Changes at Basecamp(world.hey.com)
world.hey.com
Changes at Basecamp
https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5
845 comments
>Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing
Are we pretending that all that corporate lobbying and political donations that have been going on for years and years was non-political?
Are we pretending that all that corporate lobbying and political donations that have been going on for years and years was non-political?
There’s a difference between economic politics to be lobbied for and cultural politics to signal/argue about.
That's true, but you can't separate them when making donations.
If I donate to Candidate X, I'm taking her economic and her social policies at the same time.
In practice, this means that many large companies have to choose between issues they support. Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats.
If a company takes only an economic perspective, they may end up doing something morally repugnant to their workforce or customers, which turns a social issue into an economic one.
If I donate to Candidate X, I'm taking her economic and her social policies at the same time.
In practice, this means that many large companies have to choose between issues they support. Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats.
If a company takes only an economic perspective, they may end up doing something morally repugnant to their workforce or customers, which turns a social issue into an economic one.
> Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats.
That's probably why they donate to both parties: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/recipients?i...
That's probably why they donate to both parties: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/recipients?i...
Many times I see people cite these statistics as if they are the actions of the company. However. 90% of those donations are from individuals that work for Microsoft and list Microsoft as an employer. It’s cited towards the bottom of the page. I think that this mostly tells us that there exists a decent number of politically active employees and that a large majority of those donate to democrats. The remaining 9% of the donations are PACs which would have their own disclosures. I couldn’t find reference on that page for which PACs Microsoft is donating too though and which party those PACs are donating to.
One could also argue that they donate to both parties because they want to have influence over whomever wins any election. It may be totally divorced from ideology.
Or because they fear being targeted if they don’t contribute…
[deleted]
Does economic inequality fall in the first or the second bin?
It depends. That’s pretty vague.
What's the difference?
Corporations lobby for their interests.
Employees lobby for their interest by negotiating with their managers/contract or organizing into a union etc. or if they’ve been seriously slighted by lawyering up.
Arguing about race relations, gun rights, cancel culture, policing, trans rights, income inequality at large is irrelevant to 99% of employees. They’re just venting opinions and creating drama over something that they can’t change and usually is irrelevant to their workplace. They can be activists on their own time or keep it in private channels. I think all the “no politics” people want to avoid is Twitter-like conflict and drama, not a ban on all things human or real advocacy for your own interests.
Employees lobby for their interest by negotiating with their managers/contract or organizing into a union etc. or if they’ve been seriously slighted by lawyering up.
Arguing about race relations, gun rights, cancel culture, policing, trans rights, income inequality at large is irrelevant to 99% of employees. They’re just venting opinions and creating drama over something that they can’t change and usually is irrelevant to their workplace. They can be activists on their own time or keep it in private channels. I think all the “no politics” people want to avoid is Twitter-like conflict and drama, not a ban on all things human or real advocacy for your own interests.
if the lobbying relates to the business/bottom line of the company, then it's "non-political".
I loved everything about what I read here.
I'm not surprised at the backlash as most of the Ruby community in the west has been extremely political.
I'm not surprised at the backlash as most of the Ruby community in the west has been extremely political.
I understand the motives (at least the official ones) behind those changes, and I agree with most of the points there. I would say that to some extend, joining social/political discussions by companies becomes marketing.
My biggest issue is that companies do not live in a politics-free bubble. The bigger the company the more it cares and tries to influence the politics, either publicly or not, because politics influences the business.
But business influences politics too. And I think this is a reason that employees want the companies to take a stand. A company employing 10k people can make a bigger impact than those 10k people themselves, so people want to leverage this.
Theoretically, it should be a bad thing, in democracy, we want every vote to count equally. But in sad reality, individual people choose politicians, but after that, the politics is shaped by powerful. 10k people are not powerful, the company they work for - may be.
My biggest issue is that companies do not live in a politics-free bubble. The bigger the company the more it cares and tries to influence the politics, either publicly or not, because politics influences the business.
But business influences politics too. And I think this is a reason that employees want the companies to take a stand. A company employing 10k people can make a bigger impact than those 10k people themselves, so people want to leverage this.
Theoretically, it should be a bad thing, in democracy, we want every vote to count equally. But in sad reality, individual people choose politicians, but after that, the politics is shaped by powerful. 10k people are not powerful, the company they work for - may be.
> Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead.
This one's odd to me, because I thought the point of non-cash benefits was that it was much cheaper than giving out cash because the employer has more bargaining power than you.
This one's odd to me, because I thought the point of non-cash benefits was that it was much cheaper than giving out cash because the employer has more bargaining power than you.
At an individual level, that's often true.
An employer might, for example, negotiate a gym membership or online classes for their employees at 70% of the normal price. If you take advantage of those benefits, you're basically getting a 30% discount on something you'd otherwise pay full price for.
To continue the example, however, if less than 70% of your workforce uses that benefit, the company is now typically paying more in total than the individuals would be paying to just buy that thing on their own. (Obviously, this depends on how your perks are negotiated, but even then you also have overheads in paying someone to acquire/negotiate/maintain these kinds of nontangible benefits.)
Not to mention it falls into the Gift Card problem of dictating what those employees get to spend their money on, instead of giving them the freedom to spend it as they wish, which devalues the per-dollar benefit every time there's a perk that goes unused. (Food for thought: second-hand $100 gift cards often sell for $50-75 cash online.)
I don't have any inside numbers on what % of people take full advantage of all of their company benefits, but I'd venture a guess that there's not as much cost-savings as it seems at first glance.
An employer might, for example, negotiate a gym membership or online classes for their employees at 70% of the normal price. If you take advantage of those benefits, you're basically getting a 30% discount on something you'd otherwise pay full price for.
To continue the example, however, if less than 70% of your workforce uses that benefit, the company is now typically paying more in total than the individuals would be paying to just buy that thing on their own. (Obviously, this depends on how your perks are negotiated, but even then you also have overheads in paying someone to acquire/negotiate/maintain these kinds of nontangible benefits.)
Not to mention it falls into the Gift Card problem of dictating what those employees get to spend their money on, instead of giving them the freedom to spend it as they wish, which devalues the per-dollar benefit every time there's a perk that goes unused. (Food for thought: second-hand $100 gift cards often sell for $50-75 cash online.)
I don't have any inside numbers on what % of people take full advantage of all of their company benefits, but I'd venture a guess that there's not as much cost-savings as it seems at first glance.
Well it depends -- it's fairly simple math equation. The more paternalistic benefits you have, the more they cost, and the more people take advantage of more than one of them the more you risk hitting the value requivalent to the 3-5% promotion you have given that employee over 2 years.
Just my opinion, but if you were happy to take a 90k job because you live somewhere with a low cost of living for relatively less strenuous engineering work (let's be honest, Basecamp isn't pushing the boundaries of what can be done on the technical side, more on the product side), you're probably fine with waving off the extra 10k or whatever by thinking to yourself they'll pay for schooling if you ever do that (you probably won't).
Also, important to note that their 10% thing is performance linked ("profit sharing") -- so it pays for itself. If sales at the company grow 10% so they increase your pay 10% (and that isn't even necessarily what it is, they didn't clarify what the 10% is), the incentives are aligned and the company makes an outsize gain compared to each individual employee. It's a win-win-win, but most of the wins are on the side of the company, as usual. Compounding effects are much stronger than 10% yearly gain -- and what's even crazier is that you have to keep moving the company forward to keep getting the 10% -- essentially if you keep doing that, it's exponential improvement for the company, and each new person that comes in has to get on the hamster wheel. It's brilliant (which is why it's so common).
Just my opinion, but if you were happy to take a 90k job because you live somewhere with a low cost of living for relatively less strenuous engineering work (let's be honest, Basecamp isn't pushing the boundaries of what can be done on the technical side, more on the product side), you're probably fine with waving off the extra 10k or whatever by thinking to yourself they'll pay for schooling if you ever do that (you probably won't).
Also, important to note that their 10% thing is performance linked ("profit sharing") -- so it pays for itself. If sales at the company grow 10% so they increase your pay 10% (and that isn't even necessarily what it is, they didn't clarify what the 10% is), the incentives are aligned and the company makes an outsize gain compared to each individual employee. It's a win-win-win, but most of the wins are on the side of the company, as usual. Compounding effects are much stronger than 10% yearly gain -- and what's even crazier is that you have to keep moving the company forward to keep getting the 10% -- essentially if you keep doing that, it's exponential improvement for the company, and each new person that comes in has to get on the hamster wheel. It's brilliant (which is why it's so common).
> a 90k job
Basecamp pays SV salaries to all employees regardless of location.
https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/
Basecamp pays SV salaries to all employees regardless of location.
https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/
Just a theoretical example to make the numbers easier (rounding off to 100k).
That said, I also can't find anything anywhere on what people at basecamp are actually paid (nothing on levels.fyi or glassdoor, I didn't search very hard). I don't know what "SV salaries" means but not everyone in SV is making the average or median salary -- some people will be under or right at 100k, probably very early in their careers or when a company is taking a flyer on someone with no credentials.
That said, I also can't find anything anywhere on what people at basecamp are actually paid (nothing on levels.fyi or glassdoor, I didn't search very hard). I don't know what "SV salaries" means but not everyone in SV is making the average or median salary -- some people will be under or right at 100k, probably very early in their careers or when a company is taking a flyer on someone with no credentials.
In-kind benefits aren't taxed as income, so benefit both employer and employee in that sense, but they're also more likely than cash to never be used and thus become a waste for both parties.
Note in this case they're giving the cash value of the benefits for one year only, so presumably this will save them money in the long run unless they end up having to permaboost salaries, but that is doubtful. Market rate's the market rate and I don't think many people seriously make a decision based on whether one employer offers discounted gym memberships or not.
Note in this case they're giving the cash value of the benefits for one year only, so presumably this will save them money in the long run unless they end up having to permaboost salaries, but that is doubtful. Market rate's the market rate and I don't think many people seriously make a decision based on whether one employer offers discounted gym memberships or not.
Totally. Not sure about the US, but at least in Spain that kind of benefits (private health insurance, restaurant tickets, etc) tend to be a lot cheaper for the employer often just for being a company, but usually for the large quantities they work with.
Calling benefits "paternalistic" is both loaded language and inaccurate:
> paternalistic : relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependents in their supposed interest
What restriction do these benefits impose?
Let's just call them benefits.
> paternalistic : relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependents in their supposed interest
What restriction do these benefits impose?
Let's just call them benefits.
From the article:
>2. No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we've had a change of heart. It's none of our business what you do outside of work, and it's not Basecamp's place to encourage certain behaviors — regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.
The authors were not referring to benefits in general, but to a specific subset of them that seem to fit your definition well.
>2. No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we've had a change of heart. It's none of our business what you do outside of work, and it's not Basecamp's place to encourage certain behaviors — regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.
The authors were not referring to benefits in general, but to a specific subset of them that seem to fit your definition well.
