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

441–450 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#441

Post by rednerrus »

deanCommie wrote: post #391
yibg wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Since you wrote the "pink" analogy and this post too, I can respond here: The issue of anti-asian quotas at major american universities is absolutely a legitimate one that needs addressing. Here's why it's a little bit more complicated than just: "Let's just remove all criteria for university admission besides high scores. That won't discriminate against asians and be a true meritocracy". Because then, the amount of…

I would like to see some more information about the amount of poor people getting into universities plummeting. It’s my understanding that many of the Asian quotas are keeping poor Asians out of prestigious universities and replacing them with average upper middle class students. If you have sources, I would love to read them.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#442

Post by omegote »

astrange wrote: post #433
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.

Totally. Not sure about the US, but at least in Spain that kind of benefits (private health insurance, restaurant tickets, etc) tend to be a lot cheaper for the employer often just for being a company, but usually for the large quantities they work with.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#443

Post by katbyte »

SergeAx wrote: post #70
paxys wrote: post #27

Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"? In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp? People are going to say "obviously st…

In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about custom keyboards, sail racing, gym routines and upside of hiring a personal trainer, travel, 3D-printing, I can go on forever. I believe it is fundamentally possible to have an interesting and relaxing conversation with coworkers and not to touch political topics.

it's all fun and games until you slip and your co worker finds out your gay and their entire tone and demeanor changes and they treat you different but then when you go to your manager "no politics in the workplace". Or your black and find out your co-worker is a member of the KKK and is a well known racist, but no politics at work ok

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#444

Post by skinkestek »

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 think we are in this mess because we are mixing up state and religion.

Marriage was a religious thing.

There is no reason any part of the state should mess with it.

But, for a while it so happened that it was useful for the state to rely on marriage to mean "two people living together" for whatever that should mean in tax codes etc. With that came the rules that followed the mainstream religion at the time.

Today that isn't the case any longer and it should be split.

Call the new thing what you want: around here it is something like "civil marriage" as opposed to "(implicit: religious) marriage".

The point should be to separate those two things:

- can you get the same tax benefits? Yes.

- can you throw a party to celebrate it? Yes.

- are people allowed to ask someone about it before hiring them or avoid hiring someone if they find out about it in another way? No.

- is it "religious marriage" so we can force every church to accept it? No.

Does this help?

FTR: I'm a practicing conservative Christian. I think a lot of stuff others do is wrong, and if asked directly I will have to keep silent or answer truthfully.

I do however appreciate my liberty to live my life as I want without neither the state nor anyone else interfering (coming from a non mainstream church this definitely hasn't always been the case, look up Hans Nielsen Hauge for easy access to examples of what I mean) and I want to extend that freedom to others:

If people aren't Christians I might think what they do is wrong, I don't want them to preach in my church etc but I leave them alone and hope for the favour to be returned.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#445

Post by katbyte »

detaro wrote: post #187
nemo44x wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot of things that aren’t political per-se you shouldn’t share with the broader group. For instance, maybe my family has a history of killing wild animals for food. I wouldn’t share our kill shots with my company the same way I would with friends that are interested in hunting. Because I know it’s something a good chunk of people don’t want to see and it’s unnecessary to share. Now imagine I had a few frien…

> And we went out of our way to not only share pictures of these killings (which are all legal) but started to intimidate people that didn’t like to see them. And your managements only way of reacting to that is banning all potentially political talk? Really? My boss would go "go make a #hunting channel and keep it there". And I presume if I tried to get him into gun rights activism the response would be "no, stop pe…

as per this company there would be no hunting or gun channel in the work slack because "politics"

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#446

Post by katbyte »

anm89 wrote: post #105
threatofrain wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you want to discuss gay spousal benefits? Or how medical insurance is going to work for gay couples?

Then read your contract. Discussing these things does not change what the contract you signed says. If you don't like it, renegotiate or leave. If your negotiation is an ultimatum on these points you should probably consider it equivalent to deciding to leave in most cases, but maybe if you have enough leverage you will win.

except if your co-workers never know they they never have a chance to stand up for you and demand change. this is a great way to silence minorities because talking about the challenges they face is now forbidden.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#447

Post by chii »

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…

There's political activism that's related to your employment/career, and then there's political activism unrelated to your employment/career.

Discussing career related political activism at work - such as unionization, or fair pay, because it actively affects you in the workplace - is fine to me.

However, woke politics, like gender equality, abortion, or some other trending topic that is unrelated to your workplace, should be discouraged. Things like that are more akin to religion - it's private, and should be kept off the workplace. Do it in your own private time, with people who also want to do it in their private time.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#448

Post by angry_octet »

sidlls wrote: post #340
angry_octet wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One can object to a proposed solution to a problem without contributing to the problem or being part of the problem. Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.

One can offer an opinion, and if the motivation is not inherently racist it may have weight. But to your contention:

HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Other potential employees might be attracted to work at such a forward looking company.

What basis would you have for believing that such a goal is bad for a software company? Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?

Reply to reply: You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads. Why? What is the basis for believing it is any better, when it pretty clearly disadvantages minorities?

I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech. If this is a misapprehension please correct me.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#450

Post by chii »

angry_octet wrote: post #336
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #239

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? These are questions for people at work whose job…

There will now be signs in the break room: NO GOSSIP NO POLITICS YOU WERE NOT HIRED TO HAVE OPINIONS OF YOU OWN JUST CODE

you're not wrong. it's just not explicitly stated, but an implicit understanding that your job is to .

See what happens if you spend more than any trivial time on the job doing something else other than what you were hired for!

Post reply on HN