6 ms·

“Most” of the company staying is cold comfort when that “most” is a slim majority. Losing a third of your work force at once, effective immediately (or close to

“Most” of the company staying is cold comfort when that “most” is a slim majority. Losing a third of your work force at once, effective immediately (or close to immediately) is a catastrophic outcome that’s really hard to sugarcoat. Especially when the company has just gotten into a very ugly public fight with their employees, and remote work is no longer a rare benefit to entice talent. I would not envy being a hiring manager at Basecamp right now.

kyawzazaw 6y ago
There's 58 employees at the entire company (or was)
- xmprt 6y ago
  That's almost more surprising to me. In small companies I usually expect most people to stick together because everyone knows everyone. Having 1/3 leave isn't something I'd ever imagine.
  - foobaw 6y ago
    I'm guessing more people will leave in the next few weeks.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    I think with more and more remote work social ties get weaker - at least from what I have seen people are easier to leave because the group isn't as tightly connected when everyone knows each other just from some remote meetings and PRs.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I doubt it. Basecamp has extremely long average tenures. The people who are quitting are often 9-12 year veterans. If social ties were that weak there, they would’ve been pealed off by recruiters before.
      - KingOfCoders 6y ago
        Thanks!
jack_riminton 6y ago
I think there’ll be a lot of people applying for jobs there now. I know I want to
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You do you, I wouldn’t want to work with someone who just showed their ass to the entire internet like that.
  - jack_riminton 6y ago
    I think it was good leadership actually
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Good leadership doesn’t result in you losing 1/3rd of the company’s workforce. Or, since I know that the common retort here is “they’re better off without the troublemakers”; good leaders don’t build organizations where 1/3rd of the organization is troublemakers; that’s a failure of hiring. There really is no way to spin this in a way that makes them look good. The PR hit is really just the cherry on top of losing so many people, and paying 6 months of salary for the privilege to boot.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jack_riminton 6y ago
        Well it might not take them that long to hire 20 people. And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. Irregardless, I think they’re going to have an increase in job applications and do very well in the future
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        > And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. I wouldn’t want to work for a company that somehow managed to get dragged down by 20 people. If losing those people is making the company better, then it sounds like leadership is deeply incompetent and let things fester for way, way, way too long. Keep in mind that some of those people worked there for 12 years; if losing them is a net positive why weren’t they fired a decade ago? I also think the idea that the remaining workers will be more productive is laughable. Events like these crush morale, even if you ultimately agree with the policy decision being made. Never mind what happens when you lose so much knowledge, including entire teams and directors, with basically no warning or opportunity to transfer knowledge. Hope their docs are world class, or their replacements are gonna have a bad time.
wyclif 6y ago
The cynical side of me thinks this is just Fried and DHH not wasting a crisis and turning it into an opportunity to quick pivot and flush out the deadwood. I do agree with others, though, that I'll bet Basecamp is a better place to work now than it was a week ago. If people want to quit because they'd rather engage in struggle sessions than focus on the work, I won't be sad to see them leave and take their distracting socio-political griefer wokeist cloud with them. Stop politicizing tech. We are in the technology industry, not the humanities faculty lounge and our jobs should be free of virtue signalling and cancellation.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I doubt this was planned, the whole thing seems like a bunch of bad impulses rather than something done on purpose. Especially since this has absolutely trashed their public reputation. I completely disagree about Basecamp being better after this. Attrition, no matter the cause, is awful for company morale. Finding out that several teams are just gone without any notice or time to transition is going to make life kind of suck for those who remain. Sure hope their docs are good. As far as stopping the politics in tech; Basecamp got a glowing write up in Breitbart. “No politics here” is political. There are good and bad ways to handle such things, but blanket bans and “here’s the door if you don’t like it” is hamfisted and clearly bad for retention.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    > Especially since this has absolutely trashed their public reputation. Definitely this has trashed their reputation with people on the left. Some of my friends have been posting on Twitter that they wouldn't work for Basecamp now, whereas they used to aspire to work there. But it is far from clear to me that my friends are in a majority. Many people on the right, or people who are apolitical, or people who just don't like politicisation in the way that has been reported, may be perfectly fine with this. In terms of reputation, it wouldn't surprise me if this is a net win for Basecamp. For sure losing a third of employees is an existential risk, but I suspect senior management would have accepted that risk. (I consider myself to be left wing, but not woke).