I understand the authors think there is a difference.
However, I don't see a significant difference between 'traditional' healthcare and preventative healthcare (e.g. a gym membership and healthy food).
However, I don't see a significant difference between 'traditional' healthcare and preventative healthcare (e.g. a gym membership and healthy food).
Basecamp isn’t a huge company. The bargaining power probably wasn’t that significant.
Dropping group-rate benefits is a sort of a pay cut, but only if employees were using the benefit enough. You'd have to do the math to see how it shakes out.
Not at all. They probably just got tired of people complaining that providing benefit X that could only be used by some slice of the workforce was therefore unjust. Which is absolutely ridiculous. But here we are.
> IMO people (even the people in charge of companies) can (and should) have political opinions! _Companies_ shouldn't.
I'm not sure how this meshes with this post? Basecamps founder has been politically active in a role representing the company, by talking to congress about big techs market power (i.e. Hey's fight with Apple). That part is not what they are banning here.
I'm not sure how this meshes with this post? Basecamps founder has been politically active in a role representing the company, by talking to congress about big techs market power (i.e. Hey's fight with Apple). That part is not what they are banning here.
Part of this post's change is that Basecamp (as a company) is pulling back on publicizing political stances that aren't directly related to their business.
From the follow-up post @ https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...:
>Next, Basecamp, as a company, is no longer going to weigh-in publicly on societal political affairs, outside those that directly connect to the business. Again, everyone can individually weigh-in as much or as little as they want, but we're done with posts that present a Basecamp stance on such issues.
>Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
The founders obviously have strong political opinions on a lot of topics and I think it's great that they're going to express more of them personally instead of expressing them through Basecamp (company).
From the follow-up post @ https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...:
>Next, Basecamp, as a company, is no longer going to weigh-in publicly on societal political affairs, outside those that directly connect to the business. Again, everyone can individually weigh-in as much or as little as they want, but we're done with posts that present a Basecamp stance on such issues.
>Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
The founders obviously have strong political opinions on a lot of topics and I think it's great that they're going to express more of them personally instead of expressing them through Basecamp (company).
Those sent political opinions, those are naked self-interest opinions. They overlap, but the distinction is critical.
I love Ruby but I don't share a lot of common ground with Twitter hungry rubyists.
Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"? In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp?
People are going to say "obviously stuff like this is okay", but to me that's even worse. The company can and will apply arbitrary rules to whatever they think is unacceptable political speech.
And if they do strictly enforce that employees must only ever communicate about work (and the weather or whatever), then that sounds like a very depressing and dystopian workplace.
Is it really that hard to hire adults who can have reasonable adult conversations (with sometimes differing opinions) without it being a "major distraction"? And is the best response to this really to bow down to the loudest voices on either side and shut down conversation for the 99% who are just...normal?
People are going to say "obviously stuff like this is okay", but to me that's even worse. The company can and will apply arbitrary rules to whatever they think is unacceptable political speech.
And if they do strictly enforce that employees must only ever communicate about work (and the weather or whatever), then that sounds like a very depressing and dystopian workplace.
Is it really that hard to hire adults who can have reasonable adult conversations (with sometimes differing opinions) without it being a "major distraction"? And is the best response to this really to bow down to the loudest voices on either side and shut down conversation for the 99% who are just...normal?
While I hear the, "But anything could be viewed as societal and political discussion", it's kind of a straw man argument. We all know what types of discourse Jason and David are referring to and they augmented their request with, "But if you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world. Someone will gently remind you of the etiquette, and we'll move on. This isn't some zero-tolerance, max-consequences new policy."
From my POV, they're taking a difficult stance to rid the workforce of the extreme forms of toxic distraction (which happens across the political spectrum and is pretty recognizable) and for the most part, doing exactly what you articulated: returning to reasonable adult conversations that 99% of people are capable of doing.
From my POV, they're taking a difficult stance to rid the workforce of the extreme forms of toxic distraction (which happens across the political spectrum and is pretty recognizable) and for the most part, doing exactly what you articulated: returning to reasonable adult conversations that 99% of people are capable of doing.
I don't feel like it's a strawman. I don't know the culture there, but what about:
- Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
- "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)
- Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
I could keep going for a while...it's difficult to avoid "politics".
- Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
- "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)
- Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
I could keep going for a while...it's difficult to avoid "politics".
These are partly strawman arguments too, especially since they've been careful to state it's not a zero tolerance policy. If you take this on good faith and assume the goal is to reduce dividiness rather than a hard-line ban on everything that anyone could ever construe as political (impossible in any case), it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion for each of your points and any future points you come up with.
> - Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
Would be illegal, strawman.
> - "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)is- this is something they'd have to decide, however it should be framed as "we're going to <political event> this weekend, want to join?". On the other hand, if they're incorporated in a place where being gay and gay marriage is fully legal, I don't think gay pride can be considered political any more than independence day, in which case, of course it would be allowed. Someone responding by saying "ugh, gay people make me sick", OTOH, should be censored under this rule.
> - Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- not political, however, if someone responds by saying "ugh, I hate the military, you guys are terrible", that would be political and they should be warned to simmer down (I say this as someone who does dislike the military - but I don't think that gives me the right to say nasty things to people who have escaped and are trying to move on).
> - One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
This is a business decision and should be discussed in that context. It probably shouldn't get discussed in the casual slack channel regardless of this rule.
Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it - by which I mean, assume that they are trying to reduce division in their company instead of assuming their end goal is censorship.
If course, maybe it will turn out to be a bad thing in the end. But I don't think we'll reach that conclusion by listing minor problems with it.
> - Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)
Would be illegal, strawman.
> - "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)is- this is something they'd have to decide, however it should be framed as "we're going to <political event> this weekend, want to join?". On the other hand, if they're incorporated in a place where being gay and gay marriage is fully legal, I don't think gay pride can be considered political any more than independence day, in which case, of course it would be allowed. Someone responding by saying "ugh, gay people make me sick", OTOH, should be censored under this rule.
> - Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
- not political, however, if someone responds by saying "ugh, I hate the military, you guys are terrible", that would be political and they should be warned to simmer down (I say this as someone who does dislike the military - but I don't think that gives me the right to say nasty things to people who have escaped and are trying to move on).
> - One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?
This is a business decision and should be discussed in that context. It probably shouldn't get discussed in the casual slack channel regardless of this rule.
Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it - by which I mean, assume that they are trying to reduce division in their company instead of assuming their end goal is censorship.
If course, maybe it will turn out to be a bad thing in the end. But I don't think we'll reach that conclusion by listing minor problems with it.
> Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it
Ironically, I think you are not taking tyingq's comments in good faith.
It is fine if you think tyingq's points are straw men, but it does not mean that everyone agrees with you. It doesn't mean that someone with a different POV is being "petty" or not acting in good faith.
I found the discussion between the two of you useful, but I don't think it was helpful for you (all considered) to question tyingq's intentions.
Ironically, I think you are not taking tyingq's comments in good faith.
It is fine if you think tyingq's points are straw men, but it does not mean that everyone agrees with you. It doesn't mean that someone with a different POV is being "petty" or not acting in good faith.
I found the discussion between the two of you useful, but I don't think it was helpful for you (all considered) to question tyingq's intentions.
> "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)
How about Jodie says, "No thanks"
"Aw, why not?"
"Not really my thing"
"What, do you have a problem with gay people?"
I mean I see that as likely as any outcome from that conversation starter.
How about Jodie says, "No thanks"
"Aw, why not?"
"Not really my thing"
"What, do you have a problem with gay people?"
I mean I see that as likely as any outcome from that conversation starter.
See that to me is the strawman...
"No thanks"
> "Aw, why not?"
> "Not really my thing"
and then the next line would be something like "It's a lot of fun" or "Straight/Cis allies are totally welcome" and if Jodie was like me the response is "I'm sure, but I just don't want to" and that's the end of it.
There is an oft-repeated idea that non-queer people are getting in any way harassed to alter their lifestyle by threat of accusations of homophobia, despite being unfounded.
"No thanks"
> "Aw, why not?"
> "Not really my thing"
and then the next line would be something like "It's a lot of fun" or "Straight/Cis allies are totally welcome" and if Jodie was like me the response is "I'm sure, but I just don't want to" and that's the end of it.
There is an oft-repeated idea that non-queer people are getting in any way harassed to alter their lifestyle by threat of accusations of homophobia, despite being unfounded.
The whataboutism is the precisely the issue.
No actual union will encourage or allow union business on company forums, for example. If you want to talk to Jodie about marching in a parade, give her a call or message her offline.
I’ve worked for employers where it is illegal to discuss politics with their systems. Honestly, it made for a great work environment... I don’t need to know or care whether you’re a Baptist minister, a drag queen or both in your spare time. I just need to work with you.
No actual union will encourage or allow union business on company forums, for example. If you want to talk to Jodie about marching in a parade, give her a call or message her offline.
I’ve worked for employers where it is illegal to discuss politics with their systems. Honestly, it made for a great work environment... I don’t need to know or care whether you’re a Baptist minister, a drag queen or both in your spare time. I just need to work with you.
It's not "whataboutism". I was genuinely curious what they meant. "Political" means different things to different people. I'm also curious if it's just the forums. I don't know if they are 100% remote, all the time, etc.
I should have worded that differently.
Work isn't college. Once you get beyond a certain size, by making a public debate and exploration of stuff that isn't work a thing, you're going to go down rabbit holes that probably aren't particularly healthy for the organization. That's where the whataboutism comes in.
My personal preference is for my colleagues to behave in a manner of mutual respect. I get to know my immediate colleagues and folks I work with, but I don't see any value in anything beyond that. The company should treat you with dignity and respect, but I don't care or need to know that some person on the other side of the ocean is a non-binary veteran dealing with whatever.
If a person's conduct is inappropriate, that's an entirely different matter.
Work isn't college. Once you get beyond a certain size, by making a public debate and exploration of stuff that isn't work a thing, you're going to go down rabbit holes that probably aren't particularly healthy for the organization. That's where the whataboutism comes in.
My personal preference is for my colleagues to behave in a manner of mutual respect. I get to know my immediate colleagues and folks I work with, but I don't see any value in anything beyond that. The company should treat you with dignity and respect, but I don't care or need to know that some person on the other side of the ocean is a non-binary veteran dealing with whatever.
If a person's conduct is inappropriate, that's an entirely different matter.
> That's where the whataboutism comes in.
I'm not following your use of the word. I think we may have different ideas about what it means.
From Wikipedia:
> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]
Where did tyingq say someone else was a hypocrite? They didn't.
I'm not following your use of the word. I think we may have different ideas about what it means.
From Wikipedia:
> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]
Where did tyingq say someone else was a hypocrite? They didn't.
I'll read feedback in the form of comments. Indirect feedback by way of the down arrow will have no effect whatsoever on my views. So, if you want to persuade, use your words.
> Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)
Veteran here. Yes it is. It's identity politics, especially in hyper liberal areas. I'll express some thoughts I have around this.
