Changes at Basecamp • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#641

Post by TearsInTheRain » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

SNosTrAnDbLe wrote: post #425

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has mandated that 40% of our recruiting contacts for engineers are women. We have spent weeks talking about bias in our interview process and despite having no metrics showing bias is a problem we have made changes to combat it (i.e. no video on the call) that have led to worse experiences for our candidates. Suffice to say we have had a lot of trouble hiring engineers. > Why wouldn't you want to bring the…

How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?

I think we are at about 10% right now in a department of a bit less than 100 engineers. A quick google search shows the industry is at 25%. I would be curious to know what the current graduating classes of engineers is at. My guess would be 30%? Requiring our recruiters to hit 40% means more work for fewer candidates for a marginal benefit for our company.

To be fair I would expect more female engineers to show a benefit in the retention rates of female engineers so I think this initiative could be net positive for the company but I also doubt the people pushing for this are being data driven.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#642

Post by abenga » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #525

peteretep wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't give a fuck Some people would say you have the _privilege_ to not give a fuck

Yes, we live in a privileged society where all people are considered equal. People who practice positive or negative discrimination should get with the program.

Discrimination does not need to be overt, mostly it's insidious, cloaked in vague statements such as "culture fit". And no, not everyone is considered equal. There are many (or at the very least non-zero) racists, sexists, homophobes, and bigots of many other forms in the world. Thinking that that does not affect how those in power go about their business is willful ignorance, capricious heartlessness, or gleeful complicity. Just because it is no longer possible to actively voice discriminatory opinions, or that laws exist to ostensibly stop discrimination does not stop its effects, and sticking our heads in the sand does not stop them.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#643

Post by slibhb » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

drewbug01 wrote: post #612

slibhb wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your fundamental error is not recognizing the existence of the "tolerant bigot". Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues. People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is…

You're not really wrong, on any point. But you did make an interesting connection, that a lot of people are making: "Tolerance is [...] not approving everything." It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of m…

People, including me, are making the "tolerance is not approval" connection because we look at society and see a lot of tolerance and then we see lots of people who conflate tolerance with approval, sometimes explicitly, e.g. if someone says "I am very tolerant, I support gay marriage," they are using the word "tolerant" wrong.

Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. Acquiring your right to marry was political, but exercising that right is not. If someone doesn't understand this and interprets you referencing your husband as some political statement, they are wrong, and I expect most HR departments would realize that if push came to shove.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#644

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:28 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #455

therealdrag0 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#645

Post by yerwhat01010 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #455

therealdrag0 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

> Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats.

That's probably why they donate to both parties: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/recipients?i...

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#646

Post by therealdrag0 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

Griffinsauce wrote: post #510

therealdrag0 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between economic politics to be lobbied for and cultural politics to signal/argue about.

Does economic inequality fall in the first or the second bin?

It depends. That’s pretty vague.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#647

Post by yerwhat01010 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

hardwaresofton wrote: post #463

astrange wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead. This one's odd to me, because I thought the point of non-cash benefits was that it was much cheaper than giving out cash because the employer has more bargaining power than you.

Well it depends -- it's fairly simple math equation. The more paternalistic benefits you have, the more they cost, and the more people take advantage of more than one of them the more you risk hitting the value requivalent to the 3-5% promotion you have given that employee over 2 years. Just my opinion, but if you were happy to take a 90k job because you live somewhere with a low cost of living for relatively less st…

> a 90k job

Basecamp pays SV salaries to all employees regardless of location.

https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#648

Post by wreath » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

katbyte wrote: post #440

voidfunc wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.

so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait

They are allowed to do anything within the law.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#649

Post by angry_octet » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #500

angry_octet wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate. This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it. Harvard is also discriminat…

Earlier in the 20th century, that reasoning was used to limit the admissions of Jewish students. The issue was cast as their being admitted at a disproportionately large rate as compared to the general population, so corrective measures were implemented. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...

Back then, there were zero black students at Harvard. The admissions process can’t become more fair by failing to correct for the vast injustices imposed on African-Americans. Arguing that Black students are taking what rightfully belongs Asian students is just as racist as Harvard’s anti-Jewish policies.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#650

Post by therealdrag0 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:37 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #439

therealdrag0 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between economic politics to be lobbied for and cultural politics to signal/argue about.

What's the difference?

Corporations lobby for their interests.

Employees lobby for their interest by negotiating with their managers/contract or organizing into a union etc. or if they’ve been seriously slighted by lawyering up.

Arguing about race relations, gun rights, cancel culture, policing, trans rights, income inequality at large is irrelevant to 99% of employees. They’re just venting opinions and creating drama over something that they can’t change and usually is irrelevant to their workplace. They can be activists on their own time or keep it in private channels. I think all the “no politics” people want to avoid is Twitter-like conflict and drama, not a ban on all things human or real advocacy for your own interests.