5 ms·
It really sounds like JF / DHH really didn't want to have to deal with the issue - minimal disciplinary action and then push all discussion away from official c
by klelatti 6y ago
It really sounds like JF / DHH really didn't want to have to deal with the issue - minimal disciplinary action and then push all discussion away from official channels.
But I guess that it reveals what probably should have been clear about Basecamp - it's a vehicle for the expression / gratification of the founders - financially, emotionally and intellectually.
And the loss of staff / possible impact on the company (and customers) was a price they were prepared to pay.
- reachtarunhere 6y agoI don't see any issue with that. They get their gratification and the employees get paid for providing their work as a service.
- klelatti 6y agoIt wasn't meant to be criticism. However, losing 1/3 of your staff overnight over an issue like this does somewhat undermine the JF / DHH narrative of extreme managerial competence.
- LegitShady 6y agocounterpoint - maybe the significance of not undermining the other 2/3 of the company is exactly extreme managerial competence when the crisis has already made itself clear.
- klelatti 6y agoIf you're saying that limiting their losses to _only_ 1/3 of their staff is a sign of great managerial flair then I'm afraid that I disagree very strongly.
- LegitShady 6y agoIt's like cutting off a limb with gangrene. The mistakes they made to get to this situation have been recognized, and now the next decision is how to make sure you continue to live, unpoisoned.
- klelatti 6y agoYou do know that the staff cut Basecamp out of their lives not the other way round? Not sure that comparing 15 or so talented and apparently hard working staff to gangrene is really the most appropriate comparison.
- LegitShady 6y agowhen you 'accept a buyout' that means a buyout was offered. Basecamp was looking to get rid of them.
- klelatti 6y ago> Hansson told me that the rules are not draconian — no one is going to be bounced out the door for occasionally straying out of bounds. The founders’ goal is to reset the culture and focus on making products, he said, not to purge political partisans from the workforce. "..looking to get rid of them". Hmmm.
- LegitShady 6y agoYou're looking at the press release and not reading what they're saying. 1/3rd of their company couldn't live with only 'occasionally straying out of bounds' and wanted to make everything political such that 'straying out of bounds' was the norm, so they got 'offered a buy out'. what the sentence you quoted is saying is that its not based on political viewpoints, but based on behaviour, 1/3 of the company would not accept only occasionally being out of bounds enough to stick around. those 1/3 were likely undermining the actual effectiveness of the company for their political causes.
- deleted 6y ago
- ljm 6y agoI don't see an issue per se, but it makes it clear that they've got the money to live outside of the sphere of politics and society that their employees exist within. They can afford to make it a non-issue for themselves. And so they have. An empathetic option was available to them (own up to the stupid silly names list) but they cast it aside. As a consequence, they've lost a lot of respect both in their workforce and in the court of public opinion. I don't intend to put much stock in whatever else they have to say now. And for me it's not about the politics at work bit. It's the rest of it that is getting less attention. Cringeworthy Huxley quotes, paternalistic benefits, etc. etc.
- tilolebo 6y agoThen you are for sure not familiar with the way Basecamp has been advertising itself as a company for the past decade.