Some veterans, especially campaign veterans which are a protected class, will struggle when being introduced to the workforce. When I got out, shortly after a year long stint in Afghanistan and subsequently more combat training, I was given a class called SEPS & TAPS. TAPS is an acronym here, but let me remind you foremost of what "taps" is.
Taps is the bugle song played every night at base. When taps plays you are under military order to stand at attention and salute the flag. Taps is a reminder of those who lost or sacrificed their lives that day. It is a daily reminder that your choices are often dangerous ones much less ones that don't just involve your life. For that minute, you are relegated to appreciating their sacrifices in utter silence.
In my course (SEPS & TAPS) the first power point we received covered a page filled with telemetry data about Marines you didn't want to be. The drunk, the drug user, the domestic abuser, the college drop out, the person with anger problems. I wish I had screenshot this slide because words cannot capture how uphill that battle would seem. When I finally did get out, I realized why all these shocking statistics make sense. I've heard people talk about "hero worship" and I'm from the South where veterans have a decent reputation. Where Southerners probably do give a lot of credence to the military because most of the military is generational servitude from the Midwest and the South, likely due to a perceived lack of opportunity in many areas. Hero worship is little more than lip service to veterans though. The real substantive outcome of me getting out was watching all my friends lives reset, facing a lack of opportunity (again), and more bills, pressures, and externalities like school all while trying to return to being a normal human being. It was immense and for a time my life would fall apart in one way while bounding forward in another. It felt like I was literally Flubber, and it was killing me.
If you've followed my posts on this forum life is okay now. But I can see why veterans may need a group at work where they can be veterans or talk about issues. What I don't agree with is if these groups tried to influence the work force. I wouldn't agree with them sending out lecturing messages about veterans or memorial day, even if they're right. I wouldn't be comfortable with them making statements for the veteran community. I wouldn't be okay if they set hiring parameters on top of what is required by law.
I also understand there are people who hate veterans. Some people at work I actively ensure that I don't bring up being a veteran, that I'm particularly good at marksmanship, that I've been to Afghanistan (or any sub-experiences thereafter). No amount of advocacy that a veterans group can do will change that person's mind. I cannot overcome people who equate military service with fascism, nationalism, or even the train of thought that leads people to believe all or most veterans are conservative. I can't fix a broken mind like that; only personal experiences that challenge the thinkers opinions will, which means likely, one day, some veteran will be on the other end of that. Maybe someone like me who can listen to a dissenting view that feels dehumanizing, but maybe not. That's just the way personal growth goes; thinkers don't really plan on who or how their minds will eventually be changed. I accept that reality as a fact of life. I embrace it to some degree and actively work to avoid it in another.
So, is that group political? Yes, but there are things they can choose to do that are decidedly more political and that is where you'll get disagreeance from me as a member of said group.
Veteran here. Yes it is. It's identity politics, especially in hyper liberal areas. I'll express some thoughts I have around this.
Some veterans, especially campaign veterans which are a protected class, will struggle when being introduced to the workforce. When I got out, shortly after a year long stint in Afghanistan and subsequently more combat training, I was given a class called SEPS & TAPS. TAPS is an acronym here, but let me remind you foremost of what "taps" is.
Taps is the bugle song played every night at base. When taps plays you are under military order to stand at attention and salute the flag. Taps is a reminder of those who lost or sacrificed their lives that day. It is a daily reminder that your choices are often dangerous ones much less ones that don't just involve your life. For that minute, you are relegated to appreciating their sacrifices in utter silence.
In my course (SEPS & TAPS) the first power point we received covered a page filled with telemetry data about Marines you didn't want to be. The drunk, the drug user, the domestic abuser, the college drop out, the person with anger problems. I wish I had screenshot this slide because words cannot capture how uphill that battle would seem. When I finally did get out, I realized why all these shocking statistics make sense. I've heard people talk about "hero worship" and I'm from the South where veterans have a decent reputation. Where Southerners probably do give a lot of credence to the military because most of the military is generational servitude from the Midwest and the South, likely due to a perceived lack of opportunity in many areas. Hero worship is little more than lip service to veterans though. The real substantive outcome of me getting out was watching all my friends lives reset, facing a lack of opportunity (again), and more bills, pressures, and externalities like school all while trying to return to being a normal human being. It was immense and for a time my life would fall apart in one way while bounding forward in another. It felt like I was literally Flubber, and it was killing me.
If you've followed my posts on this forum life is okay now. But I can see why veterans may need a group at work where they can be veterans or talk about issues. What I don't agree with is if these groups tried to influence the work force. I wouldn't agree with them sending out lecturing messages about veterans or memorial day, even if they're right. I wouldn't be comfortable with them making statements for the veteran community. I wouldn't be okay if they set hiring parameters on top of what is required by law.
I also understand there are people who hate veterans. Some people at work I actively ensure that I don't bring up being a veteran, that I'm particularly good at marksmanship, that I've been to Afghanistan (or any sub-experiences thereafter). No amount of advocacy that a veterans group can do will change that person's mind. I cannot overcome people who equate military service with fascism, nationalism, or even the train of thought that leads people to believe all or most veterans are conservative. I can't fix a broken mind like that; only personal experiences that challenge the thinkers opinions will, which means likely, one day, some veteran will be on the other end of that. Maybe someone like me who can listen to a dissenting view that feels dehumanizing, but maybe not. That's just the way personal growth goes; thinkers don't really plan on who or how their minds will eventually be changed. I accept that reality as a fact of life. I embrace it to some degree and actively work to avoid it in another.
So, is that group political? Yes, but there are things they can choose to do that are decidedly more political and that is where you'll get disagreeance from me as a member of said group.
Part of the problem is that no, we do not know what they are referring to. Lots of murky lines, lots of people with bad experiences that what for them is essential is considered over lines, worry that it'll be used to silence internal discussion of things the company does, ... (and of course if you impose it on a company used to something different, it's potentially a massive culture shift)
The "you can take it to private channels" can play out either way I guess: it can be a completely valid replacement of using company channels, but it is an additional hurdle if you have no signals to go by who to talk to. And if you actually have a problem with work channels getting out of hand, I feel like it's a gamble to hope it works better in the dark.
If my employer told us we had to move the more social/less technical chat channels outside of company infrastructure, I'm not sure that'd be better overall. And sort of odd to go with each new hire "oh and btw there's this second chat without the bosses, come join".
The "you can take it to private channels" can play out either way I guess: it can be a completely valid replacement of using company channels, but it is an additional hurdle if you have no signals to go by who to talk to. And if you actually have a problem with work channels getting out of hand, I feel like it's a gamble to hope it works better in the dark.
If my employer told us we had to move the more social/less technical chat channels outside of company infrastructure, I'm not sure that'd be better overall. And sort of odd to go with each new hire "oh and btw there's this second chat without the bosses, come join".
Blacklist/whitelist, main vs master, is there a bias in promoting women, what are the rules for dating a colleague, is an anti-bias training needed are all topics that are divisive, though some of them are easy to solve (David has strong opinions for naming variables, remote working solves the dating problem and no peer reviews means that less talk needs to be done about promotions).
>remote working solves the dating problem
if only.
if only.
May I ask your basis for saying these are the issues at hand at Basecamp? Are you a current or former employee? Heard these things firsthand or secondhand?
Okay, come up with a company policy for those (and if people feel strongly about it you probably want to know rather than have them just bitch in private about it), and if people get obnoxious about it do something about that. Instead of leaving your gay employee wondering if she needs to ask permission to mention getting married because that would be bringing up a "societal or political topic" (or to pick an example from elsewhere in the thread, if someone can mention that they went on a hunting trip on the weekend).
These kind of blanket no politics policies are typically direct responses to obnoxious behavior. I don't think we know the story at Basecamp yet, but when it happened at Coinbase, it was in response to a vocal segment of employees who demanded that the company publicly recite the slogan of a political movement they supported.
> We all know what types of discourse Jason and David are referring to
Do we? For any potential example I could think of, you’re telling anyone who is directly affected by or cares deeply about that example that their concern is not one of the political issues acceptable to discuss, but rather one of those types that we all know can’t be discussed.
Do we? For any potential example I could think of, you’re telling anyone who is directly affected by or cares deeply about that example that their concern is not one of the political issues acceptable to discuss, but rather one of those types that we all know can’t be discussed.
If these topics are really that obvious to everyone then they should be written down (because it definitely isn't to me). On the contrary, they are pretty explicit about not allowing ANY discussion "remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society".
Now that I think about it, banning some kinds of political talk (discussing pay disparity, forming a union) is probably illegal.
Now that I think about it, banning some kinds of political talk (discussing pay disparity, forming a union) is probably illegal.
I actually do not know what types of discourse they're referring to. Can you specify?
Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.
Is anyone able to actually articulate an example of a political or societal topic that is supposedly obviously of the type that shouldn’t be discussed at work?
Sure - the USA Government wants to sign a deal to buy your software. But a group of people start a divisive email thread on how the USA Gov is a racist, white supremacist, sexist, imperialist government and the company should boycott them.
Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine.
Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps!
Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded.
Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank>
Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies.
Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol....
Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”.
Or “the leadership needs more X”
Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples.
HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.
Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine.
Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps!
Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded.
Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank>
Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies.
Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol....
Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”.
Or “the leadership needs more X”
Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples.
HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.
I appreciate that you provided a lot of examples. For each example, I’m wondering if you think it shouldn’t be discussed because the debate itself isn’t important to the company (e.g. “it doesn’t matter whether the US government is a white supremacist government, we are doing this deal with them either way”), or because the company has taken a stance on the debate (e.g. “the US government is not a white supremacist government, and we are doing this deal with them”).
If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?
If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?
I believe it is up to the share holders and that’s it. If the share holders don’t want to do business with a certain group of people, it is their prerogative. They can vote. Employees can quit.
And yes I don’t think the debate is relevant to a business organization. The elected government decides who business can be and which business can be conducted. If you don’t like it then by all means, petition your representatives. But please do it on your own time.
You can do business with the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood. If you’re keen to then use your earnings to crush one org or the other.
And yes I don’t think the debate is relevant to a business organization. The elected government decides who business can be and which business can be conducted. If you don’t like it then by all means, petition your representatives. But please do it on your own time.
You can do business with the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood. If you’re keen to then use your earnings to crush one org or the other.
Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.
Discourse can only be had when one is open to listening to individuals different viewpoints and accepting differences. Unlike individualistic ideologies social justice define a person by a constantly expanding set of politically motivated unchosen groups organized as “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and it is actively opposed to discourse as it sees that as a mechanism for the powerful/dominant group to assert power over the less powerful group in a zero sum game.
I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).
I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).
Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.
Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?
I honestly don't know what types of discussions they are referring to. I obviously know some of what is included, but I certainly don't know what the limits are.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792
Someone else (and me too) had the same question
Someone else (and me too) had the same question
I don’t think it is a straw man. They say “remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society”, I can’t think of many things that are not remotely related to these or quickly can turn into them. So it does seem to be restricted to work and the smallest of small talk. Which is fine to me. Those kind of discussions pre-WFH I had during breaks and after work activities with co workers. So now it is just trough other channels than the main company communication one.
