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

381–390 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#381

Post by oppressedemmp »

wmf wrote: post #306
temp8964 wrote: post #267

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? 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.

OpReSsEd eMpLoYeEs

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#382

Post by djrobstep »

anm89 wrote: post #309
djrobstep wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, as horrible as that viewpoint is, at least you have the self-awareness to admit that you actively approve of authoritarianism and forced servitude. Many do, but won't admit it to themselves.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#383

Post by seppin »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #373
kristofferR wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds just as dumb as when Hacker News banned "politics" for a period, and people were discouraged from posting EFF blog posts and the like, because "politics" is an impressively vague word. Politics is life, it doesn't have to be toxic.

In my experience, when people say "I don't want politics at work", what they mean is they don't want what you'd call toxic politics. For example, I consider my workplace generally apolitical despite our large and active DEI committees, because they consistently frame their work in positive terms: lots of "here's how we can make people happier and more successful!", occasional "suchandsuch was a tragedy and we hope to…

They could also want to live undisturbed in their bubble, unchallenged as to the power and privilege they exercise daily.

Could be both.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#384

Post by litoorachure »

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?

That question doesn't really make sense in the context of a US workplace.

The employee:HR relationship is fundamentally adversarial over here. HR's job is to protect the company, including from its own employees. They will throw you under the bus if it benefits the company.

Most people won't run into issues with them, but if you think that someone important to the company's bottom line is behaving inappropriately and you go to HR about it, how would you expect them to react? It's a matter of incentives.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#385

Post by Ericson2314 »

> We introduced 360s, which required peers to provide feedback on peers. The problem is, peer feedback is often positive and reassuring, which is fun to read but not very useful.

The whole point of 360 reviews is to collectively confront management when doing so 1-1 would be too awkward and risky. This list of changes here is honestly pretty suspect, and seems like the owners are trying to recentralize their power.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#386

Post by travisjungroth »

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?

I live in Mexico and it's certainly not because I trust the police.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#387

Post by anonfornoreason »

cozuya wrote: post #326
kiawe_fire wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think I misread you, and I think I fully understand what you mean - to some, simply saying “my husband and I” triggers the feeling that you’re shoving an agenda in their face. I get it, and I don’t disagree at all. But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. Clearly, without any context, if ever a word were to be said about thi…

[flagged]

I’m pretty sure mainstream republicans are pretty onboard with accepting homosexuality, it’s the trans movement that is currently under scrutiny. Obviously we can find examples of members of the GOP that are against gay marriage, but the last four or five years has seen that toned down a bunch.

People change, conservatives pride themselves on changing slower, but it does happen.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#388

Post by eweise »

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 same sex couple message doesn't seem political because there are just sharing an experience. It would be political if they continued on about the law was unfair and needs to change.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#389

Post by wbc »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #385

> We introduced 360s, which required peers to provide feedback on peers. The problem is, peer feedback is often positive and reassuring, which is fun to read but not very useful. The whole point of 360 reviews is to collectively confront management when doing so 1-1 would be too awkward and risky. This list of changes here is honestly pretty suspect, and seems like the owners are trying to recentralize their power.

How has 360 reviews confronted management in your experience?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#390

Post by Naracion »

yibg wrote: post #375
angry_octet wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand that white people are literally pink right? And there is an effective white guy target at many workplaces: all but one. People choose other people like themselves. The preposterous nature of your contention is that I would be passed over for being too white? Well, I would simply take one of the many other jobs my strategic class and race positioning allows me to take.

The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.

I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and it gets rather bad.

Again, I'm not questioning your heart, but I do think that words are powerful and words are how the society group think evolves.

Post reply on HN