kyawzazaw 6y ago

There's 58 employees at the entire company (or was)

xmprt 6y ago
That's almost more surprising to me. In small companies I usually expect most people to stick together because everyone knows everyone. Having 1/3 leave isn't something I'd ever imagine.
- foobaw 6y ago
  I'm guessing more people will leave in the next few weeks.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  I think with more and more remote work social ties get weaker - at least from what I have seen people are easier to leave because the group isn't as tightly connected when everyone knows each other just from some remote meetings and PRs.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I doubt it. Basecamp has extremely long average tenures. The people who are quitting are often 9-12 year veterans. If social ties were that weak there, they would’ve been pealed off by recruiters before.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      Thanks!

jack_riminton 6y ago

I think there’ll be a lot of people applying for jobs there now. I know I want to

ashtonkem 6y ago
You do you, I wouldn’t want to work with someone who just showed their ass to the entire internet like that.
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  I think it was good leadership actually
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Good leadership doesn’t result in you losing 1/3rd of the company’s workforce. Or, since I know that the common retort here is “they’re better off without the troublemakers”; good leaders don’t build organizations where 1/3rd of the organization is troublemakers; that’s a failure of hiring. There really is no way to spin this in a way that makes them look good. The PR hit is really just the cherry on top of losing so many people, and paying 6 months of salary for the privilege to boot.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jack_riminton 6y ago
      Well it might not take them that long to hire 20 people. And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. Irregardless, I think they’re going to have an increase in job applications and do very well in the future
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        > And even if they couldn’t, having a smaller but more productive workforce might be a win. I wouldn’t want to work for a company that somehow managed to get dragged down by 20 people. If losing those people is making the company better, then it sounds like leadership is deeply incompetent and let things fester for way, way, way too long. Keep in mind that some of those people worked there for 12 years; if losing them is a net positive why weren’t they fired a decade ago? I also think the idea that the remaining workers will be more productive is laughable. Events like these crush morale, even if you ultimately agree with the policy decision being made. Never mind what happens when you lose so much knowledge, including entire teams and directors, with basically no warning or opportunity to transfer knowledge. Hope their docs are world class, or their replacements are gonna have a bad time.

wyclif 6y ago

The cynical side of me thinks this is just Fried and DHH not wasting a crisis and turning it into an opportunity to quick pivot and flush out the deadwood. I do agree with others, though, that I'll bet Basecamp is a better place to work now than it was a week ago. If people want to quit because they'd rather engage in struggle sessions than focus on the work, I won't be sad to see them leave and take their distracting socio-political griefer wokeist cloud with them. Stop politicizing tech. We are in the technology industry, not the humanities faculty lounge and our jobs should be free of virtue signalling and cancellation.

ashtonkem 6y ago
I doubt this was planned, the whole thing seems like a bunch of bad impulses rather than something done on purpose. Especially since this has absolutely trashed their public reputation. I completely disagree about Basecamp being better after this. Attrition, no matter the cause, is awful for company morale. Finding out that several teams are just gone without any notice or time to transition is going to make life kind of suck for those who remain. Sure hope their docs are good. As far as stopping the politics in tech; Basecamp got a glowing write up in Breitbart. “No politics here” is political. There are good and bad ways to handle such things, but blanket bans and “here’s the door if you don’t like it” is hamfisted and clearly bad for retention.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > Especially since this has absolutely trashed their public reputation. Definitely this has trashed their reputation with people on the left. Some of my friends have been posting on Twitter that they wouldn't work for Basecamp now, whereas they used to aspire to work there. But it is far from clear to me that my friends are in a majority. Many people on the right, or people who are apolitical, or people who just don't like politicisation in the way that has been reported, may be perfectly fine with this. In terms of reputation, it wouldn't surprise me if this is a net win for Basecamp. For sure losing a third of employees is an existential risk, but I suspect senior management would have accepted that risk. (I consider myself to be left wing, but not woke).