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

151–160 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#151

Post by detaro »

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 can (publicly) tell people to stop getting into politics debates all the time without banning all mentions of things that touch politics.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#152

Post by chipgap98 »

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…

If you can't talk about the way your life is impacted by systemic racism or the way your healthcare is threatened due to your gender identity then you are being told you can't be yourself or talk about parts of your life at work. This is going to land much heavier on certain populations and therefore is giving preference to the people who benefit from the current economic and political structure.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#153

Post by derex »

DogOnTheWeb wrote: post #45
oxylibrium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those are particularly choice words coming from Basecamp, who have been particularly active in calling out Apple's treatment of iOS and the App Store, which is in at least some sense political advocacy. Life is necessarily political; and they should be more aware of it than most others. I'm not endorsing Apple's behavior with the App Store, but seriously, this is very out-of-character and I don't like the ton…

They also say, "We're in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge." Advocacy on the policies of one of the world's foremost software distribution gatekeeper seems well within how they define "their business". I don't think it takes much squinting to see how they can view this sort of advocacy as in their lane, while the popular political discussions of the day are not.

In other words, “some political advocacies are good for our business and some are not. As a result, let’s ban all of them.”

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#154

Post by ashtonkem »

gamesbrainiac wrote: post #135
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.

I missed that, my mistake.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#155

Post by mwcampbell »

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…

> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.

I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#156

Post by rangoon626 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #122
rangoon626 wrote: post #119

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.

Problematic how?

Seems kind of like an ableist “perk” to me. I understand that it’s one of those things that’s not intended to be, but the net result is still the same.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#157

Post by rangoon626 »

notwhereyouare wrote: post #130
rangoon626 wrote: post #119

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

And those who didn’t essentially lost out on a bit of compensation.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#158

Post by xiphias2 »

detaro wrote: post #97
stephsmithio wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I hear the, "But anything could be viewed as societal and political discussion", it's kind of a straw man argument. We all know what types of discourse Jason and David are referring to and they augmented their request with, "But if you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world. Someone will gently remind you of the etiquette, and we'll move on. This isn't some zero-tolerance, max-consequences new policy." F…

Part of the problem is that no, we do not know what they are referring to. Lots of murky lines, lots of people with bad experiences that what for them is essential is considered over lines, worry that it'll be used to silence internal discussion of things the company does, ... (and of course if you impose it on a company used to something different, it's potentially a massive culture shift) The "you can take it to pr…

Blacklist/whitelist, main vs master, is there a bias in promoting women, what are the rules for dating a colleague, is an anti-bias training needed are all topics that are divisive, though some of them are easy to solve (David has strong opinions for naming variables, remote working solves the dating problem and no peer reviews means that less talk needs to be done about promotions).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#160

Post by rangoon626 »

markmark wrote: post #146
notwhereyouare wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems much more inclusionary to all employees
Post reply on HN