6 ms·

head of marketing, head of design, entire ios team. Probably people they wanted on the team. If you read this news as "employees (who yosito disagrees with) sh

by dbt00 5y ago

head of marketing, head of design, entire ios team. Probably people they wanted on the team. If you read this news as "employees (who yosito disagrees with) should shut the fuck up", perhaps you think this is good. If you read this as, "I joined this company as a place where my voice mattered and now I'm being told to STFU by a founder on a rage bender", it makes more sense why people are leaving.

brightball 5y ago
I followed the entire conversation and “a founder on a rage bender” is an extreme exaggeration. They asked the political conversions be kept out of work channels, but continued to encourage people to be active politically, active on social media and even active at work using other platforms. Framing the entire thing as some extremist plot to silence dissent is absurd. If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion, why they should convert and why other religions were wrong would you think it’s okay to for the business to ask to keep those conversations outside of the main work channels?
- JeremyBanks 5y ago
  This sounds like you've only read DHH's description of events. Read the Platformer article for more context.
  - brightball 5y ago
    If you’re talking about this one, I just read it. https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basecamp https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec... When I read that, I see business leaders who engaged for months then asked people to move on when they realized it was never going to go away. Searching the chat logs and posting in front of everybody was a jerk move for an executive, absolutely. Everything else seems entirely reasonable.
    - havernator 5y ago
      Same here, read it when it was posted elsewhere in this thread with an implication of “this’ll show you how basecamp management’s in the wrong” and that was the only part that stood out to me as wrong in their handling of this. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, as I read on, but it never did.
    - feudalism 5y ago
      I read that as well, and even read the open letter that was included in that post. Seems like maybe Basecamp is better off without those employees who've decided to quit. Just from the open letter (https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-david/ https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-...) take a look at the kind of attitudes they have; these are some serious snowflakes: "As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company."
- predaking 5y ago
  > I followed the entire conversation and “a founder on a rage bender” is an extreme exaggeration. I don't know, maybe you missed the part where he posted on Twitter about cancel culture and then started blocking everyone who disagreed with him. Rage benders don't need to be limited to the office. =)
  - brightball 5y ago
    The one where he linked to a NYT article/podcast interview and everybody start tweeting at him that he was raging about cancel culture? This one? https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1387731297980854272?s=21 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1387731297980854272?s=21
    - predaking 5y ago
      Yeah! They tweeted at him such because that's what he was doing. Other people just said, "Maybe you should take a break" and got blocked. =) I guess if we're just going to go in a circle confirming that we've both observed the same thing vs. discussing, I'm happy to bounce! =) Have an awesome one!
      - brightball 5y ago
        Posting an article link is hardly raging about cancel culture, especially when it’s a very reasoned interview about it. If you saw a link posted and see that as rage, it kinda proves the point. Did you read the NYT article or listen to the podcast? It was very reasonable.
- whynea 5y ago
  Wealthy, privileged people making storms in teacups over trivial shit - like we have here, a list of funny names somehow being a 'racist' endeavour rather than having a joke with your colleagues - describes a good chunk of our industry, unfortunately. Shrill wokescolds are taking over our workplaces.
- prh8 5y ago
  That's not the conversations they are banning though. Many of the conversations are actually about the company itself and its culture. This is not people "wasting time" and sowing discord via typical political topics.
- dbt00 5y ago
  They said-- We don't care what you think about the impact of our poor decisions. We don't care what you think about diversity and inclusion. We don't want to be a workplace that cares about your health or wellbeing. And we are going to escalate any disagreement until you shut the fuck up. A third of the company (and counting) has decided that this sucks and is leaving. I'm not calling this an extremist plot. In fact, I think it's the exact opposite of a plot, hence "on a bender". I think this is someone who got angry at work, had the power to win a debate by fiat, and exercised that power, and is now learning the cost of that Pyrrhic victory. > If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion The conversations inside Basecamp weren't about that at all, so I'm not sure why you raise this example. They were about the way the workplace had been run and citing the shortcomings of those decisions.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > We don't care [...] Well, this might be contrarian but if I worked for DHH I might very well prefer this situation. In fact I feel like I've been in and out of situations and I tend to prefer clear command chains: I do what I am told and those under me do what they are told. The military is a perfect good example as is certain companies. Maybe twice (including a decade ago and now) have I experienced self organizing teams that worked.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    This is a very twisted and biased account of what happened. Nowhere did DHH or Jason state or directly imply these things.
    - refulgentis 5y ago
      I find it refreshing that you'd defend my right to make grand sweeping blog posts about the mighty weight on my shoulders, telling my employees what they can't talk about, and then in the next post I'm reposting long screeds from an internal message board of me picking on an employee and plaintively playing for the readers approval
  - jimbokun 5y ago
pumaontheprowl 5y ago
If they really cared about keeping those people, they wouldn't have offered an incentive for them to leave. For example, they could have structured the incentive such that it only applied to employees below a certain level. They didn't do that though because they wanted to make sure every employee who disagreed with the policy left.
rodgerd 5y ago
They've lost their iOS development team, but kept the employees who think that spending their work hours pulling customer names from their production environment to make fun of them is a good use of their day. So much winning!
- anon7725 5y ago
  > They've lost their iOS development team, but kept the employees who think that spending their work hours pulling customer names from their production environment to make fun of them is a good use of their day. So much winning! Perhaps they’ve kept the employees who accepted management’s statement about the event and wanted to move past the issue.
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    Perhaps!
yosito 5y ago
> "employees (who yosito disagrees with) should shut the fuck up" Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

by dbt00 5y ago

brightball 5y ago

I followed the entire conversation and “a founder on a rage bender” is an extreme exaggeration. They asked the political conversions be kept out of work channels, but continued to encourage people to be active politically, active on social media and even active at work using other platforms. Framing the entire thing as some extremist plot to silence dissent is absurd. If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion, why they should convert and why other religions were wrong would you think it’s okay to for the business to ask to keep those conversations outside of the main work channels?

