3 ms·

I think this is an unfair representation and you are straw-manning the situation at least somewhat. The company doesn't think that 'name calling' is appropriat

I think this is an unfair representation and you are straw-manning the situation at least somewhat. The company doesn't think that 'name calling' is appropriate, rather, they don't believe that this activity is the beginnings of some kind of 'race war' and object to language such as 'leads to genocide' as hyperbolic. "unhappy that their employees asserted power over them in the workplace," Yes, if your staff are exerting that kind power, that's in most cases an unhealthy thing, unless there is considerably legitimacy in the assertion of that power. The 'argument' is over the legitimacy. "over what they view as their personal fiefdom" This is not the appropriate language: it's their company, and their responsibility. It's not a 'personal fiefdom'. "expected them to live up to their words about openness and owning mistakes." They did. The company doesn't support the right of individuals to 'make fun of people's names'. It's unreasonable to believe that excessive fear-mongering such as language regarding 'leads to genocide' should be accepted at face value. "t least 1/3 of the staff, when confronted with their true relations with their management, then decided to quit." This is clearly not true, because 1/3 of most Americans literally today, might opt to take 6 months of severance in order to leave their jobs. I probably would. The companies language may have been lacking in self awareness and possibly tone-deaf, but none of their policies are unreasonable. I think it was handled poorly, but just because it was, doesn't absolve the antagonists as having perfect legitimacy. I think from a policy perspective, things are fine, but from a 'populism' perspective, no so much. It does make me question a little bit either side, as though I'd want a lot more information to determine how bad things are either way.

digitaltrees 6y ago
Thank you for a thoughtful nuanced response. I think your perspective that questioning hyperbolic rhetoric is not the same as tacit support for the underlying issue is really important. It is critical to maintain perspective in discussion and avoid vilification of a counter party.
- corinroyal 6y ago
  The "hyperbolic rhetoric" was when the founder compared sharing the Pyramid of Hate with accusing coworkers of genocide.
  - jollybean 6y ago
    ... pointing out that others are using the term 'genocide' in their language, is not 'accusing co-workers of genocide'. The managers didn't accuse anyone of 'genocide'. [1] I don't see anything in this article as draconian or even excessive on the part of he executive team. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-politic...
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  "avoid vilification of a counter party" Ahh, I feel much better in my safe space. Thanks.
grey-area 6y ago
This is not the appropriate language: it's their company, and their responsibility. It's not a 'personal fiefdom'. I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not. It's unreasonable to believe that excessive fear-mongering such as language regarding 'leads to genocide' should be accepted at face value. I imagine gentle disagreement with this graphic would have been completely fine and appropriate coming from the manager - it's ok to disagree at work, many people wouldn't want to take part in that sort of discussion (also ok), but it's not ok for minor disagreements like this or a complaint to HR to lead to massive retaliation from management and a major restructure of the company to attempt to shut down any future complaints.
- jollybean 6y ago
  "They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not" This kind overly dramatic rhetoric demonstrates the lack of perspective on the part of the antagonists which is possibly at the root of the problem. There is no reason for leadership to risk the company and all of their time and investment over 'fake rhetorical wars over the meaning of words' which have very little substance on either side. Of all the ways for a company to fail, having internal resurrections over nothing is at least something that can be avoided. They company executives acted as though they were owners managers of the company - which they are - and gave their staff an option, which some of them took. That's it. " gentle disagreement with this graphic would have been completely fine " It wasn't just a disagreement over a graphic, it was a group of people forming an alliance to shape the nature of the company in their social view. That's going to require some restructuring. Aside from the tone of the communications, the company did what any other company would do, and now they're more or less situated as most other companies. A lot of people are here in for a rude awakening in life; questioning some actions the company is making and having them addressed is reasonable, but forming alliances, challenging the leadership is suicidal unless there's a high degree of legitimacy, which there isn't. If the company refuses to stop dumping chemicals, then yes, you can form an alliance. If you're worried the company has a doc floating around with crude jokes - but they stopped it ... and you want to restructure the company in your social terms because you think there's something existential at foot ... you're going to be fired. Even if the tone was off, the company acted within reason.

digitaltrees 6y ago

Thank you for a thoughtful nuanced response. I think your perspective that questioning hyperbolic rhetoric is not the same as tacit support for the underlying issue is really important. It is critical to maintain perspective in discussion and avoid vilification of a counter party.

corinroyal 6y ago
The "hyperbolic rhetoric" was when the founder compared sharing the Pyramid of Hate with accusing coworkers of genocide.
- jollybean 6y ago
  ... pointing out that others are using the term 'genocide' in their language, is not 'accusing co-workers of genocide'. The managers didn't accuse anyone of 'genocide'. [1] I don't see anything in this article as draconian or even excessive on the part of he executive team. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-politic...
birdyrooster 6y ago
"avoid vilification of a counter party" Ahh, I feel much better in my safe space. Thanks.

grey-area 6y ago

This is not the appropriate language: it's their company, and their responsibility. It's not a 'personal fiefdom'. I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not. It's unreasonable to believe that excessive fear-mongering such as language regarding 'leads to genocide' should be accepted at face value. I imagine gentle disagreement with this graphic would have been completely fine and appropriate coming from the manager - it's ok to disagree at work, many people wouldn't want to take part in that sort of discussion (also ok), but it's not ok for minor disagreements like this or a complaint to HR to lead to massive retaliation from management and a major restructure of the company to attempt to shut down any future complaints.

jollybean 6y ago
"They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not" This kind overly dramatic rhetoric demonstrates the lack of perspective on the part of the antagonists which is possibly at the root of the problem. There is no reason for leadership to risk the company and all of their time and investment over 'fake rhetorical wars over the meaning of words' which have very little substance on either side. Of all the ways for a company to fail, having internal resurrections over nothing is at least something that can be avoided. They company executives acted as though they were owners managers of the company - which they are - and gave their staff an option, which some of them took. That's it. " gentle disagreement with this graphic would have been completely fine " It wasn't just a disagreement over a graphic, it was a group of people forming an alliance to shape the nature of the company in their social view. That's going to require some restructuring. Aside from the tone of the communications, the company did what any other company would do, and now they're more or less situated as most other companies. A lot of people are here in for a rude awakening in life; questioning some actions the company is making and having them addressed is reasonable, but forming alliances, challenging the leadership is suicidal unless there's a high degree of legitimacy, which there isn't. If the company refuses to stop dumping chemicals, then yes, you can form an alliance. If you're worried the company has a doc floating around with crude jokes - but they stopped it ... and you want to restructure the company in your social terms because you think there's something existential at foot ... you're going to be fired. Even if the tone was off, the company acted within reason.