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

571–580 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#571

Post by ryanbrunner »

koonsolo wrote: post #482
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…

> 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 really detest such things, and the "problem"…

"How well you fit in our team", especially when applied to things like interviewing and hiring, often has a strong correlation with "are you not a member of an underrepresented group", often unintentionally.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#572

Post by randomsearch »

starik36 wrote: post #203
theshadowknows wrote: post #159

Hard for me to take it seriously when providing a gym stipend is “paternalistic” but not trusting your employees to discuss certain topics is supposed to be smart business.

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?

Don't walk 7000 steps and don't get $750?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#573

Post by natemo »

madeforthispost wrote: post #324

Had to make a throwaway because I was nervous to discuss opinions even remotely related to politics with my personal account, but wanted to share regardless. This is an interesting move and I really don't think we are getting the whole story on what caused such a drastic change. It's interesting because, for the most part, I think it is safe to assume that most basecamp employees are liberal leaning, including the fo…

I actually suspect this statement blindsided most of the company. It seems the way DHH and Jason operate is to lead with big philosophies and work backwards to the practical implications. This is not just evident in their company practices, but how they develop software.

I also suspect things weren't necessarily toxic within Basecamp. Given their recent book title "It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work" and activity on Twitter, maybe they just see the writing on the wall and would prefer to nip this in the bud. "Political talk" (however we're defining it) has become all-consuming in the past year and perhaps they recognize it as a big distraction for anyone trying to get work done.

It is a privileged stance, but I'm sure there are many who appreciate the workplace being a venue where employees are encouraged to talk about other things.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#574

Post by randomsearch »

dmazin wrote: post #35

So like if I think not using master/slave is not only important morally, but also important for recruiting, is suggesting we remove it for business reasons a political discussion? Hmm.

I'd say it's definitely political.

I don't believe it's not allowed to be discussion though, just not permitted on the official company basecamp account. Perhaps the implication is that listening to your politics should be optional for other people working at basecamp.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#575

Post by randomsearch »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #470

> No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances I have had a gripe with this sort of 'benefits' in previous companies. For example, paying for membership at the local gym. Reply to criticism tended to be " Oh well, use it or lose it ". Glad Basecamp saw the light on this. Just pay employees well or set up a…

What's wrong with a benefit that some employees cannot or choose not to use? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thinking is.

If my company provides free coffee and I don't drink coffee, is that also a problem, for instance?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#576

Post by rakoo »

madeofpalk wrote: post #542
rakoo wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I legitimately believe that "not giving a fuck about differences" is the goal we should all aim for. Yes, I am lucky that I can afford this mindset, but if I want everyone to also benefit from this privilege (such that it isn't a privilege anymore, but the standard), how do I do ? I live in a country where the differences are handled almost the exact opposite to what is done in the US. Instead of spreading positive d…

"not giving a fuck about differences" is 100% the goal. But there are differences, so ignoring them is just sticking your head in the sand.

It's not about ignoring differences, it's about making sure our differences aren't important. It's a subtle difference but it's what makes the ideology work.

The best example is that it is forbidden to have public statistics based on religion. Not because religion doesn't matter (it does), not because religion is irrelevant (it isn't), but because pointing out our different beliefs is the best way to pit people against each other

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#577

Post by koonsolo »

drewbug01 wrote: post #566
koonsolo wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my op…

> Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.” If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political vi…

I don't see the political part in this. If I was gay and somebody would respond to me like that, I would instantly ask "Do you have a problem with me having a husband? Where were you living the last couple of decades? Are you some muslim extremist or something?" Keep it light and funny, and tear the bastard apart.

It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#578

Post by draw_down »

swyx wrote: post #103
antidaily wrote: post #47

sam's pissed.

this was very relevant to me and something I didn't know - the employees found out at the same time as the outside world. Jason and DHH seem to not have bothered getting internal consensus first before going ahead with this thing. (confirmed with sam) live feed of employee reactions https://twitter.com/i/lists/1202647

I’m sorry but these people come off like huge babies to me. Nobody is saying what is so horrible in practical effect about this, just a bunch of moralizing about silencing voices.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#579

Post by yanderekko »

honkycat wrote: post #358
kiawe_fire wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear tha…

Funny, I feel like there is a healthy conservative movement in the US and you are literally surrounded by conservatives all the time. In fact I think 74 million of them voted in the last election. So please explain how being a white male makes you some kind of victimized under-class.

"There are two billions Muslims on earth, please explain how Islamophobia could possibly be real."

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#580

Post by koonsolo »

drewbug01 wrote: post #565
koonsolo wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination in any form should not be accepted. But is this still a political topic? I thought we all already decided that.

I think a lot of people replying have the same mindset: “haven’t we already decided that discrimination is bad?” I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.

I agree, but strangely enough, both extreme right and extreme left seem to love discrimination in some form.

I honestly believe that the real solution is treat everyone the same, and to demand from everyone to do the same.

When your solution includes distinction, you will never get rid of the distinction.

Post reply on HN