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

281–290 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#281

Post by jakelazaroff »

bsima wrote: post #250
jakelazaroff wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Companies sponsor things all the time — as marketing, to help with recruitment, etc. So my question is, do you think all corporate sponsorships are inappropriate? Or just “political” ones?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#282

Post by robjan »

tshaddox wrote: post #217
robjan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think that the statement “I think my marriage should remain legal” is significantly different from the statement “I went to the park with my husband”?

It's obviously different. And this is an example of why politics is a dangerous subject in the workplace. I haven't challenged your belief, in fact, I don't even know your belief and you're already on the attack.

If you say "I am married", that's a fact. If someone says they disagree with your marriage then they are stating an opinion.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#284

Post by detaro »

imgabe wrote: post #280
detaro wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies have places where employees interact outside meetings.

And as far as I can tell, Basecamp still does, and people will still interact and make small talk. So, what's the problem?

Note that the policy is not about "in meetings", but for all spaces of the company, and go back to tshaddox's comment about mentioning marriages in small talk.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#285

Post by bsima »

drewbug01 wrote: post #240
bsima wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more dehumanizing to be reduced to a label than it is to be approached face-to-face

It sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work). I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”

> But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies

I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#286

Post by Uyuxo »

lindy2021 wrote: post #255
villasv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR. Surely you must be joking.

If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?

What kind of a question is that? The first and foremost function of HR is to protect the company, you have no reason to trust them. And who even has such a deep insight into the HR of a company at the time of your hiring that they decide whether to take the job or not based on that info?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#287

Post by izgzhen »

spondyl wrote: post #88

Does this mean that all workers and contractors will be treated the same, and given free range data access, regardless of the politics of their home country (ie China or Russia)? This seems like one area that is usually unavoidable in tech companies.

What is banned is discussion of society and politics, not their existence.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#288

Post by sokoloff »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #245
sokoloff wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, of course. I've seen that number decrease over the decades, but it's obviously not zero (and probably never will be).

It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous political discussion (including this one [Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ]).

Political discussion (like religious discussion) tends to generate more heat than light and I don't begrudge a company wanting to focus official work channels on, well, work.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#289

Post by imgabe »

drewbug01 wrote: post #278
imgabe wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also didn't ban "chitchat". They banned harassing people about politics, which is entirely reasonable.

The banned talking about politics, and my entire point is that my participation in idle chit-chat, when it indirectly confirms my sexuality, is coded as political and thus off-limits. And that this tends to get weaponized against disadvantaged groups.

I don't doubt that there are people who will try to claim that any mention of a same-sex relationship is political.

Based on everything Jason and DHH have ever said or done, do you think that their intent with this policy is to forbid people from mentioning their same sex partners?

Do you believe that they would take seriously any complaint in that regard?

There is definitely a spectrum of behavior contained in "political discussions". Do think there's not any part of that spectrum that should be discouraged at work? I think they made it pretty clear what area of the spectrum of behavior they're targeting and it's not "casual mentions of same-sex partners".

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#290

Post by markmark »

mplewis wrote: post #271
markmark wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The job market is great, if people aren't happy with their comp they can find someone who wants to pay them more.

Answer the question.

They are paying out this year, then introducing a 10% profit share next year. But, as I said, this is just a compensation discussion. If people are unhappy they can renegotiate their comp or find someone else to pay them more.
Post reply on HN