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

451–460 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#451

Post by caffeine »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically.

Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political tools. Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.

Discrimination happens against an individual. If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discretely address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act, it is a moral act of taking care of a coworker.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#452

Post by chii »

zorpner wrote: post #405
jschulenklopper wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Basecamp is their company, isn’t it? If they don’t have the right to make those changes... who has?

The people who do the work that produces the value.

> do the work that produces the value.

who then got paid for said value.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#453

Post by chii »

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?

if the lobbying relates to the business/bottom line of the company, then it's "non-political".

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#454

Post by krainboltgreene »

caffeine wrote: post #451
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political to…

> You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically.

pssst those two things are connected

> Discrimination happens against an individual.

This is just weirdly wrong?

> If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act

This is an incredibly political act.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#455

Post by smt88 »

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.

That's true, but you can't separate them when making donations.

If I donate to Candidate X, I'm taking her economic and her social policies at the same time.

In practice, this means that many large companies have to choose between issues they support. Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats.

If a company takes only an economic perspective, they may end up doing something morally repugnant to their workforce or customers, which turns a social issue into an economic one.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#456

Post by ALittleLight »

csa wrote: post #417
imwillofficial wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been covered to death wrt the Harvard discrimination scandal. Asians do (on average) score higher. Asians were discriminated against due to this.

As if admission into Harvard (and most other elite schools) is solely based on test scores (and even grades). Give me a break. For reasons folks may or may not agree with, most elite schools look at a wider range of factors than just scores and grades. Does this lead to there being room for discrimination? Yes. Does it guarantee that discrimination is happening? No. Just as a simple example, there are plenty of non-A…

I think it would be much better if admission into elite schools were based on objective test scores. It's easy to see how racism seeps into "Your extra-curriculars just aren't Harvard enough" or whatever subjective judgment call would be used to evaluate in-person interviews, extra-curriculars, essays, etc. It's a lot harder to see where the racism is coming from if the admissions criteria are "Higest X scores get admittance, random lottery to break ties." There is also transparent racism in the current system that says some races have to score higher than others to be admitted.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#457

Post by angry_octet »

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.

Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones?

I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#458

Post by danielscrubs »

caffeine wrote: post #451
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political to…

“Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.” - this is such a great line and very easy to forget.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#459

Post by sidlls »

angry_octet wrote: post #448
sidlls wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You've asserted several things that are themselves unsubstantiated or at least controversial.

"Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#460

Post by ALittleLight »

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.

I think a problem is that people don't want to discuss these subjects. They want to tell other people about the problems. This creates an atmosphere where, if you have the correct opinions, you are free to lecture ad nauseam, and if you do not then you must keep your ideas a secret on penalty of ignominious and instant termination.
Post reply on HN