Live data from Hacker News

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

141–150 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt.

Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want.

If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#142

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…

But isn't the place to discuss those issues, if they are impacting you at your workplace, with your manager, HR or your union? Not to start a thread on the work discussion forum?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#143
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. With these new policies in place it's more explicit that you are firing an employee for being a Trump supporter or trans-rights activist.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#144
post #125

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?

I'll stick to calling 1000s to 3 "nearly unanimous"

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#145

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…

It wasn’t that long ago that even in tech, you couldn’t mention same-sex spouses without backlash. And that’s still the case today in other industries (particularly ones that don’t have a sizable internet culture influence like tech does).

So like to apply that specifically to a work context: that’s saying “no watercooler chat about what you and your spouses got up to over the weekend” because your spouse existing is a “political” concept. And by extension, that employee isn’t very much welcome.

You can extend that metaphor in other directions though: company PACs supporting anti-gay politicians, benefits that exclude LGBT employees, etc. Now that’s all “political” too.

(There are other areas too, I think - this particular identity-based angle on it is relevant to me personally so I can see these examples clearly. I feel confident there are others.)

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But now you get cash instead, and you can exchange that cash for goods and services, such as a gym membership.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#147

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.

I take it you weren't moved by what he said to address this?

> By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.

Reimbursing gym membership is not a wellness benefit. It's a cheap way to attract a certain kind of employee, who will more eagerly fulfill the cult-like startup culture that companies like WeWork were trying to foster.

I live on a farm. I don't need a gym membership, my everyday life is my gym membership. What you're doing with such a "wellness benefit" is attracting young, up-starter city-dwelling kids who are willing to be punished by the typical startup working hours.

I feel very fortunate to work for a wonderful company that does not engage in any of these

> paternalistic

practices.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.

Is anyone able to actually articulate an example of a political or societal topic that is supposedly obviously of the type that shouldn’t be discussed at work?

Sure - the USA Government wants to sign a deal to buy your software. But a group of people start a divisive email thread on how the USA Gov is a racist, white supremacist, sexist, imperialist government and the company should boycott them.

Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine.

Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps!

Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded.

Or China wants to sign a deal but

Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies.

Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol....

Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”.

Or “the leadership needs more X”

Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples.

HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#150

Are they trying to head off unionization?

That’s usually a nice side-effect. This is a bigger trend developing in tech, I think ... the exact contours of why various C-levels are pushing this now is yet to be seen (not every company policy change to this effect was announced on a blog post, it’s happening elsewhere too).

I honestly think people are reading too much into this. They straight out say that discussions were turning toxic. That presumably impacted the ability of teams to be productive in the jobs they were paid to do. That's the why.
Post reply on HN