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

431–440 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#431

Post by astrange »

bradleyjg wrote: post #256
djrobstep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.

Activism that imposes zero costs on the activist, indeed provides social benefits, just isn’t very convincing. Going to jail for your beliefs or standing up to cops with dogs and fire hoses—-those make otherwise indifferent people stop and think. The fact that “stay and change things from the inside” is maximally convenient for soi disant activists doesn’t strike many of us as a coincidence.

This implies that someone could convince you X activism is worthless by not doing anything to visibly resist it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#432

Post by junon »

SNosTrAnDbLe wrote: post #425
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has mandated that 40% of our recruiting contacts for engineers are women. We have spent weeks talking about bias in our interview process and despite having no metrics showing bias is a problem we have made changes to combat it (i.e. no video on the call) that have led to worse experiences for our candidates. Suffice to say we have had a lot of trouble hiring engineers. > Why wouldn't you want to bring the…

How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?

How much does being a woman affect your ability to engineer?

Should a woman only be hired because they're a woman, even if they're a poor engineer? That seems way more sexist than the alternative.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#433

Post by astrange »

drusepth wrote: post #139

I wasn't expecting to like these changes after seeing a ton of tweets from rubyists I respect criticizing them, but after reading them... I love them all. Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing and I'm glad to see companies starting to reel it back and get back to, well, being companies. They make products; they don't need to have opinions on unrelated things. IMO pe…

> Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead.

This one's odd to me, because I thought the point of non-cash benefits was that it was much cheaper than giving out cash because the employer has more bargaining power than you.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#434

Post by astrange »

kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote: post #40
dmazin wrote: post #35

So like if I think not using master/slave is not only important morally, but also important for recruiting, is suggesting we remove it for business reasons a political discussion? Hmm.

Master/slave in the context of IT has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, black people, etc. So yes, it is political.

> Master/slave in the context of IT has absolutely nothing to do with slavery

This can't possibly be true as stated. Even if it's a metaphor, it doesn't add anything over leader/follower or, say, playwright/actor.

Plus it sounds like a sex thing.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#435

Post by astrange »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #429
astrange wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Are we hiring diverse people I want to work with" is a question relevant to everyone, because it falls under workplace conditions, which is something you're not allowed to prevent employees from discussing. Also, we're talking about tech workers who get stock compensation, right? They literally own (part of) the company.

If you don't like the people in a company, don't take a job there. Astounding to me that it is controversial that people who are hired to do a job should be spending their time doing the job they are paid to do instead of debating with other employees about what their employers should be doing. I don't see anyone suggesting that employees can't contact HR, or write letters to those whose actual job it is to making hi…

> If you don't like the people in a company, don't take a job there.

What if you do like them and so you want more of them? Maintaining culture doesn't happen on its own.

Note everyone's job is making hiring decisions, most companies don't have central hiring like Google does (and do they really?).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#436

Post by therealdrag0 »

Hamuko wrote: post #409
drusepth wrote: post #139

I wasn't expecting to like these changes after seeing a ton of tweets from rubyists I respect criticizing them, but after reading them... I love them all. Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing and I'm glad to see companies starting to reel it back and get back to, well, being companies. They make products; they don't need to have opinions on unrelated things. IMO pe…

> Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing Are we pretending that all that corporate lobbying and political donations that have been going on for years and years was non-political?

There’s a difference between economic politics to be lobbied for and cultural politics to signal/argue about.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#437

Post by katbyte »

anm89 wrote: post #102
PascLeRasc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine is a software engineer in a conservative industry, and their company brought out the same "no politics at work" last summer. Their benefits package has some language specifically referring to only extending health insurance coverage to hetero spouses, and only permitting time off for a new child if the employee gave birth to it, so nothing for adoptions, fathers, or surrogate births. People have been…

Right, this is how it should be. If that is a deal breaker then find a different employer. Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract. If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.

so a conservative employer gets to just discriminate against blacks/gays/women/ect and that's ok with you? do you see the problem here when employees can't speak out and are shut down with "no political speech or your fired"

"if your not christian you shouldn't work here"

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#438

Post by Igelau »

dylan604 wrote: post #350
lindy2021 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because you don't truly find out how bad/toxic departments within a company are until you've been there a while.

I had the darkly humorous experience of meeting my HR rep for the very first time on a (pre-pandemic) video conference. Meeting agenda? I'm being fired!

Of course now that we all live in Covidland, we've had horror stories of whole business units just getting a pre-recorded message that they no longer work there.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#439

Post by Hamuko »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #436
Hamuko wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing Are we pretending that all that corporate lobbying and political donations that have been going on for years and years was non-political?

There’s a difference between economic politics to be lobbied for and cultural politics to signal/argue about.

What's the difference?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#440

Post by katbyte »

voidfunc wrote: post #120
djrobstep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.

so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait
Post reply on HN