JeremyBanks 5y ago
This sounds like you've only read DHH's description of events. Read the Platformer article for more context.
- brightball 5y ago
  If you’re talking about this one, I just read it. https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basecamp https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec... When I read that, I see business leaders who engaged for months then asked people to move on when they realized it was never going to go away. Searching the chat logs and posting in front of everybody was a jerk move for an executive, absolutely. Everything else seems entirely reasonable.
  - havernator 5y ago
    Same here, read it when it was posted elsewhere in this thread with an implication of “this’ll show you how basecamp management’s in the wrong” and that was the only part that stood out to me as wrong in their handling of this. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, as I read on, but it never did.
  - feudalism 5y ago
    I read that as well, and even read the open letter that was included in that post. Seems like maybe Basecamp is better off without those employees who've decided to quit. Just from the open letter (https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-david/ https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-...) take a look at the kind of attitudes they have; these are some serious snowflakes: "As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company."
predaking 5y ago
> I followed the entire conversation and “a founder on a rage bender” is an extreme exaggeration. I don't know, maybe you missed the part where he posted on Twitter about cancel culture and then started blocking everyone who disagreed with him. Rage benders don't need to be limited to the office. =)
- brightball 5y ago
  The one where he linked to a NYT article/podcast interview and everybody start tweeting at him that he was raging about cancel culture? This one? https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1387731297980854272?s=21 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1387731297980854272?s=21
  - predaking 5y ago
    Yeah! They tweeted at him such because that's what he was doing. Other people just said, "Maybe you should take a break" and got blocked. =) I guess if we're just going to go in a circle confirming that we've both observed the same thing vs. discussing, I'm happy to bounce! =) Have an awesome one!
    - brightball 5y ago
      Posting an article link is hardly raging about cancel culture, especially when it’s a very reasoned interview about it. If you saw a link posted and see that as rage, it kinda proves the point. Did you read the NYT article or listen to the podcast? It was very reasonable.
whynea 5y ago
Wealthy, privileged people making storms in teacups over trivial shit - like we have here, a list of funny names somehow being a 'racist' endeavour rather than having a joke with your colleagues - describes a good chunk of our industry, unfortunately. Shrill wokescolds are taking over our workplaces.
prh8 5y ago
That's not the conversations they are banning though. Many of the conversations are actually about the company itself and its culture. This is not people "wasting time" and sowing discord via typical political topics.
dbt00 5y ago
They said-- We don't care what you think about the impact of our poor decisions. We don't care what you think about diversity and inclusion. We don't want to be a workplace that cares about your health or wellbeing. And we are going to escalate any disagreement until you shut the fuck up. A third of the company (and counting) has decided that this sucks and is leaving. I'm not calling this an extremist plot. In fact, I think it's the exact opposite of a plot, hence "on a bender". I think this is someone who got angry at work, had the power to win a debate by fiat, and exercised that power, and is now learning the cost of that Pyrrhic victory. > If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion The conversations inside Basecamp weren't about that at all, so I'm not sure why you raise this example. They were about the way the workplace had been run and citing the shortcomings of those decisions.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > We don't care [...] Well, this might be contrarian but if I worked for DHH I might very well prefer this situation. In fact I feel like I've been in and out of situations and I tend to prefer clear command chains: I do what I am told and those under me do what they are told. The military is a perfect good example as is certain companies. Maybe twice (including a decade ago and now) have I experienced self organizing teams that worked.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  This is a very twisted and biased account of what happened. Nowhere did DHH or Jason state or directly imply these things.
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    I find it refreshing that you'd defend my right to make grand sweeping blog posts about the mighty weight on my shoulders, telling my employees what they can't talk about, and then in the next post I'm reposting long screeds from an internal message board of me picking on an employee and plaintively playing for the readers approval
- jimbokun 5y ago

pumaontheprowl 5y ago

If they really cared about keeping those people, they wouldn't have offered an incentive for them to leave. For example, they could have structured the incentive such that it only applied to employees below a certain level. They didn't do that though because they wanted to make sure every employee who disagreed with the policy left.

rodgerd 5y ago

They've lost their iOS development team, but kept the employees who think that spending their work hours pulling customer names from their production environment to make fun of them is a good use of their day. So much winning!

anon7725 5y ago
> They've lost their iOS development team, but kept the employees who think that spending their work hours pulling customer names from their production environment to make fun of them is a good use of their day. So much winning! Perhaps they’ve kept the employees who accepted management’s statement about the event and wanted to move past the issue.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  Perhaps!

yosito 5y ago

> "employees (who yosito disagrees with) should shut the fuck up" Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.