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

201–210 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#201

Post by mdoms »

mempko wrote: post #75
eplanit wrote: post #72

So refreshing. Yes, focus on the business (because it is, after all, a business). The job people are hired for is not politics or activism. Also glad to see the weird new-age peer review crap and "soft" stuff eliminated, too. A lot of that is accumulated trendiness from the 90s onward. I love the new policy and attitude, as its emphasis is more about the professional than the personality.

Software is a creative act. This kills creativity and will kill any company culture. Basecamp might as well become JIRA at this point.

I worked at Atlassian and it's the exact opposite of the changes described here. The internal Slack (née Stride née Hipchat) was a cesspit of time-wasting political activism bullshit.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#202

Post by drewbug01 »

bsima wrote: post #185
drewbug01 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level

My point is that some people consider my equal participation in that conversation to be inherently political. My point is essentially that anti-lgbt folk will dehumanize the conversation under the guise of “no politics”. Or at least that they could, and that it sure used to happen an awful lot, and it wasn’t that long ago.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#203

Post by starik36 »

theshadowknows wrote: post #159

Hard for me to take it seriously when providing a gym stipend is “paternalistic” but not trusting your employees to discuss certain topics is supposed to be smart business.

I am totally on board with this. I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year.

I was already walking over 10k steps daily for years. But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?

That to me is paternalistic behavior. If you want subsidize my health insurance, just do it. But I don't need my employer to be my mommy, no matter the intentions.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#204

Post by [deleted] »

bsima wrote: post #185
drewbug01 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#205

Post by gregd »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

The issue I see here is that Jason Fried and DHH state that this decision lands solely with them. Giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt is impossible until and unless they center marginalized voices and give them positions of power at Basecamp. Otherwise this decision is cowardice wrapped in some arbitrary policies.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#206

Post by drewbug01 »

drusepth wrote: post #169
djrobstep wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This seems like something you would want to bring up with your boss / HR / higher-ups, instead of starting an open discussion/debate with the whole company, right?

“That seems like [a worker rights issue] that you would want to bring up with [the folks who usually don’t like the workers exercising their rights]” is how that sounds to me, when I read it.

Sure, yeah, you should bring it up with management, but bringing it up with your coworkers is essential to actually making a change happen.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#207

Post by NationalPark »

jiofih wrote: post #167
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…

> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?

I think the GP comment is referring to LGBT people who are out, willingly or not, to their coworkers. Which bathroom a trans person uses, for example, is considered a political issue by some people.

But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleable political system. We could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment that makes being late for standup punishable by prison, couldn't we? Is it now political to be late for standup? You end up arguing over the degree to which something is political, which leads back to what everyone is complaining about: the enforcement of this policy cannot be anything but arbitrary.

Personally, I think that if the Basecamp folks want to ban a particular type of politics then they should grow a spine and say what they mean, instead of expecting everyone to read between the lines for them. If they did that then perhaps they could expect people to agree to disagree, but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#208

Post by anm89 »

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.

The U.S legal system (or anywhere else's) is not based on your subjective personal ethics.

Germans voted for a specific right. American's do the same all the time. Germans still do not have some blanket right for every worker to control company policy.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#209

Post by markmark »

itsangaris wrote: post #197
markmark wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atlassian's market cap is almost $60B, Basecamp will be pretty happy if this small change leads to that sort of success.

Not defending this Basecamp's policy, but their goals as a company are vastly different than Atlassian's, so it's not really a fair comparison. Which do you think indexes higher on employee happiness?

Well one of the companies had to step in and ban certain areas of discussion among employees because it was so toxic it was effecting the company. So _they_ don't sound super happy.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#210

Post by robjan »

drewbug01 wrote: post #189
jiofih wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?

Not unable to work; unwelcome at work. I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they…

I think there a difference. A statement of indisputable fact i.e. "I went to the park with my husband" is different from an opinion or belief such as "I think x should be y", regardless of how accepted it is in the workplace or society as a whole.
Post reply on HN