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

621–630 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#621

Post by yosito »

drewbug01 wrote: post #611
yosito wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've learned from experience that it's never a good idea to bring your personal problems to work, no matter what they are or how unjust they are. Work just isn't the place for it.

I think there's some level of "leave your personal life at home" that isn't completely bad. I don't talk about all of my personal problems at the office. But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust acco…

If something happening in society or your personal life is preventing you from doing your job, you don't have to explain it in the company wide channel. In fact, doing so probably won't help you or the company much. Most companies offer sick days and mental health days, for which you don't need to provide any explanation whatsoever. Many companies also pay for confidential mental health services. If your problem can't be solved with those benefits, disability insurance is also commonplace at companies and typically covers mental illness that would prevent you from doing your work. Companies should offer all of those things if they don't. I would go so far as to say that companies should be legally required to offer all of those things if they don't. But I don't think talking about personal or societal dumpster fires in the company chat will do anything to help the person affected, and will likely cause one person or group's problems to affect the work of the rest of the company without leading to any kind of resolution for anyone.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#622

Post by anm89 »

djrobstep wrote: post #382
anm89 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the concept of having a boss is authoritarian? Again I'll proudly wear the label of authoritarian as you describe it.

Well, as horrible as that viewpoint is, at least you have the self-awareness to admit that you actively approve of authoritarianism and forced servitude. Many do, but won't admit it to themselves.

You are dense.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#623

Post by NationalPark »

mwcampbell wrote: post #315
NationalPark wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.

And, being current events, they're already being discussed in plenty of places. For people who find it stressful to discuss these things, it's good to have a place where you know they won't be discussed, where you can focus fully on something that you can actually do something about.

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the act of adopting a broad "no talking about politics or society" rule, specifically right now, is itself a very political act. They are doing exactly the thing you say they're trying to avoid.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#624

Post by BoDlulu »

lindy2021 wrote: post #255
villasv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR. Surely you must be joking.

If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?

Because "do I trust HR?" (a question to which the answer is almost certainly always "no, but it doesn't matter in most cases"), is only one minor criteria amongst a vast plethora of other important ones when deciding to join a company or not?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#625

Post by [deleted] »

jononomo wrote: post #548
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…

Forget banning politics at work -- that's obviously such a good idea that it should be considered an assumption. This post from chipotle_coyote makes a good argument for banning Slack at work.

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#626

Post by mytailorisrich »

randomsearch wrote: post #575
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?

There are two aspects. One is the purpose of offering benefits, the other is fairness and inclusivity.

Companies offer benefits because they want to make employees happy enough to stick around. It thus makes sense that all employees can take advantage and feel good about it.

For the same reason, benefits should be designed so that no employee feels excluded or that they fell they are told how they should live their lives.

At then end of the day, for the company it's only a matter of budget. So, to me, it makes sense to let each employee decide. This is the best way to address the two points above. That's exactly how it works at some companies (as hinted in my previous comment): The company tells you that you have a budget of x per year that you can allocate to a range of benefits with any cash left added to your cash pay. It's flexible, empowering, and employees tend to be quite happy about the system.

Or, as I mentioned, decide to pay well enough that you can tell employees that you don't offer additional benefits but compensate through the pay cheque, which they can obviously spend however they please.

Regarding your example, I would think that a good company would provide a range of free drinks, not just coffee or even one type of coffee (again the point it to make employees feel valued).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#627

Post by koonsolo »

drewbug01 wrote: post #614
koonsolo wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't see the political part in this > it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate. I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing. I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes th…

You have more experience than me of course, so I believe you. It's a sad thing that we are still only at this level.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#628

Post by tomjen3 »

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…

>The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.

Managment may think many things, but that presuposes that diversity of thought comes from the diversity of skin. I can practically guarantee that if your company hired a diverse mix of races, but they were all of technical background and straight HS to college to work then you would not get the diversity of thought you would get if you focused your spare hiring capacity on hiring retiring US marines, radar techs, prisoners, people close to retiring age or any other group that is typically left out (or persevered to be left out) of the typical high tech startup.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#629

Post by drewbug01 »

yosito wrote: post #621
drewbug01 wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's some level of "leave your personal life at home" that isn't completely bad. I don't talk about all of my personal problems at the office. But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust acco…

If something happening in society or your personal life is preventing you from doing your job, you don't have to explain it in the company wide channel. In fact, doing so probably won't help you or the company much. Most companies offer sick days and mental health days, for which you don't need to provide any explanation whatsoever. Many companies also pay for confidential mental health services. If your problem can'…

As a counter-point: one of the things I've found the most helpful during the pandemic was the meetings with my coworkers where we set the agenda aside, and just talked about our struggles.

The resources and tools you mentioned are useful and good, but there's something different about supporting each other directly.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#630

Post by drewbug01 »

koonsolo wrote: post #627
drewbug01 wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see the political part in this > it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate. I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing. I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes th…

You have more experience than me of course, so I believe you. It's a sad thing that we are still only at this level.

Indeed, it is sad. But hey, progress does happen, even if it's slow. I'm not incredibly morose about it all the time, or anything - just cautious about losing some of that progress.
Post reply on HN