Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

antivalue.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#71

Post by dagw »

heinrichhartman wrote: post #68
ali0sha wrote: post #41

> Joining together for a common purpose ... is political. What is that purpose, why is it common, and how does the joining work - these are the fundamental political problems. > If you put other things above your fellows and mission, you're a mercenary, not a fellow. Yes. At work, you are a mercenary. Your safety, family, health, concern for the decent treatment of your fellow humans, ought to come before your produc…

>> Joining together for a common purpose > ... is political. I think the author is referring to the mission statement of companies. While some missions statements have political elements, I can see plenty of mission statements that give a common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla, "Build the best CPU" -- Intel (?). It is well known that a strong mission…

common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla

Tesla is extremely political if you want it to be. Exactly what you choose to mean by the word 'sustainable' has all kinds of political implications. The core argument for going electric and solar over internal combustion and coal power is rooted in the environmental movement and based on a belief in global warming and climate change. That is 'political'

Equally pushing for autonomous driving can be seen as taking stance against all the people that will lose their jobs if self driving cars and trucks become a reality. Clearly taking a stance for Capital and against The Workers. That is 'political'.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#72

Post by StavrosK »

xupybd wrote: post #29
StavrosK wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud. Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place. I find myself being put off…

That's a really interesting insight. I hadn't seen that before but it appears very true when reflecting on the current political climate. It's as if not agreeing with a given solution to a problem is the same as not wanting to solve the problem.

Yeah, it's especially egregious between pro-nuclear and pro-solar activists, where they fight each other while hydrocarbons keep being burnt. It's insane.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#73

Post by scaryclam »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #66
sampo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship. If you are doing activism, in the workplace, that runs against the beliefs and opinions of (some of the) the people you work with. How could this be anything but anti-fellowship?

Which beliefs and opinions? What if I'm arguing that our non-white employees are being passed over for promotions, and our women employees are all chronically underpaid compared to the men? How would that be more anti-fellowship than your fellows not being paid equitably?

What if you're arguing that women should stay at home, or that climate change is fake, or immigrants are a blight on society?

It works both ways I'm afraid. And many people will think that those opinions are somehow good for society and that they're being good team players by pushing them.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#74

Post by ali0sha »

heinrichhartman wrote: post #68
ali0sha wrote: post #41

> Joining together for a common purpose ... is political. What is that purpose, why is it common, and how does the joining work - these are the fundamental political problems. > If you put other things above your fellows and mission, you're a mercenary, not a fellow. Yes. At work, you are a mercenary. Your safety, family, health, concern for the decent treatment of your fellow humans, ought to come before your produc…

>> Joining together for a common purpose > ... is political. I think the author is referring to the mission statement of companies. While some missions statements have political elements, I can see plenty of mission statements that give a common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla, "Build the best CPU" -- Intel (?). It is well known that a strong mission…

There's a genre of opinion that sounds like "I don't want politics in my videogames/workplace/church/facebook group", which stems from an idea that politics is exclusively a thing that politicians do in government, coupled with a (mistaken) sense that 'being political' is a bad attribute.

In fact, 'being political' is non-normative - per wikipedia:

Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

So, the first answer to your question is a pedantic one: "joining together for a common purpose" is by definition a political act.

The second, more nuanced argument, is that your even if it's not obvious, these mission statements are political:

- "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" - says that 1. sustainable transport is good; 2. sustainable transport isn't coming fast enough; 3. it's appropriate for a private company to influence the transport market

- "Build the best CPU" - 1. CPUs are a good thing to spend energy and finite resources on; 2. something about the validity of calling a cpu 'best'

and so on. I agree that having a clear mission which your employees are aligned to is crucial for morale and effectiveness; but the way that mission is chosen, who influences it, the way that it displays beliefs about what is desirable; and how it evolves over time all are all political.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#75

Post by heinrichhartman »

dagw wrote: post #71
heinrichhartman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Joining together for a common purpose > ... is political. I think the author is referring to the mission statement of companies. While some missions statements have political elements, I can see plenty of mission statements that give a common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla, "Build the best CPU" -- Intel (?). It is well known that a strong mission…

common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla Tesla is extremely political if you want it to be. Exactly what you choose to mean by the word 'sustainable' has all kinds of political implications. The core argument for going electric and solar over internal combustion and coal power is rooted in the environmental movement and based on a belief in global warm…

Yes, I see this political dimension for Tesla -- on a different topic than racism -- but I give you that point.

