »

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.

He said that he would be providing them with the cash equivalent. I don't see the problem here.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#136

Post by djrobstep »

nerdponx wrote: post #116
drewbug01 wrote: post #81

Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets. That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop. So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in d…

I think I agree with what you said about American conservatism; it's an interesting idea at least. But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp? So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I can't think of many political topics…

> But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp?

Let's say I work at Basecamp and believe that workers should be entitled to seats on Basecamp's board, just as they are in all large companies in Germany. Should I be punished for raising this?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#137

Post by bradleyjg »

paxys wrote: post #132
bradleyjg wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eve…

You just outlined the solution yourself. If someone isn't doing enough productive work then fire them for that. Whether they were talking about politics or anime doesn't really matter.

But if he’s the only outspoken Trump supporter or trans-rights activist at the company you are going to spark a lot of rumors and ill will when you fire him. Whereas firing the biggest anime fan isn’t going to garner any notice.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#138

Post by paxys »

djrobstep wrote: post #133
anm89 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What a contract says does not determine what is ethical. I'm interested in worker control over their own workplaces. Plenty of countries already do this, Germany for instance has board seats reserved for workers as mandatory for all large companies.

> What a contract says does not determine what is ethical

Or what is legal. So many people don't assert their rights because some random piece of paper (or online form) told them they can't, when it would be completely unenforceable in a local court.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#139

Post by drusepth »

I wasn't expecting to like these changes after seeing a ton of tweets from rubyists I respect criticizing them, but after reading them... I love them all.

Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing and I'm glad to see companies starting to reel it back and get back to, well, being companies. They make products; they don't need to have opinions on unrelated things.

IMO people (even the people in charge of companies) can (and should) have political opinions! _Companies_ shouldn't.

>You shouldn't have to wonder if staying out of it means you're complicit, or wading into it means you're a target.

This line speaks to me a lot. I find 99% of political conversations at work are just pontification and/or signaling; I don't want to waste precious time at work chatting into echo chambers (or starting fights!) -- especially in a context where my opinion (or my coworkers' opinions) literally _do not matter_.

Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead. I've felt left out of benefits at companies in the past because I didn't want to use a gym, or buy certain things, etc. It's kind of the same vibe as smoke breaks at some jobs -- you're missing out if you're not a smoker. This seems more inclusive for everyone, and I really appreciate companies recognizing their place in a worker's life: they sign your checks for what you do during work hours.

All in all, these seem like really great changes in theory. With all corporate policies though, we'll see how they're implemented in practice.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#140

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN