8 ms·

heres the list of folks who have publicly announced their departure: https://workflowy.com/s/basecamp-resignation/qrBBdTQydmTKLu0y https://workflowy.com/s/basec

by swyx 6y ago

heres the list of folks who have publicly announced their departure: https://workflowy.com/s/basecamp-resignation/qrBBdTQydmTKLu0y https://workflowy.com/s/basecamp-resignation/qrBBdTQydmTKLu0... probably has more context to each in their threads

bdowling 6y ago
I read the first tweet in each of those resignations. Out of 19 resignations, most give no reason for quitting. Five or so tweets cite "recent changes and new policies" as the reason. That reason is so vague that it may refer to the new policy of paying 6 months severance to employees who want to quit. edit: Excellent point below that the severance agreements probably included a non-disparagement clause, which would restrict what those who took the deal would feel safe disclosing publicly.
- bsder 6y ago
  While everybody is latching onto "Hurrr... Durrr... Wokeness." apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff. Most devs read the tea leaves from that kind of thing as as a bellweather for time to GTFO. My guess is that some of this has been building and the 6 months of severance simply put it into high gear.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff. They cut a fitness benefit, wellness allowance, farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. However, they paid each employee the value of the benefit for the year and they created a 10% profit sharing plan. https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5 https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5 It's unclear how much money the 10% profit sharing is worth, except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees. (edit: Yes, this is an oversimplification.)
    - Rapzid 6y ago
      > except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees Spicy.
      - swyx 6y ago
        is that mathematically how profit sharing works? game of thrones style? seems like it would create some very perverse incentives.
        Rapzid 6y ago
        I don't know about the math but I would hope a small-ish group of intelligent people likely familiar with game theory wouldn't get wrapped up in selfish, counterproductive tactics.
    - wlll 6y ago
      Source for this: I used to work there. > it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees. Only in a very simplistic view. Basecamp runs very lean, ~58 people before this incident, which for the number of customers (large) is a small amount. Basecamp is going to need to replace ~100% of those people. That means hiring costs, costs for hiring the wrong people, and lack of productivity. This will most likely cost them more money than they "save".
      - Sebb767 6y ago
        > That means hiring costs, costs for hiring the wrong people, and lack of productivity. Given that they seem to view politic discussions and committees as non-productive and that most of the people that left did so because these were important to them, they'll probably account for parts of their work and their leaving as "lack of productivity" and "hiring the wrong people" already. EDIT: From a company perspective - not judging either way.
        wlll 6y ago
        You're mis-construing the situation. The people are leaving because of the heavy handed and incredibly insensitive policy making, not because they spent all their time in committees and that's being taken away from them. All the people that left that I knew were incredibly talented and productive people, they are going to be a nightmare to replace.
  - ljm 6y ago
    I agree with this. The piece about benefits was weird and alarming to me. If your employee gave you the individual cash value of your gym membership, it would be based on their corporate discount and the fact it was pre-tax. You would have to dip into your own pocket to renew that membership as an individual, as it would come after tax and be more expensive (joining fees, contract lock-in...). And what a shitty cop-out to call it paternalistic, as if the whole post didn't reek of paternalism. A 10% profit share between 50 people is replacing a solid perk with an unpredictable annual bonus.
    - wlll 6y ago
      This is really simple, it's about the policy and the way it was announced, there's little more to read into the situation. Minor points: There was no corporate gym membership, it was just "Here's $100, spend it on fitness". > A 10% profit share between 50 people is replacing a solid perk with an unpredictable annual bonus. Basecamp was a phenomenally profitable company. The profit share was brought in after I left, but I'd have taken it over the other benefits if it had been either/or.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      I don’t think a gym benefits can be pretax. Maybe if the employer owns the gym. What a company can pay for and not have it count as compensation is more limited than you’d think.
      - Oddskar 6y ago
        Depends entirely on the country. There are some Scandinavian countries that can give very generous fitness benefits since it's a tax writeoff.
  - wlll 6y ago
    Basecamp isn't going to be running out of money any time soon, they have a massive number of customers, and a tiny staff. It's a profitable company. The benefits are a minor annoyance. They were likely dwarfed by the switch from Chicago to SF wages for the whole company, + the profit share. This is about the policy and the way it was announced.
- swyx 6y ago
  thats a very charitable interpretation. consider the additional signal that they all posted this publicly at the same time. anyway no point trying to mindread. this thing has taken up more mindshare than is really worth.
- wlll 6y ago
  I know most of the people who left. It's the policy and the method of delivery, not the severance. The severence will make it easier to go for sure, but this is about the policy. People seem to be making this way more complex than it is.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    White supremacist men want to pretend that it’s not about the policy. Because white supremacist men don’t want to live in a world where women or people of color are valued. Many of them are such bigoted shits that they cannot even _imagine_ somebody valuing women or people of color. This is why they talk about things like “virtue signaling”. That’s a term used by bigots who can’t even imagine caring about that other group, so they assume it _must_ be fake.
- predaking 6y ago
  It's pretty common in a situation like this to also carry a no disparagement clause along with the severance. That's also why you see a lot of "today is my last day at Basecamp" with no other "because I disagreed with the policies", etc.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    It's my understanding that there is no NDA.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      Non-disparagement is different from NDA (non-disclosure).
secondcoming 6y ago
A list!? Could this not lead to genocide?
Papirola 6y ago
didn't all this issue start because of a list of names?

