6 ms·

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 p

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    > except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees Spicy.
    - swyx 5y ago
      is that mathematically how profit sharing works? game of thrones style? seems like it would create some very perverse incentives.
      - Rapzid 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
        Sebb767 5y ago
        I'm not judging the people that left - sorry if that was received wrongly. I'm trying to say that from the perspective of the company, they probably see this deal less bad than you do.
        wlll 5y ago
        Knowing what I know about the people who have left (so far) they are very much going to miss the people who have left. I don't know all of them as I left 5 years ago, but the ones I do know are all incredibly competent at what they do, including the ehtire iOS team.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > 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. So, the message that is very easy to take from this (since the employees know they work for a profit maximizing firm) is that Basecamp's own expectation of its future profitability was that the 10% profit sharing was likely to be less expensive than the benefits it replaced. So, yeah, its quite possible that explains some part of the departures as much as the workplace speech code. But its all part and parcel of the same thing: "We're taking away your amenities, more tightly restricting your behavior, and exposing your to more risk" is quite a package. > 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. Assuming the 1/3 that left, including many highly placed, had no role in producing profits. Which would be kind of weird. And assuming the fact of the mass exodus has no impact on the perception of Basecamp and its product independent of the actual impact the employees had on profits, which would also be weird.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      > So, the message that is very easy to take from this (since the employees know they work for a profit maximizing firm) is that Basecamp's own expectation of its future profitability was that the 10% profit sharing was likely to be less expensive than the benefits it replaced. Or that they thought providing a monetary benefit, which each employee is free to spend as they wish, is a more attractive packet and/or better due to the reduced management overhead. Also, depending on how much the benefits cost them and how many employees used them, this might still be a better option for both sides.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Or that they thought providing a monetary benefit, which each employee is free to spend as they wish, is a more attractive packet and/or better due to the reduced management overhead. Sure, that's also an easy to reach interpretation. Unlike the other, not one that explains people being more likely to accept a buyout because of the change, so not relevant to the discussion, though.
- ljm 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  It's my understanding that there is no NDA.
  - bdowling 5y ago
    Non-disparagement is different from NDA (non-disclosure).

bsder 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  > except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees Spicy.
  - swyx 5y ago
    is that mathematically how profit sharing works? game of thrones style? seems like it would create some very perverse incentives.
    - Rapzid 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
      - Sebb767 5y ago
        I'm not judging the people that left - sorry if that was received wrongly. I'm trying to say that from the perspective of the company, they probably see this deal less bad than you do.
        wlll 5y ago
        Knowing what I know about the people who have left (so far) they are very much going to miss the people who have left. I don't know all of them as I left 5 years ago, but the ones I do know are all incredibly competent at what they do, including the ehtire iOS team.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 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. So, the message that is very easy to take from this (since the employees know they work for a profit maximizing firm) is that Basecamp's own expectation of its future profitability was that the 10% profit sharing was likely to be less expensive than the benefits it replaced. So, yeah, its quite possible that explains some part of the departures as much as the workplace speech code. But its all part and parcel of the same thing: "We're taking away your amenities, more tightly restricting your behavior, and exposing your to more risk" is quite a package. > 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. Assuming the 1/3 that left, including many highly placed, had no role in producing profits. Which would be kind of weird. And assuming the fact of the mass exodus has no impact on the perception of Basecamp and its product independent of the actual impact the employees had on profits, which would also be weird.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > So, the message that is very easy to take from this (since the employees know they work for a profit maximizing firm) is that Basecamp's own expectation of its future profitability was that the 10% profit sharing was likely to be less expensive than the benefits it replaced. Or that they thought providing a monetary benefit, which each employee is free to spend as they wish, is a more attractive packet and/or better due to the reduced management overhead. Also, depending on how much the benefits cost them and how many employees used them, this might still be a better option for both sides.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Or that they thought providing a monetary benefit, which each employee is free to spend as they wish, is a more attractive packet and/or better due to the reduced management overhead. Sure, that's also an easy to reach interpretation. Unlike the other, not one that explains people being more likely to accept a buyout because of the change, so not relevant to the discussion, though.
ljm 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
It's my understanding that there is no NDA.
- bdowling 5y ago
  Non-disparagement is different from NDA (non-disclosure).