Do we "all know" what they're talking about? it sounds like they don't even know. What they want is not to have to deal with society while making products for society. This will lead to a employee base of purely wealthy white guys, which is clearly what they want
We all know? Good thing you're the self-appointed representative for all of "us". Because I have absolutely no idea where to begin drawing that line.
Plus I doubt anybody will get in trouble for having a lunchtime video chat with a coworker and talking politics.
Do we all know? I don't. I have no idea. Is it cool for me to talk about housing markets? About markets in the abstract? About marijuana markets despite it being illegal where I live? About policies in other states that differ from mine, like marijuana policies?
There's no reasonable line, because unless you're stupid as can be, politics isn't some abstract thing that happens over there; it's a thing that happens everyday in your life.
I'm immensely disappointed in DHH for this take.
There's no reasonable line, because unless you're stupid as can be, politics isn't some abstract thing that happens over there; it's a thing that happens everyday in your life.
I'm immensely disappointed in DHH for this take.
A friend of mine is a software engineer in a conservative industry, and their company brought out the same "no politics at work" last summer. Their benefits package has some language specifically referring to only extending health insurance coverage to hetero spouses, and only permitting time off for a new child if the employee gave birth to it, so nothing for adoptions, fathers, or surrogate births.
People have been trying to bring these issues up to HR but they get immediately shut down, "That's politics. Stop trying to force the company to pick a side. Please refer to section 7(a) revision 2 of your employee handbook".
People have been trying to bring these issues up to HR but they get immediately shut down, "That's politics. Stop trying to force the company to pick a side. Please refer to section 7(a) revision 2 of your employee handbook".
Right, this is how it should be. If that is a deal breaker then find a different employer.
Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract.
If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.
Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract.
If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.
Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run?
EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.
EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.
Activism that imposes zero costs on the activist, indeed provides social benefits, just isn’t very convincing.
Going to jail for your beliefs or standing up to cops with dogs and fire hoses—-those make otherwise indifferent people stop and think.
The fact that “stay and change things from the inside” is maximally convenient for soi disant activists doesn’t strike many of us as a coincidence.
Going to jail for your beliefs or standing up to cops with dogs and fire hoses—-those make otherwise indifferent people stop and think.
The fact that “stay and change things from the inside” is maximally convenient for soi disant activists doesn’t strike many of us as a coincidence.
This implies that someone could convince you X activism is worthless by not doing anything to visibly resist it.
Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner.
Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.
Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.
You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment:
"Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord.
Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."
"Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord.
Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."
You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt.
Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want.
If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want.
If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
> You are comparing a government to a company.
Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible.
> Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation.
Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible.
> Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation.
Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
It is virtually impossible to survive in the United States without employment.
I don’t think the “coercion” perspective is the most convincing argument, personally: but there really isn’t much of an alternative to employment. The fact that the US has starving children speaks to how little of a social safety net we actually have.
I guess while I wouldn’t personally use “coercion” in a debate about this stuff, it’s also somewhat of a reasonable argument when you consider the alternatives. It’s just very ... meta.
I don’t think the “coercion” perspective is the most convincing argument, personally: but there really isn’t much of an alternative to employment. The fact that the US has starving children speaks to how little of a social safety net we actually have.
I guess while I wouldn’t personally use “coercion” in a debate about this stuff, it’s also somewhat of a reasonable argument when you consider the alternatives. It’s just very ... meta.
Of course. For most people, if they don't work, they can't pay for food and shelter. They will then be coercively denied those things via property law enforcement.
"Do the bidding of an employer or be forcibly denied food and shelter" sure sounds like coercion to me.
"Do the bidding of an employer or be forcibly denied food and shelter" sure sounds like coercion to me.
> If they want a say in how it is run they can leave
No, they couldn't. Feudal peasants (i.e. serfs) were tied to the land and were NOT free to leave. In general, their lords controlled every aspect of their lives, including who they were permitted to marry.
Being a serf wasn't quite as bad as being a slave (for instance, serfs generally couldn't be sold away from their families, as they were attached to the land), but it was pretty damned bad nonetheless.
At any rate, drawing a comparison between a feudal serf, owned from birth and tied to the land, and a software engineer who could likely have a new job by the end of the day (particularly coming from a high-profile shop like Basecamp) seems rather disingenuous.
No, they couldn't. Feudal peasants (i.e. serfs) were tied to the land and were NOT free to leave. In general, their lords controlled every aspect of their lives, including who they were permitted to marry.
Being a serf wasn't quite as bad as being a slave (for instance, serfs generally couldn't be sold away from their families, as they were attached to the land), but it was pretty damned bad nonetheless.
At any rate, drawing a comparison between a feudal serf, owned from birth and tied to the land, and a software engineer who could likely have a new job by the end of the day (particularly coming from a high-profile shop like Basecamp) seems rather disingenuous.
> Why should they? It is not their business.
Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc.
Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company.
Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues.
One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.
Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc.
Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company.
Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues.
One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.
They frequently do. The contracts they sign often give them some rights in this regard. Companies also optionally give employees these rights all the time because they perceive it to be in their own best interest.
They aren't legally owed them though. So if the company doesn't want to give them that say, then they don't get that say.
They aren't legally owed them though. So if the company doesn't want to give them that say, then they don't get that say.
What a contract says does not determine what is ethical. I'm interested in worker control over their own workplaces. Plenty of countries already do this, Germany for instance has board seats reserved for workers as mandatory for all large companies.
The U.S legal system (or anywhere else's) is not based on your subjective personal ethics.
Germans voted for a specific right. American's do the same all the time. Germans still do not have some blanket right for every worker to control company policy.
Germans voted for a specific right. American's do the same all the time. Germans still do not have some blanket right for every worker to control company policy.
> What a contract says does not determine what is ethical
Or what is legal. So many people don't assert their rights because some random piece of paper (or online form) told them they can't, when it would be completely unenforceable in a local court.
Or what is legal. So many people don't assert their rights because some random piece of paper (or online form) told them they can't, when it would be completely unenforceable in a local court.
so a conservative employer gets to just discriminate against blacks/gays/women/ect and that's ok with you? do you see the problem here when employees can't speak out and are shut down with "no political speech or your fired"
"if your not christian you shouldn't work here"
"if your not christian you shouldn't work here"
well luckily, some particular traits have been made illegal to discriminate against, because in the past, terrible consequences have been had from such discrimination.
> blacks/gays/women/ect
But this doesnt mean that _every_ trait falls afoul - and if you want your trait to gain the special status of being illegal to discriminate against, this work (aka, activism) should be undertaken with private resources, not the resources of the company for which you are employed. Trying to recruit people into your cause during work hours should also be discouraged - but giving invites to dinners/lunches and having private discussions outside workhours should be allowed.
> blacks/gays/women/ect
But this doesnt mean that _every_ trait falls afoul - and if you want your trait to gain the special status of being illegal to discriminate against, this work (aka, activism) should be undertaken with private resources, not the resources of the company for which you are employed. Trying to recruit people into your cause during work hours should also be discouraged - but giving invites to dinners/lunches and having private discussions outside workhours should be allowed.
Go read Title 7 of the Civil rights act. That's not how any of this works.
> If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.
This is a false dichotomy.
It is analogous to people who say "love it or leave it" with regards to patriotism for a country.
In my experience, when I hear a person say "if you don't like X about what Y does, find a new Y", I also find evidence that they often lack the ability to observe without judgement. Because of this, they may lack compassion.
Would you say the same thing to someone who doesn't have much leverage to find a better job?
I wonder, would you tell them "to just deal with it"? Or would you simply admit that there are many paths to addressing issues?
There are people in the world that are rule-followers to a fault.
1. Say your partner has a life threatening emergency and you must drive them to the hospital. Do you run a stop sign if there is no cross traffic? Rule followers might say no. However, a higher standard of ethics might say that saving a life is more important.
2. Say your company has a policy that says "don't talk about your concerns about the company on the message board". Let's say you have concerns and have raised them via "proper" channels but the result in unsatisfactory. Do you raise them more generally? Rule followers might say no. Wise people weigh the issue and consider the pros and cons.
The world is about actions and consequences. In my view, that is what the rules tell you. The rules don't always simplistically define ethics. Rules, like any formal system, are not adequate substitutes for guiding principles and conscience.
This is a false dichotomy.
It is analogous to people who say "love it or leave it" with regards to patriotism for a country.
In my experience, when I hear a person say "if you don't like X about what Y does, find a new Y", I also find evidence that they often lack the ability to observe without judgement. Because of this, they may lack compassion.
Would you say the same thing to someone who doesn't have much leverage to find a better job?
I wonder, would you tell them "to just deal with it"? Or would you simply admit that there are many paths to addressing issues?
There are people in the world that are rule-followers to a fault.
1. Say your partner has a life threatening emergency and you must drive them to the hospital. Do you run a stop sign if there is no cross traffic? Rule followers might say no. However, a higher standard of ethics might say that saving a life is more important.
2. Say your company has a policy that says "don't talk about your concerns about the company on the message board". Let's say you have concerns and have raised them via "proper" channels but the result in unsatisfactory. Do you raise them more generally? Rule followers might say no. Wise people weigh the issue and consider the pros and cons.
The world is about actions and consequences. In my view, that is what the rules tell you. The rules don't always simplistically define ethics. Rules, like any formal system, are not adequate substitutes for guiding principles and conscience.
Perhaps they should have looked at the benefits package before taking the job?
Or pay attention during an interview. There was a time when Big Idea (The VeggieTales People) were hiring a ton of tech people to manage their render farms, animation systems, etc. A common topic of conversation revolved around when were you saved by Jesus Christ?
If you were not a evangelical Christian, you quickly realized you would not be happy working there
If you were not a evangelical Christian, you quickly realized you would not be happy working there
In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about custom keyboards, sail racing, gym routines and upside of hiring a personal trainer, travel, 3D-printing, I can go on forever. I believe it is fundamentally possible to have an interesting and relaxing conversation with coworkers and not to touch political topics.
What you described is talking about personal interests and activities, and I agree that is the kind of stuff that is easy and fun to talk (and hear) about with others. I’m starting to think many people don’t have personal activities and interests and don’t know what to fill in small talk with other than what they saw on social media or the news.
What about people whose personal interests and activities directly involve politics? Like people interested in political analysis or reporting, or people interested in competitive policy debate, or even people who actively do advocacy work in their free time? Is small talk about the advocacy work you did over the weekend worse than my small talk about building drones over the weekend?
>Is small talk about the advocacy work you did over the weekend worse than my small talk about building drones over the weekend?
I think you're way more likely to find coworkers that get mad or upset over the advocacy work you did over the weekend than you are to find coworkers mad about you building a drone.
