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

731–740 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#731

Post by rayiner »

drewbug01 wrote: post #709
tptacek wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have a personal problem relating to or associating with anyone who held anti-LGBT beliefs in their heart, the same way I'd never work with anyone who believed Black people were in any way inferior to other people. But this litigation of what's inside people's heads, when what they're publicly advocating for and voting for is the position we're asking of them in the first place, just makes me think we're surve…

> But this litigation of what's inside people's heads Nobody is advocating that here, why do you keep bringing it up? This seems like something you feel is happening but that’s not what we are talking about at all. > We’re not being asked to associate with anyone’s aunt here and I think we should try to keep to the topic at hand. ...you and other commenters brought up the Aunt. I don’t know if you’re confused, or wha…

You said that “objection” “to the very existence” of gay people “is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values.” I don’t think that fairly characterizes people with socially conservative values, such as my aunts. That’s not a straw man, that’s an example to address your core point.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#732

Post by jdale27 »

xpe wrote: post #684
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.

Calling benefits "paternalistic" is both loaded language and inaccurate: > paternalistic : relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependents in their supposed interest What restriction do these benefits impose? Let's just call them benefits .

From the article:

>2. No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we've had a change of heart. It's none of our business what you do outside of work, and it's not Basecamp's place to encourage certain behaviors — regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.

The authors were not referring to benefits in general, but to a specific subset of them that seem to fit your definition well.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#733

Post by angry_octet »

tomjen3 wrote: post #628
angry_octet wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?

In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporting it doesn't preclude recruiting from other talent pools.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#734

Post by sidlls »

angry_octet wrote: post #733
tomjen3 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race? In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporti…

> So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?

That isn't at all what the commenter argued. They argued that diversity in ethnicity/race is not the same as diversity in background. The commenter did not provide a superlative or other qualifier.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#735

Post by ceras »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #413

How is this any different from the rules at any company, say Google or Facebook. Can you start a public political debate on the Facebook company chat? This just sounds like 37signals is all grown up and has decided to take the inherent risks in political discussion in the workplace seriously.

At least when I worked at Google a couple years ago, you could indeed start political discussions. Communications are very open at Google, and employee activism is quite visible. Political questions also come up in Q&A's, and some employees expect leadership to comment on societal issues/events. There has been some tightening in the past couple years, due to how loud it got in the last few years. But still quite open from my understanding.

One sample consequence was that open derision of Republicans was fairly common at Google, from both individual contributors and managers.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#736

Post by derwiki »

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #668
starik36 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, through an app called Virgin Pulse. It hooks into Apple Health and syncs steps with it when you start it up. There is also a portion that tracks your sleep habits, but it requires you to enable the Bedtime feature on the iPhone, which I don't want to do.

"My employer tracks my biometrics as a condition of my compensation sounds like dystopian scifi. Welcome to the future?

Not even as a condition! Willing opt-in

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#737

Post by deanCommie »

ALittleLight wrote: post #484
deanCommie wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but it could also go... Bob: "... my husband..." Fred: "oh" Bob: "What?" Fred: "nothing" Bob: "Okay..." Fred: "....i think i'll go finish my lunch at my desk" Bob: "hey don't forget to finish that code review for me later" Fred: <acts different in subtle and plausibly deniable way with Bob from now on" Bob: "Hey, do you have a problem with me being gay?" Fred: "DON'T MAKE THIS POLITICAL" etc.

It could, but how would a corporate policy that permits discussing politics help anything? If Fred is anti-gay and going to subtly be a jerk to Bob from now on, do you think that in the alternate reality where discussion of politics were permitted that things would be better? In this alternate reality do you expect Bob to have a quick workplace chat with Fred that convinces him to be cool with gay people?

That's the same argument people use against legalizing gay marriage or creating laws forbidding private businesses from discriminating against gay people. "You're not going to make anyone not homophobic this way!"

No, not immediately. But if you ban politics in this context then you are tacitly encouraging homophobic behaviour.

Bob: "Boss, Fred is being homophobic"

Boss: "What happened?"

Bob:

Boss: "Look, don't ask don't tell. He didn't force you to make it a thing. He didn't say anything. What exactly did he do wrong? He's right, you're the one that made it political, and we banned that at the office."

It's an exit valve out of difficult conversations.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#738

Post by csa »

imwillofficial wrote: post #674
csa wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if admission into Harvard (and most other elite schools) is solely based on test scores (and even grades). Give me a break. For reasons folks may or may not agree with, most elite schools look at a wider range of factors than just scores and grades. Does this lead to there being room for discrimination? Yes. Does it guarantee that discrimination is happening? No. Just as a simple example, there are plenty of non-A…

Again, this has been covered extensively in large schools discriminating against Asians. Go google it if you’re interested. Big scandal recently.

I am very aware of the details of the accusations. My personal belief, backed with some actual detailed real life knowledge, is that most people who think that discrimination is going on don’t understand one of two related things:

1. How elite school applicants are rated. Most folks seem to think it’s just test scores and maybe grades. It’s not.

2. What successful applicants at elite schools look like on paper. Most people think that elite school student bodies are just a bunch of brainiacs with near perfect grades and scores. While grades and scores are certainly high, the defining characteristic of the core admits are that they have done something of note at the regional, national, or international level (not always true of fringe admits, but that’s a different story). Sometimes these people don’t even have near perfect test scores or grades (frankly, some come across as not terribly smart at all), but they are able to get compelling things done.

I recommend reading Cal Newport’s book on elite school admissions to get a better idea of how to get in.

Also, it seems like two courts have said that Harvard in particular did not discriminate against Asians.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/12/934122462/appeals-court-rules...

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#739

Post by deanCommie »

kiawe_fire wrote: post #678
deanCommie wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know your lived experience. I'm going to try not to doubt it. Maybe your coworkers are toxic and you are trying to talk to them about why low taxes are good because they encourage innovation, and that government-run agencies are not as efficient as private enterprises, and they are screaming the Communist Manifesto back at you. But in my experience, that's not the kinds of opinions that I see the modern disco…

The kind of toxicity I’m talking about doesn’t even involve a conversation. As an example, a couple months ago at the start of a dev meeting, my boss made a joke about a protest organized by business owners in the area urging our governor to open up businesses. It was covered as a largely conservative group. Here’s roughly how that went: Boss: “Doesn’t seem like a chance of this lockdown ending with all of those moro…

You're getting downvoted, but I upvoted you. That sounds pretty shitty, I'm sorry.

What you're describing is not acceptable, and frankly reeks of classism. Lack of education for large parts of the US is not a matter of choice, but a complete lack of access.

Eugenics was super popular amongst the liberal elite in the first half of the 20th century until Hitler took things too far.

I'm not going to pretend that I haven't done something similar amongst like-minded left-leaning friends. The conservative response to the pandemic has been absolutely horrifying. The anti-intellectualism and science denialism cannot be excused by the fear of livelihood loss. There are plenty of liberal small business owners too, and they're wearing masks.

But that's shooting the shit with close friends in a private space. This should not happen in a professional setting.

And, in the context of what we're talking about on this thread, it cannot be justified as discussion of politics. This is bullying behaviour.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#740

Post by jakelazaroff »

throwaway0xc wrote: post #725
dragonwriter wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.

>No, its not, it avsolutely is not. Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED. >Limiting the scope of activism The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time. >always serves to protect the status quo. Or limiting the scope of activism alwa…

There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter.

Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group.

The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place.

QED?

Post reply on HN