Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#441

Post by ma2rten »

sircastor wrote: post #427
JauntTrooper wrote: post #28

They offered a severance of 6 months salary if you've worked there for 3+ years... I would be tempted by that offer regardless of any other circumstances, especially in today's competitive jobs market.

Four words come to my mind: “United States Healthcare System” Even with an amazing buyout like this, I feel like you have to be in that relatively narrow space of “no spouse, no kids, good health, pretty young” to be able to walk away from health insurance.

They can make use of COBRA and use some of that money to pay for that.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#442

Post by [deleted] »

jimmaswell wrote: post #370
grumblestumble wrote: post #89

A lot of the conversation from the "no politics at work" crowd here is centered around "these folks were wasting company time and losing productivity protesting this". That entirely misses the point. The loss of productivity around this issue is entirely on the leadership team. They let this fester - they were complicit in allowing this dumb-ass list to be circulated around the company for years, and when it became a…

To me the world's gone crazy where the word "deplorable" is unironically attached to some people making fun of some names. Unprofessional is the furthest I'd take it. Something you get a finger wag for. As a customer why would I even care if someone on the other end thought my name was funny as long as my shipment arrived? This generation truly is absurdly sensitive.

[deleted]

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#443

Post by Rapzid »

achenatx wrote: post #234

I run a small politics forum. I was able to get down to one rule that seems to work. No ad hominem or insults of any groups, people, or policies. People can talk about why they like things or why things will or wont work. People continually try to work around them and sometimes there are comments that are borderline. Most people are very respectful and libs and conservatives can debate. An example of trying to bypass…

You'd need to add "no spurious HR complaints against people who disagree with you" apparently.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#445

Post by wlll »

andkon wrote: post #262
ipaddr wrote: post #152

Interestingly the employees who left have the best career prospects. Entire iOS team, head of marketing and head of product team. The 6 months free money is hard for anyone entering a strong job market to pass up. A lot of comments seem to think 1/3 left because of the no politics policy. 1 / 3 left because it would increase their wealth or give them the summer covid took away last year. How many people would leave y…

One of their iOS devs who left has been incredibly vocal about how he no longer felt like this was somewhere he could work because of this policy and its effects, so I think you're plainly wrong (or insisting that there's no way we could take a person at their word). https://twitter.com/georgeclaghorn It's a lot more likely that the 1/3rd that left both left because they were unhappy with the policy, and because they…

Minor point, he's a Ruby/Rails programmer, or was last time I saw him.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#446

Post by crocodiletears »

totony wrote: post #350

I'd be curious if someone could explain why they offer such steep buyouts? A company can always change policies and mostly does not pay you if you disagree with them. What makes this different? I agree an employee could become disgruntled after a policy their disagree with is implemented, but what entitles them to a payout? I assume a 6 months payout is attractive to everyone, that you agree or not with their decisio…

Incentivises potential agitators to leave peacefully and on good terms. If you implement a no-politics policy in a politicized workplace without an easy to use escape hatch, you risk creating a fifth column in your company acting against your interests. It may seem expensive in the short term, but it saves a headache later on.

The alternative is the gory legal and political process of executing a targeted purge which may create controversy, sympathy, and miss more quiet actors.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#447

Post by opheliate »

achenatx wrote: post #234

I run a small politics forum. I was able to get down to one rule that seems to work. No ad hominem or insults of any groups, people, or policies. People can talk about why they like things or why things will or wont work. People continually try to work around them and sometimes there are comments that are borderline. Most people are very respectful and libs and conservatives can debate. An example of trying to bypass…

I’m glad to hear that your forum is functioning well. That being said, your description of your policy on ad-hom./insults seems overly reductive to me.

If I said Trump (or some other political figure, I’m just following from your example) was a fascist, rather than a Nazi, then undoubtedly that would also be viewed as an insult by many. But it’s a position that I could try to defend by looking at the characteristics of fascist groups, and showing how they could also apply to Trump. Trump would undoubtedly never self-identify as a fascist, but if he fit all the conditions to be a fascist, then it seems naïve to say “Trump is a fascist” could not be a statement of fact just because he disagreed with the label.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#448

Post by austincheney »

koheripbal wrote: post #146
grumblestumble wrote: post #89

A lot of the conversation from the "no politics at work" crowd here is centered around "these folks were wasting company time and losing productivity protesting this". That entirely misses the point. The loss of productivity around this issue is entirely on the leadership team. They let this fester - they were complicit in allowing this dumb-ass list to be circulated around the company for years, and when it became a…

Our experience when we issued our "No Politics / No Religion" policy at work was very positive. The few people who had an issue with it, subsequently quit or were terminated, and many of their co-workers actually thanked us afterwards for it. We didn't have to pay them to leave. One tried to use the company social media accounts to advance her politics, so we fired her, and the other person became frustrated that she…

I have two separate mega huge employers and they both have similar approaches on this matter.

My bank employer’s approach is maximum inclusivity and mutual respect. That generally mean no politics just because it isn’t professional. Religion is a grey area. If religion is an excuse for social gatherings and celebrations then it’s fully allowed so long as everybody is allowed to participate. If a religious focused context is cause for distraction or disagreement then the conversation isn’t professional and the behavior, regardless of the religious content, can be punished.

My military employer is absolutely adamant that politics must be far away from the office. They also strongly nurture and require maximum inclusivity. Their view on religion is maximum support for any professed religion or faith as necessary to advance the religious Liberty of all employees. They have dedicated employees to ensure and guarantee religious support and exercise for any employee that requests support.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#449

Post by thinkingemote »

I think at root this might be about authority. Today's SV culture seems to challenge authority and hierarchy (the boss, management) in favour of the team, flat organisations, and fair play.

When the boss makes a decision then, the boss often gets challenged and the challengers feel right doing so. Disruption, innovation.

All this is new but we think it's normal now!

Businesses used to have clear lines of authority, heirarchy and the boss was on top, made the decisions and was generally obeyed.

I wonder how management academics will write about this period of time in 20 years or so.

Re: “About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today”

#450

Post by christophilus »

gregsadetsky wrote: post #121
grumblestumble wrote: post #89

A lot of the conversation from the "no politics at work" crowd here is centered around "these folks were wasting company time and losing productivity protesting this". That entirely misses the point. The loss of productivity around this issue is entirely on the leadership team. They let this fester - they were complicit in allowing this dumb-ass list to be circulated around the company for years, and when it became a…

DHH's blog post: https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e See paragraphs below "So I replied:" ...

Well, that seems like a generous and reasonable solution to the problem.
Post reply on HN