One of these topics seems to have a much higher chance of negatively affecting either you or your coworker in the workplace.
If you're enjoying some watercooler conversation with a coworker, would you prefer them chatting about the drone they built or the door-to-door-campaigning they did for <candidate you despise> 2024, or the protest they were at against <your preferred candidate>?
Even if you're fine discussing advocacy work for a cause you disagree with (like any adult should be), there's also a chance you're going to alienate or upset your coworker by not agreeing or being on "their side".
Talking about building drones doesn't have the high-stakes social stigmas that can have lasting, chilling effects in the workplace that a lot of tangentially-political topics do.
I think you're way more likely to find coworkers that get mad or upset over the advocacy work you did over the weekend than you are to find coworkers mad about you building a drone.
One of these topics seems to have a much higher chance of negatively affecting either you or your coworker in the workplace.
If you're enjoying some watercooler conversation with a coworker, would you prefer them chatting about the drone they built or the door-to-door-campaigning they did for <candidate you despise> 2024, or the protest they were at against <your preferred candidate>?
Even if you're fine discussing advocacy work for a cause you disagree with (like any adult should be), there's also a chance you're going to alienate or upset your coworker by not agreeing or being on "their side".
Talking about building drones doesn't have the high-stakes social stigmas that can have lasting, chilling effects in the workplace that a lot of tangentially-political topics do.
> If you're enjoying some watercooler conversation with a coworker, would you prefer them chatting about the drone they built or the door-to-door-campaigning they did for <candidate you despise> 2024, or the protest they were at against <your preferred candidate>?
Well, I’m the one who likes fiddling with drones in my free time, so I’d personally be more interested in that discussion! But that’s a different question than which of these conversations should be prohibited by the employer.
Well, I’m the one who likes fiddling with drones in my free time, so I’d personally be more interested in that discussion! But that’s a different question than which of these conversations should be prohibited by the employer.
There’s a lot of things that aren’t political per-se you shouldn’t share with the broader group.
For instance, maybe my family has a history of killing wild animals for food. I wouldn’t share our kill shots with my company the same way I would with friends that are interested in hunting. Because I know it’s something a good chunk of people don’t want to see and it’s unnecessary to share.
Now imagine I had a few friends in the office who too supported this. And we went out of our way to not only share pictures of these killings (which are all legal) but started to intimidate people that didn’t like to see them.
And then we go a step further and plan a trip to Africa to hunt lions - all legal and on the up and up. And we share these relentlessly. And we don’t stop there. We post Big-5 trophies and endless shots of venison being butchered.
We also begin to loudly advocate NRA membership for colleagues and use company resources to recruit social events where we all go shooting together. We go further and decide we want THE COMPANY to support our gun rights. We walk out and protest our CEO who “doesn’t have the balls” to take a measly pheasant.
Who wants this?
For instance, maybe my family has a history of killing wild animals for food. I wouldn’t share our kill shots with my company the same way I would with friends that are interested in hunting. Because I know it’s something a good chunk of people don’t want to see and it’s unnecessary to share.
Now imagine I had a few friends in the office who too supported this. And we went out of our way to not only share pictures of these killings (which are all legal) but started to intimidate people that didn’t like to see them.
And then we go a step further and plan a trip to Africa to hunt lions - all legal and on the up and up. And we share these relentlessly. And we don’t stop there. We post Big-5 trophies and endless shots of venison being butchered.
We also begin to loudly advocate NRA membership for colleagues and use company resources to recruit social events where we all go shooting together. We go further and decide we want THE COMPANY to support our gun rights. We walk out and protest our CEO who “doesn’t have the balls” to take a measly pheasant.
Who wants this?
> And we went out of our way to not only share pictures of these killings (which are all legal) but started to intimidate people that didn’t like to see them.
And your managements only way of reacting to that is banning all potentially political talk? Really? My boss would go "go make a #hunting channel and keep it there". And I presume if I tried to get him into gun rights activism the response would be "no, stop pestering us about it", repeated more firmly and with consequences if I kept it up.
And your managements only way of reacting to that is banning all potentially political talk? Really? My boss would go "go make a #hunting channel and keep it there". And I presume if I tried to get him into gun rights activism the response would be "no, stop pestering us about it", repeated more firmly and with consequences if I kept it up.
This entire article and thread and Twitter are people complaining that the boss just said “no stop pestering us about it”.
You made my point?
You made my point?
If you don't see a difference between "don't talk about any political topics" and "stop pushing for the company to do something about your pet topic X", then yes, that is your point. But given you recognized a difference between "talking about your hunting" and "pushing for the company to support the NRA", I doubt that is the case.
The fable was about the slippery slope or w/e. Maybe not a Pynchon-esque metaphor here, but I’m not a writer.
But why is it different to pressure a company into publicly supporting 2a? It’s literally a right as sacred as speech or voting.
Why does that seem weird but other things not?
But why is it different to pressure a company into publicly supporting 2a? It’s literally a right as sacred as speech or voting.
Why does that seem weird but other things not?
My point is that I don't think it's effective to respond to every "slippery slope" by not letting people anywhere near the slope and holding them back from talking about things they care about because they touch the slope. But rather to pick your point on each slope, which gives your people more opportunity to be open and,if it involves company policy etc, for you to get feedback - although the final decision about what the company does of course still rests with you. And if a topic just doesn't work, ban that.
Re the specific example: I'm not from the US, so a fundamental right to guns (or even just much in the way of gun culture) is culturally "weird" here. I didn't intend to suggest that this would be weird/off-limits to all companies everywhere. Which is kind of the point again: find what works for the topic for your people.
Re the specific example: I'm not from the US, so a fundamental right to guns (or even just much in the way of gun culture) is culturally "weird" here. I didn't intend to suggest that this would be weird/off-limits to all companies everywhere. Which is kind of the point again: find what works for the topic for your people.
as per this company there would be no hunting or gun channel in the work slack because "politics"
Sounds great, to be honest.
What do you mean "what about"? Isn't it obvious - you don't talk about these interests at work. What's unclear about that? Is there something in your employment contract guaranteeing you the right to talk to your coworkers about anything that interests you? How would you feel if I spoke to you at the watercooler about my hypothetical interests in the supremacy of the Arian race?
I don't try talk about my gym routine with coworkers who aren't interested in gym workouts. It's boring to them and the conversation goes nowhere. So you should not try to talk about politics with people who aren't interested in your politics.
I think he's saying that being interested in politics is inherently inferior to being interested in other things, and people who like to read about politics are fundamentally lesser than people who don't know much about politics (and therefore we shouldn't care if banning "politics" affects them).
Yes, in fact those people who enjoy politics and advocacy outside of work should be actively discouraged from working in high performing organizations. I certainly filter them out during my interview process as they are more likely to be a liability than a great worker who gets the job done.
Or rather, an increasingly large number of people's personal hobbies essentially consist of reading, tweeting, blogging, and talking about politics.
Sports once filled that roll. It was acceptable and with enough tribalism to make it interesting. Sadly, they are not a safe conversation anymore.
it's all fun and games until you slip and your co worker finds out your gay and their entire tone and demeanor changes and they treat you different but then when you go to your manager "no politics in the workplace". Or your black and find out your co-worker is a member of the KKK and is a well known racist, but no politics at work ok
You probably shouldn't bring up 3d printing - people might start talking about 3d printing gun parts, and that's of course political, and you _did_ start the conversation. Same problem with travel - as you know, many countries restrict travel because of the pandemic, and the very existence of the pandemic is a political issue among some people.
As you can see, it's a ridiculous policy that can only be enforced arbitrarily.
Also, sidenote: what happened to all the "free speech is bigger than the first amendment! It's an ideological hill worth dying on!" people? One mention of changing "master" to "main" and they're everywhere on hackernews, yet oddly quiet in this comment section.
As you can see, it's a ridiculous policy that can only be enforced arbitrarily.
Also, sidenote: what happened to all the "free speech is bigger than the first amendment! It's an ideological hill worth dying on!" people? One mention of changing "master" to "main" and they're everywhere on hackernews, yet oddly quiet in this comment section.
You are actively misinterpreting what they said.
a) They explicitly state that employees are allowed to actively discuss these things, just not in group chat.
b) They explicitly state that this isn't "some high consequences zero tolerance policy" and that the consequence for violating the rule will be that you are reminded of the rule.
It's sad that this is the top comment.
a) They explicitly state that employees are allowed to actively discuss these things, just not in group chat.
b) They explicitly state that this isn't "some high consequences zero tolerance policy" and that the consequence for violating the rule will be that you are reminded of the rule.
It's sad that this is the top comment.
The "not in group chat" part was added later after the backlash. The original version of the post said employees can't talk about it, period.
And the severity of the punishment isn't what is being debated here, but the fact that there can be punishment at all.
And the severity of the punishment isn't what is being debated here, but the fact that there can be punishment at all.
Without any insider information, it seems equally as likely that they just better clarified what they originally meant versus backtracking in response to backlash.
"Reminding people not to talk about politics and then moving on" doesn't really seem like a "punishment".
"Reminding people not to talk about politics and then moving on" doesn't really seem like a "punishment".
[deleted]
No, original post had don't discuss. They backtracked to "not on main", maybe after realizing this could be read as barring protected activities.
[deleted]
> In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp?
> People are going to say "obviously stuff like this is okay", but to me that's even worse. The company can and will apply arbitrary rules to whatever they think is unacceptable political speech.
From reading this announcement, it seems like they are going with the former. The article specifically mentions "every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large." Of course, it remains to be seen how exactly they apply this rule. The announcement doesn't mention how they will go about enforcing this prohibition, but to me it's very clear that the examples you mentioned obviously fall under this prohibition, as well as many other topics I would expect to be discussed at work, like vacation and holiday policies.
> People are going to say "obviously stuff like this is okay", but to me that's even worse. The company can and will apply arbitrary rules to whatever they think is unacceptable political speech.
From reading this announcement, it seems like they are going with the former. The article specifically mentions "every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large." Of course, it remains to be seen how exactly they apply this rule. The announcement doesn't mention how they will go about enforcing this prohibition, but to me it's very clear that the examples you mentioned obviously fall under this prohibition, as well as many other topics I would expect to be discussed at work, like vacation and holiday policies.
Try reading the OP again. The headline is “No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.”
They’re not saying you can’t chat with your colleagues about politics, they’re just saying it shouldn’t happen in the space everyone has to use for work.
They’re not saying you can’t chat with your colleagues about politics, they’re just saying it shouldn’t happen in the space everyone has to use for work.
That's a recent edit: https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1386810666221150210/
The post specifically contains "People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can't happen where the work happens anymore."
That seems entirely reasonable to me.
That seems entirely reasonable to me.
All of the communications on these channels are typically legally discoverable, so it makes sense you don't want to introduce potential vectors for political discrimination in an increasingly remote world.
