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

241–250 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#241

Post by toomuchtodo »

sokoloff wrote: post #233
toomuchtodo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

800 out of 135000 is 6 tenths of 1%. A Basecamp union organizer who was the only one to decide to join their own creation of a Basecamp Workers Union would already be 3 times as successful as the Google union on a per-capita basis.

I can only chuckle at the raw math, as if that’s the valuable datapoint. It seems impossible until it’s done.

It took decades for America to ruin the idea of unions, they’re not coming back overnight.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#242

Post by kiawe_fire »

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…

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop

Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop.

It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely, but you’re not ok with both sides being silenced, or at least “toned down”, for the sake of promoting fairness, inclusion, and productivity.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#243

Post by nautilus12 »

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 love my family!" "That's good...hold up are you conservative?" "Yes" "Stop pushing your politics on us!"

This mindset is demonizing and insidious, full stop. It's simply unacceptable in a civil society

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#244

Post by lindy2021 »

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…

We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR.

Defiling work communication channels with political opinions only serves to distract, deride, and divide.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#245

Post by jakelazaroff »

sokoloff wrote: post #219
drewbug01 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If someone comes to me and reports anyone (of any gender) for using that sentence and claiming that it was political, they'll be first invited to repeat themself because I must have heard them incorrectly and then if that doesn't clue them in, I'll continue along the conversation until they realize that I don't believe that's the least bit political of a statement and if they continue to think that it is, they are on…

Good on you (genuinely) but you do recognize that there are plenty of people who would be much more sympathetic to the complainer, right?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#246

Post by detaro »

nemo44x wrote: post #231
detaro wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't see a difference between "don't talk about any political topics" and "stop pushing for the company to do something about your pet topic X", then yes, that is your point. But given you recognized a difference between "talking about your hunting" and "pushing for the company to support the NRA", I doubt that is the case.

The fable was about the slippery slope or w/e. Maybe not a Pynchon-esque metaphor here, but I’m not a writer. But why is it different to pressure a company into publicly supporting 2a? It’s literally a right as sacred as speech or voting. Why does that seem weird but other things not?

My point is that I don't think it's effective to respond to every "slippery slope" by not letting people anywhere near the slope and holding them back from talking about things they care about because they touch the slope. But rather to pick your point on each slope, which gives your people more opportunity to be open and,if it involves company policy etc, for you to get feedback - although the final decision about what the company does of course still rests with you. And if a topic just doesn't work, ban that.

Re the specific example: I'm not from the US, so a fundamental right to guns (or even just much in the way of gun culture) is culturally "weird" here. I didn't intend to suggest that this would be weird/off-limits to all companies everywhere. Which is kind of the point again: find what works for the topic for your people.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#247

Post by drewbug01 »

hderms wrote: post #238
drewbug01 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bay Area has always been a bit ahead of the curve there - but my point isn’t just an LGBT thing... that’s the example most relevant to me personally. People of color could probably talk about similar issues related to this kind of policy. Of note: Basecamp was at least until recently based primarily in the Midwest, in Chicago. Bay Area culture influences them in the same way it influences all tech culture, but th…

Chicago is pretty LGBTQ friendly. It's culturally more midwestern than say, NYC, but it's not like we're talking about St. Louis here.

I mean we’re really getting lost in the weeds here, I think. Like it’s not just about LGBT issues, it’s just an easy, personally relevant example for me to use.

To your point though: Chicago is decent, but arguably less so than SF.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#248

Post by imgabe »

tshaddox wrote: post #212
mwcampbell wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing…

The blog post specifically mentioned the work chat channel. Talk about whatever you want in other channels.

If you were in the middle of a meeting to plan a new product launch and suddenly announced "I'm getting married this weekend!" what kind of reaction would you expect? People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment and to get back to work. If you kept on trying to turn every discussion about work back to how it relates to your upcoming wedding, they'd eventually get annoyed and write you off as an obnoxious weirdo, and they'd be right.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#249

Post by threatofrain »

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...

Yes, the Lou Bloom / Game of Thrones perspective exists and has a basis in our world. When you play with power, you win or you die.

But I don't believe that's why American gays have been experiencing more and more support. It is not persuasion by equity, but simply by asking people what kind of future they want to live in. Gay life also also improved among EU peers for the same reasons.

Politics is the negotiation of power, and yet strangely, gay people have been able to achieve wins at the negotiating table simply by asking, often without leverage. Sometimes people will listen to your story and simply agree.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#250

Post by bsima »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #235
bsima wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money

To be clear: are you saying that corporations shouldn’t sponsor anything , or are you singling out Django Girls as a “political” sponsorship? If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.

Idk anything about django girls (or the org behind django) I was assuming it’s an example of a politically motivated public outreach. Seems to me company time is better spent making good products than doing outreach. Like I have my own politically-motivated community involvements, but they have nothing to do with whatever company I work for, and I’ll continue doing them when I change companies anyway.
Post reply on HN