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

301–310 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#301

Post by bsima »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #281
bsima wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think /individuals/ should be political actors, not companies. Companies should focus on market operations: build product, provide service. Maybe that doesn’t directly answer the question but I’m not sure it’s a great question tbh.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#302

Post by drewbug01 »

imgabe wrote: post #289
drewbug01 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "poli…

Actually and honestly: I do not know whether or not Jason and DHH would personally do that. I would caution that you never really know what biases people hold simply from reading their Twitter.

That said, I would be surprised if they took a complaint like this seriously. But what I’m saying is that people used to take this particular complaint seriously within the past 10 years; and that this complaint is easily generalized to a lot of other complaints that feel very relevant.

And moreover the even bigger point is now I have to worry because this has happened to me. Why wouldn’t I be worried it would happen again?

(And this policy is creeping in at multiple workplaces: Coinbase, Basecamp, and at least one other place I’m not at liberty to actually say - and the trend is very concerning).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#303

Post by tylermenezes »

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…

> I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt

I'm not, especially as the post then moves straight into dissolving the DEI committee and moving its responsibilities to HR.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#305

Post by anm89 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #241
sokoloff wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine making this ridiculous argument for anything else.

Yeah, maybe only .005% of Americans are flat earthers but I chuckle at the math! You just havent given it enough time for us to be proven right!

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#306

Post by wmf »

temp8964 wrote: post #267
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…

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? I don't understand why would any company want e…

I don't understand why would any company want to openly discuss...

That's the point; companies don't want to discuss it but oppressed employees do.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#307

Post by Magicstatic »

djrobstep wrote: post #172
anm89 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "bel…

Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#308

Post by NationalPark »

mwcampbell wrote: post #291
NationalPark wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 malleabl…

> 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. And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work…

I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#309

Post by anm89 »

djrobstep wrote: post #172
anm89 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "bel…

So the concept of having a boss is authoritarian? Again I'll proudly wear the label of authoritarian as you describe it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#310

Post by wmf »

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…

Say "keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work."

You have been canceled for "tone policing".

Post reply on HN