There are plenty of non political topics to cover...Gardening, pets, clothing, home renovation, local music events and festivals, kids, etc. In all the teams I've been on, political topics never came up. It's okay to find friends outside of work and discuss politics with them; your social network doesn't have to center on the workplace.
There are plenty of non political topics to cover...Gardening, pets, clothing, home renovation, local music events and festivals, kids, etc. In all the teams I've been on, political topics never came up. It's okay to find friends outside of work and discuss politics with them; your social network doesn't have to center on the workplace.
What if you want to discuss gay spousal benefits? Or how medical insurance is going to work for gay couples?
Then read your contract. Discussing these things does not change what the contract you signed says. If you don't like it, renegotiate or leave. If your negotiation is an ultimatum on these points you should probably consider it equivalent to deciding to leave in most cases, but maybe if you have enough leverage you will win.
One might also consider forming a union with your fellow coworkers, and negotiating with management with said union.
As you mentioned, if you have enough leverage, you win. If that's your jam, grab for the crowbar of labor rights. Organizing is federally protected.
As you mentioned, if you have enough leverage, you win. If that's your jam, grab for the crowbar of labor rights. Organizing is federally protected.
Sure it's your legal right to form a union, go for it if you want. More power to you if you win.
Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions.
Also understand you are playing power politics so if you are going to play make sure you can win. These people at instacart didn't: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/21/22242676/instacart-firing...
Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions.
Also understand you are playing power politics so if you are going to play make sure you can win. These people at instacart didn't: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/21/22242676/instacart-firing...
> Fortunately workers in tech are almost unanimously smart enough to understand this isn't in their interest and reject unions
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954710407/at-google-hundreds-... ("Google Workers Speak Out About Why They Formed A Union: 'To Protect Ourselves'")
https://www.wired.com/story/how-kickstarter-employees-formed... ("How Kickstarter Employees Formed a Union")
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/02/following-unionization-gli... ("Following unionization, Glitch signs collective bargaining agreement ")
I admit there's still much work to be done with regards to tech organizing.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954710407/at-google-hundreds-... ("Google Workers Speak Out About Why They Formed A Union: 'To Protect Ourselves'")
https://www.wired.com/story/how-kickstarter-employees-formed... ("How Kickstarter Employees Formed a Union")
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/02/following-unionization-gli... ("Following unionization, Glitch signs collective bargaining agreement ")
I admit there's still much work to be done with regards to tech organizing.
The "Google union" is a complete joke BTW. It's made up of half a dozen low-level employees that have no bargaining power at all. Half the company hasn't even heard of it (true story).
Yeah. That's the whole list...
Want to compile the 1000 page document that would be all the places who haven't unionized?
Want to compile the 1000 page document that would be all the places who haven't unionized?
That's unnecessary. I'm simply demonstrating that unionization has occurred in businesses far larger and with arguably more difficult organizing environments than Basecamp (with a total of ~60 employees). 800 Google workers thought it important enough to join their union.
800 out of 135000 is 6 tenths of 1%.
A Basecamp union organizer who was the only one to decide to join their own creation of a Basecamp Workers Union would already be 3 times as successful as the Google union on a per-capita basis.
A Basecamp union organizer who was the only one to decide to join their own creation of a Basecamp Workers Union would already be 3 times as successful as the Google union on a per-capita basis.
I can only chuckle at the raw math, as if that’s the valuable datapoint. It seems impossible until it’s done.
It took decades for America to ruin the idea of unions, they’re not coming back overnight.
It took decades for America to ruin the idea of unions, they’re not coming back overnight.
A union derives its bargaining power from the amount of monopoly it has on the labor supply. (I don't say that as a bad thing; I mean it just as a factual thing.)
Tech industry turnover is around 13% per year, or 0.25% per week. The Google union could all quit at once and it would be like that week's turnover number was slightly higher than normal.
Google has more employees out sick on any given day than they have union members.
Tech industry turnover is around 13% per year, or 0.25% per week. The Google union could all quit at once and it would be like that week's turnover number was slightly higher than normal.
Google has more employees out sick on any given day than they have union members.
Imagine making this ridiculous argument for anything else.
Yeah, maybe only .005% of Americans are flat earthers but I chuckle at the math! You just havent given it enough time for us to be proven right!
Yeah, maybe only .005% of Americans are flat earthers but I chuckle at the math! You just havent given it enough time for us to be proven right!
I'll stick to calling 1000s to 3 "nearly unanimous"
Yes, the Lou Bloom / Game of Thrones perspective exists and has a basis in our world. When you play with power, you win or you die.
But I don't believe that's why American gays have been experiencing more and more support. It is not persuasion by equity, but simply by asking people what kind of future they want to live in. Gay life also also improved among EU peers for the same reasons.
Politics is the negotiation of power, and yet strangely, gay people have been able to achieve wins at the negotiating table simply by asking, often without leverage. Sometimes people will listen to your story and simply agree.
But I don't believe that's why American gays have been experiencing more and more support. It is not persuasion by equity, but simply by asking people what kind of future they want to live in. Gay life also also improved among EU peers for the same reasons.
Politics is the negotiation of power, and yet strangely, gay people have been able to achieve wins at the negotiating table simply by asking, often without leverage. Sometimes people will listen to your story and simply agree.
except if your co-workers never know they they never have a chance to stand up for you and demand change. this is a great way to silence minorities because talking about the challenges they face is now forbidden.
Gardening: So are you a climate change wacko or a doomsday prepper wacko?
Clothing: Do you know where I can get my leather chaps repaired?
Home Renovation: I need to get a permit and inspection for my rec room renovation. They want confirmation that the beam can hold 400lbs in the sex-swing.
Any topic can be political if you are enough of a jerk.
Any topic can be political if you are enough of a jerk.
Yep. I do wonder if we've lost the ability to talk and recognize common experiences versus politics and people are looking to go full jerk.
> Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"?
If you're tendentious enough, you can make anything political. But if you start talking about the post-colonial geopolitical implications of your coworker's son's new chocolate chip cookie recipe, expect everyone to roll their eyes and walk away.
If you're tendentious enough, you can make anything political. But if you start talking about the post-colonial geopolitical implications of your coworker's son's new chocolate chip cookie recipe, expect everyone to roll their eyes and walk away.
Add small talk, banter, and shooting the shit into that. And, maybe, becoming friends or at least more acquainted.
There's a whole breadth of interpersonal communication and humanity that exists outside of the realm of politics, society, and activism. It's self evident, otherwise what do you expect to achieve from talking politics and activism except to be able to talk even more about politics and activism?
There's a whole breadth of interpersonal communication and humanity that exists outside of the realm of politics, society, and activism. It's self evident, otherwise what do you expect to achieve from talking politics and activism except to be able to talk even more about politics and activism?
[deleted]
[deleted]
> All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp?
I think you're being needlessly hyperbolic but fear not, DHH has you covered:
> If you're in doubt as to whether your choice of forum or topic for a discussion is appropriate, please ask before posting. But if you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world. Someone will gently remind you of the etiquette, and we'll move on. This isn't some zero-tolerance, max-consequences new policy.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
I think you're being needlessly hyperbolic but fear not, DHH has you covered:
> If you're in doubt as to whether your choice of forum or topic for a discussion is appropriate, please ask before posting. But if you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world. Someone will gently remind you of the etiquette, and we'll move on. This isn't some zero-tolerance, max-consequences new policy.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
You can have these conversations but you can’t have them on company property. But if you want to create your own forum with other coworkers then go ahead.
So no more using the company Slack for this type of thing.
I think people are starting to see how some groups have been undermining and infiltrating every organization they can. It’s literally in their literature to do this. Replicate what they’ve accomplished in universities and journalism - it has spread to tech workplaces, non-profits, and elite private schools. The goal is to politicize everything and then seize power and then pillage for personal gain.
So no more using the company Slack for this type of thing.
I think people are starting to see how some groups have been undermining and infiltrating every organization they can. It’s literally in their literature to do this. Replicate what they’ve accomplished in universities and journalism - it has spread to tech workplaces, non-profits, and elite private schools. The goal is to politicize everything and then seize power and then pillage for personal gain.
>Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"?
I think there are two questions. How much work time is taken up by non-work related conversation, and how much does an employee's non-work related political advocacy disrupt their work and the work of other employees? The unfortunate truth is that many (especially younger people) believe it is not only their right, but their duty, to agitate for the political and social change they believe in, at all times, and, in many fields, this mentality isn't compatible with a functional (much less efficient) work environment.
I think there are two questions. How much work time is taken up by non-work related conversation, and how much does an employee's non-work related political advocacy disrupt their work and the work of other employees? The unfortunate truth is that many (especially younger people) believe it is not only their right, but their duty, to agitate for the political and social change they believe in, at all times, and, in many fields, this mentality isn't compatible with a functional (much less efficient) work environment.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Is it really that hard to hire adults who can have reasonable adult conversations (with sometimes differing opinions) without it being a "major distraction"?
What do you do when you have someone that sits in a work slack channel all day fiercely debating politics? Counsel him, sure, but then ultimately you’ll need to fire him.
Inevitably people will wonder if he was fired because of the positions he took (which everyone is fully aware because he never shut up about them) rather than because he wasn’t doing any work. Modern HR best practices foreclose transparency (“we fired so-and-so because he committed just four lines of code in the last two months”).
What’s the best option here?
What do you do when you have someone that sits in a work slack channel all day fiercely debating politics? Counsel him, sure, but then ultimately you’ll need to fire him.
Inevitably people will wonder if he was fired because of the positions he took (which everyone is fully aware because he never shut up about them) rather than because he wasn’t doing any work. Modern HR best practices foreclose transparency (“we fired so-and-so because he committed just four lines of code in the last two months”).
What’s the best option here?
You can (publicly) tell people to stop getting into politics debates all the time without banning all mentions of things that touch politics.
You just outlined the solution yourself. If someone isn't doing enough productive work then fire them for that. Whether they were talking about politics or anime doesn't really matter.
But if he’s the only outspoken Trump supporter or trans-rights activist at the company you are going to spark a lot of rumors and ill will when you fire him. Whereas firing the biggest anime fan isn’t going to garner any notice.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. With these new policies in place it's more explicit that you are firing an employee for being a Trump supporter or trans-rights activist.
Think we'll see a lot more companies coming out with statements like this.
Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? With employees cancelling each other and demanding they recognise various political points? Not me.
You can tell there have been a lot of difficult discussions with various employees behind the scenes. It's all a distraction.
Work should be about work.
Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? With employees cancelling each other and demanding they recognise various political points? Not me.
You can tell there have been a lot of difficult discussions with various employees behind the scenes. It's all a distraction.
Work should be about work.
I don’t want to make any assumptions about who you are, and this is not an attack on you, but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position - it’s a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. His rationale was that “there’s a lot of work left to move the country forward - so let’s put politics aside and work together”. This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. The people who made these rules are not going to be affected by them in any way, beyond no longer having to see opinions they disagree with on Slack.
