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

471–480 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#471

Post by chii »

katbyte wrote: post #437
anm89 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

well luckily, some particular traits have been made illegal to discriminate against, because in the past, terrible consequences have been had from such discrimination.

> blacks/gays/women/ect

But this doesnt mean that _every_ trait falls afoul - and if you want your trait to gain the special status of being illegal to discriminate against, this work (aka, activism) should be undertaken with private resources, not the resources of the company for which you are employed. Trying to recruit people into your cause during work hours should also be discouraged - but giving invites to dinners/lunches and having private discussions outside workhours should be allowed.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#472

Post by ALittleLight »

drewbug01 wrote: post #312
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…

> But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting. The fact that a handful o…

Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it. I think you can read it as protecting conversations around gay people. Consider the following hypothetical:

You: "... my husband..."

Me: "You know, I don't think gay people should be married. Marriage is blah blah blah"

------------------------

By my reading of the OP "my" comment there would be prohibited. Now, I'm bringing politics (or religion - which I also feel is and should be banned at work) into things to talk about why I condemn you or oppose your marriage.

In other words, rather than explain exactly what political positions and discussions are permitted we should just not have political discussions at work. If you mention your husband, I shouldn't tell you my thoughts about marriage or homosexuality. Conversely, if I mention I attend a Mormon Temple, you shouldn't tell me your thoughts regarding Mormonism. Details (within reason) about oneself are fine, but political discussion based on those details are not.

Of course, it's possible I've misread the document, and if they do intend to silence homosexuals from letting slip any details about their life, or whatever, then I oppose their changes. I think all people should be equally free at work to talk about themselves and their lives where it is appropriate. This document is just setting the guideline that political discussions are not appropriate.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#473

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

xref wrote: post #351
starik36 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am totally on board with this. I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year. I was already walking over 10k steps daily for years. But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking? That to me is paternalistic behavior. If you want subsidize my health insurance, just do it. But I don't need my employer to be my mommy, no ma…

> But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking? Then your health insurance billings will likely be higher, and you’ll be more expensive to insure, which pushes up the company group rate. Measures like getting employees to exercise more fall under the umbrella of “preventative care”

What about swimming? Or weight lifting? There are other ways to get that exercise than walking that don't qualify for that 10k steps reward.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#474

Post by bitcharmer »

zorpner wrote: post #469
caffeine wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Unwanted by whom?

By most people. You know, non-activists. We just want to come to work, do our jobs, hang out with other people passionate about what they do. Just enjoy this time and not engage in political activism. Is this too much to ask?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#475

Post by angry_octet »

chii wrote: post #450
angry_octet wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

But you are making a separate contention now: that employees are spent considerable company time on discussions of politics. If they were, up till now it was with the endorsement of their managers.

The Basecamp policy is now that you can't discuss politics (or anything controversial) on any company platform, including e.g. in the break room, on the discord chat or whatever on your commute, out of office hours, etc. And they are officially removing any feedback mechanisms from company structures, figuratively salting the earth to prevent anyone discussing anything.

Obviously everyone could move to a platform in the cloud for discussions, but the writing is on the wall.

While this may well be a gross violation of labour laws, US employee rights are so weak it doesn't matter: say anything and you're canned.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#476

Post by mdoms »

a4isms wrote: post #28
agd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is the same as many other companies - employee activists creating strife and division internally and causing other employees to feel uncomfortable.

The expression “employee activists” makes it seem very one-sided. What about old-school companies where everyone played golf. If you were, say, someone who liked hiking and canoeing, you might have been made to feel like you don’t fit in. Is that the same thing as being made to feel uncomfortable about social issues? Or is it somehow different because “playing golf” is normal, but “advocating for social justice” is n…

But this post isn't about playing golf..? None of this is. What?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#477

Post by comp_throw7 »

astrange wrote: post #421
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…

"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.

Minor nit, but afaik Basecamp does not include any sort of stock or equity as part of its compensation package.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#478

Post by deanCommie »

ALittleLight wrote: post #472
drewbug01 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting. The fact that a handful o…

Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it. I think you can read it as protecting conversations around gay people. Consider the following hypothetical: You: "... my husband..." Me: "You know, I don't think gay people should be married. Marriage is blah blah blah" ------------------------ By my reading of the OP "my" comment the…

OK, but it could also go...

Bob: "... my husband..." Fred: "oh" Bob: "What?" Fred: "nothing" Bob: "Okay..." Fred: "....i think i'll go finish my lunch at my desk" Bob: "hey don't forget to finish that code review for me later" Fred: <acts different in subtle and plausibly deniable way with Bob from now on" Bob: "Hey, do you have a problem with me being gay?" Fred: "DON'T MAKE THIS POLITICAL" etc.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#479

Post by therealdrag0 »

ljm wrote: post #69
shados wrote: post #34

This is a tricky one. On one hand, there's the obvious issues: almost everything you can talk about is societal or political. Talking about your lawn growing is societal because it means you can have a lawn and that gets into the housing crisis sooner or later. If people can't speak about politics, marginalized group will have difficulty bringing up tough issues that impact them in their day to day job. On the other…

One place I worked at had a politics channel, designed to keep the chat out of the general spaces. Mainly because the team worked across the world and politics were US-centric first and UK-centric second, and nobody wanted a ping on one of the global chat channels only to get a link complaining about a sleazy American politician or the debate on Brexit as if none of the rest of the world (and the politics there) exis…

Reminds me of this essay: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#480

Post by ALittleLight »

drewbug01 wrote: post #222
robjan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there a difference. A statement of indisputable fact i.e. "I went to the park with my husband" is different from an opinion or belief such as "I think x should be y", regardless of how accepted it is in the workplace or society as a whole.

I’m telling you though - that’s not how it plays out. This is something I’ve lived through - I’ve been asked not to talk about relationships at work because they aren’t heteronormative. It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.

Even if this policy were intended to be used this way, or winds up being used this way, (which I don't support), it still seems better than the alternative. If you reference your husband and somebody says "Aaah, political, can't say that" - do you want to be sharing personal details with this person? Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you?

If you have anti-gay coworkers who buzz you for anodyne references like this you could just not talk to them or buzz them for their references to wives, girlfriends, whatever. You could escalate to management or HR if you felt they were treating you unfairly.

If the corporate policy permits politics at worse, that would seem to make situation worse, not better.

Post reply on HN