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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by rst »

wlll wrote: post #445
andkon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Former member of the Rails core team, in fact, from which he has also resigned. https://twitter.com/georgeclaghorn/status/138813101023207424...

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

#562

Post by jonathankoren »

digitaltrees wrote: post #504
jrochkind1 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bingo. I think they realized the boss didn't respect them and wouldn't tolerate dissent, and that therefore they didn't respect the boss. More than about "talking about politics at work".

So employees should be able to do raunchy stand up comedy about farts and sex then? Some topics are unprofessional in a work environment. Politics has become one of them.

The idea that “politics” is a distinct idea is absurd. To use your example of sex jokes, I can very easily see the same people trying to ban “political discussions” supporting sex jokes at work. It’s just a joke! Laugh or don’t, that’s up to you, either way it’s not big deal. Just grow up and accept that there are different types of humor, and complaining about jokes is just a way to bring everyone down. Focus on your job, not the jokes. In fact, that was the very argument before sexually harassment and hostile work environments became grounds for civil lawsuits.

Also, the very idea that any company is “above politics” is patently absurd. Is labor organizing political? It’s certainly about the workplace. Is advocating for a tax shelter in Delaware and Ireland political? How about advocating for removing the tax shelters? That’s certainly about the company.

Nah, banning “politics” is just a way to enforce the CEO’s politics and place them above question.

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

#563

Post by wbl »

digitaltrees wrote: post #499
grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

I disagree. It’s about professionalism. Flame wars at work create a hostile environment where quiet voices are silenced. It’s the same reason HN bans political flame wars.

Saying "I don't think we should make fun of our customers" isn't a flame war. 1/3 of employees don't leave because a few unreasonable people are told to tone it down.

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

#564

Post by mmmcookies »

FemmeAndroid wrote: post #394
mmmcookies wrote: post #375

I wouldn’t hire any of these people if they left due to the policy change. How about you put your money where you mouth is and join a non-profit if you care so much about these issues. Instead, it’s a bunch of incredibly privileged individuals throwing a tantrum from their ivory towers without any skin the game. It’s pathetic.

Off the top of my head, Jane Yang, who I believe has quit, left non-profits and joined Basecamp to explicitly pursue a strategy of earning to give ( https://80000hours.org/articles/earning-to-give/ ). That seems like she's "put her money where her mouth is," as you say. What's your basis for believing these people don't really care?

Hi Femme, my basis is their career choice. There are plenty of non-profits hiring in tech and doing some great work. And yet, these individuals chose not to work in this space. The earnings-to-give model sounds awfully similar to trickle down economics. Or, “once I get mine, everyone else can have theirs”. I don’t believe that as an altruistic premise. It’s what people convince themselves of in order to continue to feel self-righteous without really sacrificing anything. It has nothing to do with whether these people care or not, it doesn’t matter. Because when push comes to shove, they chose an avenue in spite of what they claim to believe in.

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

#565

Post by chubbyish »

I wonder how those who wanted political discussions allowed would feel for example if they had to have political discussions with Trump supporters.

I’ve never come across a leftist who wanted to debate anything or was open to changing their mind, or even wanted others to change their mind.

It’s all just intimidation tactics, name-calling, and cancelling.

This is what is unique today. There’s no trying to convince someone to “come to our side”.

Once an enemy, always an enemy.

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

#566

Post by digitaltrees »

jollybean wrote: post #557
grey-area wrote: post #479

I don't think this is really about making fun of people's names, or holocaust references. It's about power. The managers at basecamp were unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace, and decided to assert their own power in turn over what they view as their personal fiefdom and retract some of the freedoms they had so graciously granted their workers, because those ungrateful workers actual…

I think this is an unfair representation and you are straw-manning the situation at least somewhat. The company doesn't think that 'name calling' is appropriate, rather, they don't believe that this activity is the beginnings of some kind of 'race war' and object to language such as 'leads to genocide' as hyperbolic. "unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace," Yes, if your staff are exer…

Thank you for a thoughtful nuanced response. I think your perspective that questioning hyperbolic rhetoric is not the same as tacit support for the underlying issue is really important. It is critical to maintain perspective in discussion and avoid vilification of a counter party.

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

#567

Post by legostormtroopr »

mhneu wrote: post #290
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…

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” -Elie Wiesel Choosing to not discuss politics is fine. But if you do that, you’re making a choice: you’re choosing to take the side of those who prefer political decisions to be made by a small elite, without feedback from people like us. You’re choosing not to weigh in.

Firstly, who defines the "sides". There is a massive amount of US presence online which often reduces to Democrat vs Republican.

Except for those of us outside the US, who have no interest in US politics are often been told if you don't pick a side you are siding with evil.

Secondly, that statement is basically public cohersion. If you are told, you have to pick - victim or oppressor - absolutely noone is going to publicly pick oppressor. Its kafaesque in its simiplicity.

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

#568

Post by wlll »

gkedzierski wrote: post #398
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…

This reminds me of an incident they had years ago, when they blogged the name of the millionth (or something) uploaded file and then had to apologise for betraying their customer’s trust.

Ah, "cat.jpg". 100 millionth file name, you can see the post where that nugget was let out, and the followup apology from DHH on the svn blog still.

Thing is, Taylor, the head of Ops who made the fateful blog post made it up as a joke. He didn't check, or look it up, he wouldn't have done. The chance of it being called "cat.jpg" is slim. It was literally a joke based on the number of cat pictures that people uploaded to the Internet.

DHH proof-read the post.

People complained that we were prying into customer data (we weren't, and Basecamp's customer data privacy and security policies are incredibly strong), but DHH wouldn't let us "come clean" believing that people would think we were covering it up, so he apologised for it as if it were real.

Source: Worked at basecamp at the time.

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

#569

Post by favorited »

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…

The person you linked to said they are taking time off before looking for new opportunities, so they don't seem concerned about not having enough time to find something new.

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

#570

Post by harel »

I've never used Basecamp, I don't have an opinion this way or that on DHH or the Jason (they are Parve to me - not meat nor dairy). But that list of changes doesn't sound too radical to make me believe people left because of those changes. The changes are actually reasonable. People more likely left because they were given a hefty lump sum of cash but didn't want to admit it.
Post reply on HN