Yes you’re right no one wants their work slack to turn into the worst parts of fb and Twitter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about employees being able to discuss current events and how they’re being affected by them, in a world where everything - even mask wearing - can be deemed political. This doesn’t have to happen on the main slack channels, but where’s the harm in letting employees still communicate in separate slack channels that are not mandatory to join and that employees can just ignore if they’re not interested?
They have every right to introduce any rules they want - it’s their company and I’m not contesting that. But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
Yes you’re right no one wants their work slack to turn into the worst parts of fb and Twitter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about employees being able to discuss current events and how they’re being affected by them, in a world where everything - even mask wearing - can be deemed political. This doesn’t have to happen on the main slack channels, but where’s the harm in letting employees still communicate in separate slack channels that are not mandatory to join and that employees can just ignore if they’re not interested?
They have every right to introduce any rules they want - it’s their company and I’m not contesting that. But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
>but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position
Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
>It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are.
This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies."
Of course those are nonsense stances.
On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive.
>I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder.
This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all.
>This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic.
Straight out of the Marxist handbook.
>But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world.
Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
>It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are.
This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies."
Of course those are nonsense stances.
On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive.
>I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder.
This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all.
>This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic.
Straight out of the Marxist handbook.
>But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world.
Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
> Yes it is, it absolutely is.
No, its not, it avsolutely is not.
> You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
No, its not, it avsolutely is not.
> You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be.
Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
>No, its not, it avsolutely is not.
Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.
>Limiting the scope of activism
The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.
>always serves to protect the status quo.
Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.
>Limiting the scope of activism
The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.
>always serves to protect the status quo.
Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
> Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral
No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
> If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality.
No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
> The scope isn't being limited.
Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
> [...] company time.
That’s the excluded scope.
> > always serves to protect the status quo.
> Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo. To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
> If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality.
No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
> The scope isn't being limited.
Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
> [...] company time.
That’s the excluded scope.
> > always serves to protect the status quo.
> Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.
Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo. To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
>No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.
It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.
>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.
You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".
>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.
>That’s the excluded scope.
That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.
>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.
Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.
>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.
It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.
>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.
No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.
You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".
>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.
Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.
>That’s the excluded scope.
That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.
>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.
Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.
>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.
Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.
There’s a long-standing company rule that anyone named Bob has to eat lunch sitting on the floor. Some people named Bob started to complain, but some other employees liked the rule. It was causing a stir, so I as CEO decided to prohibit any discussion on the matter.
Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group.
The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place.
QED?
Then the Bobs told me that the discussion gag was unfair. I told them that it is, by definition, logically neutral, since no ideology is getting pushed — it applies across the board, to both them and the “pro Bob floor” group.
The Bobs are still eating lunch on the floor, but I don’t hear anyone complaining anymore, so I think we landed in the right place.
QED?
throwaway0xc(1)
So? We are humans. We get distracted by a whole bunch of things that happen to us daily because, well, we're emotional creatures. When you are somewhere most of the day you end up being distracted by many other things than "just work". If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy.
A place where you have to only "be about work" is impossible to achieve. Even sweatshops in Bangladesh have unions and places where they can talk politics.
I would say a healthier choice for them would've been to cut out the people that were bullshitting and causing toxic environment. For sure those exist and should be spotted if they cause negativity at work.
Funny thing is that doing this top-down, as they are doing, is literally "cancel culture".
A place where you have to only "be about work" is impossible to achieve. Even sweatshops in Bangladesh have unions and places where they can talk politics.
I would say a healthier choice for them would've been to cut out the people that were bullshitting and causing toxic environment. For sure those exist and should be spotted if they cause negativity at work.
Funny thing is that doing this top-down, as they are doing, is literally "cancel culture".
> If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy.
Apples and oranges. Politics triggers people at an entirely different level, to the point that many can't let it go.
Basecamp's decisions may not make sense if you've only worked with level-headed coworkers who are capable of disagreeing with each other on politics and still maintaining respect for each other. However, once you've seen what happens to offices where people let their angry political debates from Facebook and Twitter spill over into the office, it makes a lot more sense.
Company chat shouldn't look like Twitter flamewars or Facebook rants. Some people can debate things and then check their feelings at the door when it's time to get back to work, but many can't.
Apples and oranges. Politics triggers people at an entirely different level, to the point that many can't let it go.
Basecamp's decisions may not make sense if you've only worked with level-headed coworkers who are capable of disagreeing with each other on politics and still maintaining respect for each other. However, once you've seen what happens to offices where people let their angry political debates from Facebook and Twitter spill over into the office, it makes a lot more sense.
Company chat shouldn't look like Twitter flamewars or Facebook rants. Some people can debate things and then check their feelings at the door when it's time to get back to work, but many can't.
> If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy.
I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that our minds are especially tuned to tribalism. Not only that, but what comes out of discussions focused on political/social tribalism is especially toxic. It's one thing to have a little banter about football teams, it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that our minds are especially tuned to tribalism. Not only that, but what comes out of discussions focused on political/social tribalism is especially toxic. It's one thing to have a little banter about football teams, it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
> it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
huh? their lives (and livelihoods) sometimes are at stake...
huh? their lives (and livelihoods) sometimes are at stake...
With employees cancelling each other
Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?
Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?
I'll assume this question was asked sincerely and in good faith.
By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc.
In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we would want colleagues to show each other.
By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc.
In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we would want colleagues to show each other.
That's soft cancellation.
Hard cancellation is when you get others to gang up on them and go to HR to try to get them fired. Afterwards, you publicise whatever got them fired offline in the hopes that they become 'radioactive' to employers and so that they and their family fall on hard times.
I'm a little confused as to why people don't understand what "cancel" means in this context. Isn't it quite a popular topic nowadays? Is it possible that they're claiming ignorance, because they want to argue against the meaningfulness of the term?
Hard cancellation is when you get others to gang up on them and go to HR to try to get them fired. Afterwards, you publicise whatever got them fired offline in the hopes that they become 'radioactive' to employers and so that they and their family fall on hard times.
I'm a little confused as to why people don't understand what "cancel" means in this context. Isn't it quite a popular topic nowadays? Is it possible that they're claiming ignorance, because they want to argue against the meaningfulness of the term?
I think people get confused because many on the right use cancellation to refer to both firing people who have done something that's truly vile, as well as those who have been fired for simply having an unorthodox opinion. E.g. Harvey Weinstein vs. James Damore.
Your comment and the comment you're replying to gave two very different definitions of "cancel". And yet you're surprised that people find it ambiguous?
It's not ambiguous in the context. And normally people don't bring the sorites paradox to definitions of words that describe gradients -- we can describe something as cancellation even when there are more severe cancellations that are possible.
The question wasn't asked in good faith, as much as I appreciate the courtesy of the respondent. You can read that user's twitter and see that they were already familiar with the term and they believe only Nazis complain about it (they posted a graphic novel panel indicating this.) They were only asking for clarification in hope of getting an answer they could exploit in some way.
I dearly wish that when people use the phrase “cancel culture,” they mean exactly what you say here. If they did, it would include trying to “cancel” people who sympathize with white nationalism.
But it would also mean people who belittle or demean others because of their gender. Or people who belittle, demean, and bully people with less experience.
One of PayPal’s founders once bragged that they declined to hire an engineer because they said they liked to “shoot hoops,” and PayPal was not a company where people liked to “shoot hoops.”
All of that would be “cancelling” people too, by your definition, and it’s all just as worthy of discussion.
But it would also mean people who belittle or demean others because of their gender. Or people who belittle, demean, and bully people with less experience.
One of PayPal’s founders once bragged that they declined to hire an engineer because they said they liked to “shoot hoops,” and PayPal was not a company where people liked to “shoot hoops.”
All of that would be “cancelling” people too, by your definition, and it’s all just as worthy of discussion.
Where I work, that sort of behavior is classified as "workplace bullying", and I think that's accurate. My concern with political discussions being common is that people will be expected to conform to whatever happens to be dominant in that workplace in order to remain on everyone's good side. I don't know if it would be possible to refrain from participating without being called out, because people will think you're hiding something.
I have a dumb question. How common are political chat rooms at companies? When I read books like Billion Dollar Loser, it sounds like lots of tech companies encourage employees to have semi-public discussions via Slack on company time about things completely unrelated to work. I work for a tech company and I can't imagine my employer doing that.
Yet politics is one of the few places you can impact your workplace. Most companies in the US are authoritarian and it's in politics you can have some say. Democracy at Work is the next stage of work. The "shut up and work" kind of work is a dead end.
1. You start a 'democratic' company
2. You make a controversial decision or series of decisions
3. You lose 'voted out'
4. Turns out your controversial decision would've been [firing a few employees/getting acquired/insert unpopular thing here] to keep the company afloat, and everything goes belly up
It's the same reason unions only work in the biggest, most established companies. Everything slows to a crawl otherwise.
It's the same reason unions only work in the biggest, most established companies. Everything slows to a crawl otherwise.
Seems Mondragon does just fine.
> cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
> cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions.
https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html
To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that?
But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're trying to stave off the former. But it's not that easy to do that without also affecting the latter, because if you ask questions that boil down to is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees, someone will be super upset that you're "bringing politics into the workplace." (I guarantee someone reading this is thinking "ugh, 'cis' is a slur, why you gotta be so political," and, bang: somebody has just made recognizing the existence of trans people into something inherently political, and now we get to argue over whether that somebody is me or the cis-is-a-slur guy.)
Here's a thought: if your goal is to try to keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work, then don't say "don't be political." Say "keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work."
https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html
To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that?
But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're trying to stave off the former. But it's not that easy to do that without also affecting the latter, because if you ask questions that boil down to is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees, someone will be super upset that you're "bringing politics into the workplace." (I guarantee someone reading this is thinking "ugh, 'cis' is a slur, why you gotta be so political," and, bang: somebody has just made recognizing the existence of trans people into something inherently political, and now we get to argue over whether that somebody is me or the cis-is-a-slur guy.)
Here's a thought: if your goal is to try to keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work, then don't say "don't be political." Say "keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work."
My company has mandated that 40% of our recruiting contacts for engineers are women. We have spent weeks talking about bias in our interview process and despite having no metrics showing bias is a problem we have made changes to combat it (i.e. no video on the call) that have led to worse experiences for our candidates. Suffice to say we have had a lot of trouble hiring engineers.
> Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
Imho companies that try to tackle the woke political issues are going to end up worse off and never make those few employees that keep bringing them up happy.
> Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
Imho companies that try to tackle the woke political issues are going to end up worse off and never make those few employees that keep bringing them up happy.
How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?
More importantly: who cares? The point of classical equal rights is the MLK, "my children won't be judged by the colour of their skin". The moment you ask a question like that, you are deliberately rolling back his vision by implying that a 100% male engineering group is a severe problem that needs a solution. It's not. It's an entirely expected statistical outcome given the demographics of people who study the profession. And it's inherently political to ask your question because by doing so, you're implying the answer matters, which is very much a political and left-wing stance. Whereas what's actually been encoded in law and up until very recently, culture, is that it's not even an allowed question to ask at all.