by swyx 6y ago

bdowling 6y ago

I read the first tweet in each of those resignations. Out of 19 resignations, most give no reason for quitting. Five or so tweets cite "recent changes and new policies" as the reason. That reason is so vague that it may refer to the new policy of paying 6 months severance to employees who want to quit. edit: Excellent point below that the severance agreements probably included a non-disparagement clause, which would restrict what those who took the deal would feel safe disclosing publicly.

bsder 6y ago
While everybody is latching onto "Hurrr... Durrr... Wokeness." apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff. Most devs read the tea leaves from that kind of thing as as a bellweather for time to GTFO. My guess is that some of this has been building and the 6 months of severance simply put it into high gear.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff. They cut a fitness benefit, wellness allowance, farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. However, they paid each employee the value of the benefit for the year and they created a 10% profit sharing plan. https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5 https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5 It's unclear how much money the 10% profit sharing is worth, except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees. (edit: Yes, this is an oversimplification.)
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    > except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees Spicy.
    - swyx 6y ago
      is that mathematically how profit sharing works? game of thrones style? seems like it would create some very perverse incentives.
      - Rapzid 6y ago
        I don't know about the math but I would hope a small-ish group of intelligent people likely familiar with game theory wouldn't get wrapped up in selfish, counterproductive tactics.
  - wlll 6y ago
    Source for this: I used to work there. > it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees. Only in a very simplistic view. Basecamp runs very lean, ~58 people before this incident, which for the number of customers (large) is a small amount. Basecamp is going to need to replace ~100% of those people. That means hiring costs, costs for hiring the wrong people, and lack of productivity. This will most likely cost them more money than they "save".
    - Sebb767 6y ago
      > That means hiring costs, costs for hiring the wrong people, and lack of productivity. Given that they seem to view politic discussions and committees as non-productive and that most of the people that left did so because these were important to them, they'll probably account for parts of their work and their leaving as "lack of productivity" and "hiring the wrong people" already. EDIT: From a company perspective - not judging either way.
      - wlll 6y ago
        You're mis-construing the situation. The people are leaving because of the heavy handed and incredibly insensitive policy making, not because they spent all their time in committees and that's being taken away from them. All the people that left that I knew were incredibly talented and productive people, they are going to be a nightmare to replace.
- ljm 6y ago
  I agree with this. The piece about benefits was weird and alarming to me. If your employee gave you the individual cash value of your gym membership, it would be based on their corporate discount and the fact it was pre-tax. You would have to dip into your own pocket to renew that membership as an individual, as it would come after tax and be more expensive (joining fees, contract lock-in...). And what a shitty cop-out to call it paternalistic, as if the whole post didn't reek of paternalism. A 10% profit share between 50 people is replacing a solid perk with an unpredictable annual bonus.
  - wlll 6y ago
    This is really simple, it's about the policy and the way it was announced, there's little more to read into the situation. Minor points: There was no corporate gym membership, it was just "Here's $100, spend it on fitness". > A 10% profit share between 50 people is replacing a solid perk with an unpredictable annual bonus. Basecamp was a phenomenally profitable company. The profit share was brought in after I left, but I'd have taken it over the other benefits if it had been either/or.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    I don’t think a gym benefits can be pretax. Maybe if the employer owns the gym. What a company can pay for and not have it count as compensation is more limited than you’d think.
    - Oddskar 6y ago
      Depends entirely on the country. There are some Scandinavian countries that can give very generous fitness benefits since it's a tax writeoff.
- wlll 6y ago
  Basecamp isn't going to be running out of money any time soon, they have a massive number of customers, and a tiny staff. It's a profitable company. The benefits are a minor annoyance. They were likely dwarfed by the switch from Chicago to SF wages for the whole company, + the profit share. This is about the policy and the way it was announced.
swyx 6y ago
thats a very charitable interpretation. consider the additional signal that they all posted this publicly at the same time. anyway no point trying to mindread. this thing has taken up more mindshare than is really worth.
wlll 6y ago
I know most of the people who left. It's the policy and the method of delivery, not the severance. The severence will make it easier to go for sure, but this is about the policy. People seem to be making this way more complex than it is.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  White supremacist men want to pretend that it’s not about the policy. Because white supremacist men don’t want to live in a world where women or people of color are valued. Many of them are such bigoted shits that they cannot even _imagine_ somebody valuing women or people of color. This is why they talk about things like “virtue signaling”. That’s a term used by bigots who can’t even imagine caring about that other group, so they assume it _must_ be fake.
predaking 6y ago
It's pretty common in a situation like this to also carry a no disparagement clause along with the severance. That's also why you see a lot of "today is my last day at Basecamp" with no other "because I disagreed with the policies", etc.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  It's my understanding that there is no NDA.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    Non-disparagement is different from NDA (non-disclosure).

secondcoming 6y ago

A list!? Could this not lead to genocide?

Papirola 6y ago

didn't all this issue start because of a list of names?