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

351–360 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#351

Post by xref »

starik36 wrote: post #203
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 ma…

> But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?

Then your health insurance billings will likely be higher, and you’ll be more expensive to insure, which pushes up the company group rate. Measures like getting employees to exercise more fall under the umbrella of “preventative care”

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#352

Post by yibg »

angry_octet wrote: post #332
reducesuffering wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyo…

No doubt you would be offended and angry if your CEO instituted a policy of workplace secularism, that extended to no career progression if you were a churchgoer. Or if important people commented on how smelly you were, and everyone laughed about Mr Stinker and your funny food. Banks wouldn't lend you money for a house in the nice part of town, because they all knew you were a snollygoster and they didn't want your k…

And you'd be completely fine with being passed over for a job because there is a quota for pink people and you're not pink? One can object to bad solutions to a problem without denying the problem itself exists. It's exactly the stifling of these types of discussions to real problems that's the issue. Any suggestion of alternatives or pointing out problems with existing practices, and you get labeled a bigot.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#353

Post by hedora »

lindy2021 wrote: post #300
jakelazaroff wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.

> is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees This is an HR responsibility. You either trust them to avoid and eliminate discrimination or you don't.

With what authority will HR eliminate discrimination?

At a minimum, they’d need to stop accepting employee referrals (how can they tell if the referrals biased?) and take over the technical interview process.

Also, what happens when an exec elsewhere in the company discriminates against someone? Will HR have the power to unilaterally fire the exec? The CEO? The chairman of the board? How would they even detect the discrimination?

Sadly, declaring that one division of a company will eliminate discrimination doesn’t work. You need the whole company to pull together, though realistically, that won’t work either.

Society as a whole has to decide to solve the problem. Looping around to the article, one of the political parties passed hundreds of bills to disenfranchise minority voters; arguing that minorities should have basic rights is (in the US, at least) politically controversial.

Charitably, I hope the goal is to force my values on the employees, and silence dissent (no bigoted discussions at work).

Invoke Godwin’s Law, and… Done.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#355

Post by jakelazaroff »

lindy2021 wrote: post #300
jakelazaroff wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.

> is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees This is an HR responsibility. You either trust them to avoid and eliminate discrimination or you don't.

Even within this framework, “only discuss these things with HR” is untenable. Say a coworker harasses you and HR tells you it’s the first time someone has reported them. How can you know whether to revoke that trust without “talking politics” with your coworkers?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#357

Post by angry_octet »

fouc wrote: post #260
bsima wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Django Girls is an international non-profit organization started to inspire women from all backgrounds to get interested in technology and to become programmers, offering a safe and friendly environment. It's something that most tech companies would be willing to sponsor, not political at all.

It is political to sponsor an organisation attempting to correct for the disincentives women face in technical fields. Some people would prefer not to sponsor that, as they believe women are represented at their natural and correct ratios in tech.

Basically some people see affirmative action of any kind as anathema, and they get angry and insecure when these things are suggested, and people respond in turn. So I see how this could become a source of conflict.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#358

Post by honkycat »

kiawe_fire wrote: post #242
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 tha…

Funny, I feel like there is a healthy conservative movement in the US and you are literally surrounded by conservatives all the time. In fact I think 74 million of them voted in the last election. So please explain how being a white male makes you some kind of victimized under-class.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#360

Post by drewbug01 »

analogdreams wrote: post #349
drewbug01 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, anonymous handles and no in-person (or zoom) chat might make that sorta possible, but you can’t get around the problem. The real issue is that this is only a problem in one direction: nobody complains when someone says “my wife,” and some people definitely complain when someone says “my husband”. It definitely gets made about sex, and gay sex specifically, by the people making the complaint. They’re the ones…

Which is why it should all be avoided in the workplace. This is not a debate about the merits of gay or straight sexual orientation. My coworkers have no need to know if I am in a relationship, have children, etc. If they ask I will (and do) tell them I am not interested in having that conversation and I will never ask them or engage further if they bring their partner/spouse/children up. I'm there to do a job and le…

That's a principled and consistent stand, which I applaud you for maintaining. But I don't think that majority of the working world would take such a hard-line stance against sharing any details of their personal lives.

So - we have to deal with the world we have, which is "many, if not most, workers share some degree of personal information about their lives in the workplace." That's the reality we have to deal with.

Post reply on HN