However, there _are_ plenty of Mission Statements that are a political, just look at your local craftsman or industrial suppliers: "making plumbing work at your home", "creating the best concrete foundations", "selling the best shoes", etc. those are not "fundamentally" or primarily political missions.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#76

Post by ryanbrunner »

jacob2484 wrote: post #62
ryanbrunner wrote: post #8

Obviously, we can't know the exact particulars of how every argument went down at Basecamp, and we have to intuit an awful lot from fairly limited blog posts by Jason, DHH, and tweets from (mostly ex)-employees. But it feels like there's a pretty clear pattern that this wasn't a case of a few politically motivated employees being a distraction and disrupting an otherwise harmonious environment. A third of the company…

"On twitter, anonymous interviews, and any other source that I've seen, not one Basecamper has come out in support of Jason and David, and employees seem universally aligned against their actions." Why would they in this cancel culture poison of today - so they can be vilified for not agreeing with some extreme leftist position? More than likely there's a silent majority that DOES align with their action, and that sh…

I can't help but feel that you've already decided your stance on this, and evidence is sort of irrelevant. 19 people resigned, and 20+ people thought that this was an important issue based on their participation in the DEI committee. 2 people are advocating on the other side. Why would the default assumption be that the remaining ~35 people side with Jason and DHH on this matter?

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#77

Post by dools »

StavrosK wrote: post #67
dools wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“People being tired of activists being so loud” == over privileged people being pissed off that under privileged people keeping ruining their privileged experience by pointing out their privilege EDIT: unsurprisingly the word privilege is triggering on HN

It's not that the word "privilege" is triggering people, it's that your comment is exactly the sort of dismissal that leads to the sentiment I described. If someone complains you're too loud, saying "you just don't like what you're hearing" will just further alienate you from people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume.

"people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume."

There is no such thing

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#78

Post by StavrosK »

dools wrote: post #77
StavrosK wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the word "privilege" is triggering people, it's that your comment is exactly the sort of dismissal that leads to the sentiment I described. If someone complains you're too loud, saying "you just don't like what you're hearing" will just further alienate you from people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume.

"people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume." There is no such thing

Well, good luck.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#79

Post by Veen »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #31
Veen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activism is necessarily divisive unless everyone already agrees on a political ideology and the solutions to issues activists focus on. If you are an activist, you might think this is a good thing—it may please you to create an environment hostile to people you don't agree with. But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals.

If you run a company with problems so deep that people have to turn activist about them, maybe the division didn't start with activists.

That assumes the activists are in the right. You’ve chosen a side. Would you say “the division didn’t start with the activists” if it was conservative activists advocating for modest dress codes or similar? Your position assumes that progressive activists are correct, justified in bringing their politics to work, and that if they have a problem it’s the company’s fault.

But you have to work with people you might disagree with, including conservatives, religious people, and so on. The point of keeping activism out of business is so that people with differing politics can work together. If you can't in good conscience do that, the honorable thing to do is resign, as happened at Basecamp.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#80

Post by 9dev »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #55

> A fellowship is "a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest". You're very explicitly not describing a job or a company here, as most of them exist today. For all the comparisons to the LoTR trilogy, almost none of us here are working on anything that impactful, or anything that important, and neither are our employers. Most of us are going to show up to work tomorrow and work on another e…

I can’t comprehend why someone would submit themselves so hard to the American corporate rhetoric. A workplace is neither a family, nor a fellowship. It should not be the center of your life, and certainly not something to fully submit yourself to.

In that sense, I like the mercenary analogy very much.

Post reply on HN