This blog post by Basecamp is excellent. What a fantastic company it must be to work for. It's too late now because I'm starting my own company and am fully dedicated to that, but part of the reason for doing so was the feeling that there weren't enough (any?) companies with these sorts of policies in the world. I'll add Basecamp to the small list of software firms I'd be willing to work at in future.
This blog post by Basecamp is excellent. What a fantastic company it must be to work for. It's too late now because I'm starting my own company and am fully dedicated to that, but part of the reason for doing so was the feeling that there weren't enough (any?) companies with these sorts of policies in the world. I'll add Basecamp to the small list of software firms I'd be willing to work at in future.
More importantly: who cares?
There are many good reasons to care. Off the top of my head:
* Having a diverse work force makes it less likely that you will be blind to problems caused by unintended side effects of your product that only affect certain groups.
* Having no women (or people of color, or people with disabilities, or...) on the workforce, will make you less attractive as an employer to talented people in these groups. Ultimately, you get to hire from a larger talent pool, if you make an effort to cultivate diversity.
* Making an effort to attract a diversity of people will make you uncover barriers of entry, that you might not have been aware of, and removing those has the potential to benefit everyone.
And finally, even if you believe strongly that your hiring practices are not the cause of the lack of diversity, and that the real problem is elsewhere (in the education system for instance), you can still choose to be part of the solution by providing proof that there is a desirable future to be had for a woman who chooses to go in to a STEM field.
There are many good reasons to care. Off the top of my head:
* Having a diverse work force makes it less likely that you will be blind to problems caused by unintended side effects of your product that only affect certain groups.
* Having no women (or people of color, or people with disabilities, or...) on the workforce, will make you less attractive as an employer to talented people in these groups. Ultimately, you get to hire from a larger talent pool, if you make an effort to cultivate diversity.
* Making an effort to attract a diversity of people will make you uncover barriers of entry, that you might not have been aware of, and removing those has the potential to benefit everyone.
And finally, even if you believe strongly that your hiring practices are not the cause of the lack of diversity, and that the real problem is elsewhere (in the education system for instance), you can still choose to be part of the solution by providing proof that there is a desirable future to be had for a woman who chooses to go in to a STEM field.
Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people, and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason.
The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individual.
Moreover, social justice uses activism to take over the organization to the point where it use as many resources as possible for activism. It is not unusual at this point for activist employees to ask a company to make bad business decisions for political reasons, so a policy putting political activism into the private sphere makes it clear that you are at work to create a long-term sustainable and healthy business.
The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individual.
Moreover, social justice uses activism to take over the organization to the point where it use as many resources as possible for activism. It is not unusual at this point for activist employees to ask a company to make bad business decisions for political reasons, so a policy putting political activism into the private sphere makes it clear that you are at work to create a long-term sustainable and healthy business.
Generally talented people enjoy working with other talented people
Everything else being equal, sure.
and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason.
Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent?
The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individual.
It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.
Everything else being equal, sure.
and prefer to be hired and rewarded only for that reason.
Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent?
The social justice diversity, equity and inclusion is a political stance that instead of seeing individuals see groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors" which is a recipe for a less productive work environment. These unchosen group identities are political tools and not descriptive of an individual.
It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.
> Why would anybody who knew they were talented and got hired or promoted, assume it had to do with anything other than their talent?
Affirmative hiring, diversity quotas etc are actively aimed at identity based hiring and promotion. In addition to this a candidate in a favored identity group often go through different hiring and promotion procedures with involvement from the DEI officer.
> It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.
In a different working environment this may have been the case, but according to the silicon valley index more than 2/3[1] of silicon valley workers 20-45 are immigrants of asian descent so the woke assertion that its a white mans business is not accurate.
In addition to this there are official company policies that discriminate against white men, and there are policies actively working to give special consideration in hiring and promotion to BIPOC. Their aim is to create asymmetry between groups.
[1] https://jointventure.org/download-the-2020-index
Affirmative hiring, diversity quotas etc are actively aimed at identity based hiring and promotion. In addition to this a candidate in a favored identity group often go through different hiring and promotion procedures with involvement from the DEI officer.
> It is possible to recognize that a certain groups of people on average face more obstacles and barriers, without equating individuals with the groups they belong to or vice versa.
In a different working environment this may have been the case, but according to the silicon valley index more than 2/3[1] of silicon valley workers 20-45 are immigrants of asian descent so the woke assertion that its a white mans business is not accurate.
In addition to this there are official company policies that discriminate against white men, and there are policies actively working to give special consideration in hiring and promotion to BIPOC. Their aim is to create asymmetry between groups.
[1] https://jointventure.org/download-the-2020-index
Gender and disability ratios at companies already match that of most CS program graduates every year. There isn't a hidden pool of people that are being ignored.
The talent pool extends a lot further than people with CS degrees. And even if your statement narrowly is true for the industry as a whole (I’m skeptical that it is – from what I’m told more women than men leave the industry), it isn’t necessarily true for individual companies.
> The moment you ask a question like that, you are deliberately rolling back his vision by implying that a 100% male engineering group is a severe problem that needs a solution.
What if someone was judged by the color of their skin or their gender by the system? There are plenty of studies that show how the LSAT/SAT for example, is biased in favor of whites. The school may say they only admitted those with the highest scores and didn't look at skin color, but skin color ended up built into the score.
So while the system should correct for this eventually, companies are attempting to correct for this issue now.
What if someone was judged by the color of their skin or their gender by the system? There are plenty of studies that show how the LSAT/SAT for example, is biased in favor of whites. The school may say they only admitted those with the highest scores and didn't look at skin color, but skin color ended up built into the score.
So while the system should correct for this eventually, companies are attempting to correct for this issue now.
If the status quo was that we were already living in a gender-blind, race-blind society, your comment would be correct.
The truth is that we don't know if the 100% male engineering group is a result of perfectly executed meritocratic interview process or a result of systematic bias. It's probably wrong to make blind assumptions either way, but if we're going to make assumptions anyways then we should lean towards the latter.
The truth is that we don't know if the 100% male engineering group is a result of perfectly executed meritocratic interview process or a result of systematic bias. It's probably wrong to make blind assumptions either way, but if we're going to make assumptions anyways then we should lean towards the latter.
I think we actually do know that.
Firstly, hiring is actually irrelevant to this because the gender ratios of most software companies are the same as the gender ratios of CS graduates, which is what you'd expect on average in a meritocratic process. A few firms like Google have higher numbers of women which they achieve by a variety of means both fair and foul, but the average company does match.
The 100% male group is a hypothetical - I've only rarely been in such teams myself and only when they were small. It's clearly possible if the team is, say, 10 people. If you get to 100 and there are no women I'd be wondering if there's something odd going on, but it's still explainable by chance, and it's very dependent on sub-field. For example if you're doing embedded programming for the oil or nuclear industries, then those industries are themselves mostly interesting to men, so you get "interest in software * interest in industry" and you can get lower numbers than pure software companies. This is often the case for industries that are hyper-competitive or risky, for instance, I've seen 100% male engineering teams a lot in the cryptocurrency space.
So if there's any debate or action to be had here at all, it's actually by universities, not companies, because company demographics follow CS program demographics.
Firstly, hiring is actually irrelevant to this because the gender ratios of most software companies are the same as the gender ratios of CS graduates, which is what you'd expect on average in a meritocratic process. A few firms like Google have higher numbers of women which they achieve by a variety of means both fair and foul, but the average company does match.
The 100% male group is a hypothetical - I've only rarely been in such teams myself and only when they were small. It's clearly possible if the team is, say, 10 people. If you get to 100 and there are no women I'd be wondering if there's something odd going on, but it's still explainable by chance, and it's very dependent on sub-field. For example if you're doing embedded programming for the oil or nuclear industries, then those industries are themselves mostly interesting to men, so you get "interest in software * interest in industry" and you can get lower numbers than pure software companies. This is often the case for industries that are hyper-competitive or risky, for instance, I've seen 100% male engineering teams a lot in the cryptocurrency space.
So if there's any debate or action to be had here at all, it's actually by universities, not companies, because company demographics follow CS program demographics.
The idea that MLK would think 100% male working environments in tech is ok and also the embodiment of one of his most famous quotes seems slightly off to me...
People often don't like the implications of their principles.
For example, although MLK Jr. espoused being a good Christian, he did not follow the principles of being a good Christian when he cheated on his wife with multiple different women.
For example, although MLK Jr. espoused being a good Christian, he did not follow the principles of being a good Christian when he cheated on his wife with multiple different women.
I care deeply. With a 100 percent male workforce comes a 100 percent male mindset. Say I am creating a site for maternity clothes, I am not sure if I can turn a blind eye to the trade offs all the male engineer may make even though they have the best interests at heart. They may not be significant to the male engineer but it will very much be caught by a female engineer. Unless you are selling shaving kits or male grooming kits, your customers are gonna be woman and so that perspective is much more important than getting the best software engineer.
To reframe this on race, there's been a couple of (from an engineering perspective) gobsmacking demos of how non-diverse developers end up making something that just does not work for people who don't look like them.
The soap dispenser that doesn't recognize dark skin:
https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-da...
Facial recognition systems that don't work well on dark-skinned people:
https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni...
I can't find it now but there's another demo of the simple face detection algorithm (not recognition, just highlighting that "here is a face") simply not detecting a dark-skinned person til she lifts up a white mask to her face, and then it detects a "face" immediately.
Something as simple as soap dispenser not detecting dark skin, would that have made it out into production if they'd had a dark-skinned person on the team? Something as basic as, "Hey this doesn't work on Jim, maybe we should tweak the sensor a bit."
That's where some diversity matters, just so that your products work on everyone out there.
The soap dispenser that doesn't recognize dark skin:
https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-da...
Facial recognition systems that don't work well on dark-skinned people:
https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni...
I can't find it now but there's another demo of the simple face detection algorithm (not recognition, just highlighting that "here is a face") simply not detecting a dark-skinned person til she lifts up a white mask to her face, and then it detects a "face" immediately.
Something as simple as soap dispenser not detecting dark skin, would that have made it out into production if they'd had a dark-skinned person on the team? Something as basic as, "Hey this doesn't work on Jim, maybe we should tweak the sensor a bit."
That's where some diversity matters, just so that your products work on everyone out there.
Diversity doesn't matter in practice if management doesn't want to spend the resources to engineer for diverse use cases. I've been over-ruled too many times when I've pushed for "fringe" use cases - including once with exactly your example of a product not working on Black people (different product, but same ethnicity-based issue). My team intentionally sought out (internal) diversity to test the prototype on. And guess what? When I said this was a big problem and we needed to fix it, I got over-ruled (by my non-White company president) because we were already late shipping the product. (Then product got canned for other reasons later - after I left the company shortly after this decision).
I'm not sure how to fix this broader problem - or what else I could/should have done there (other than leave for greener pastures)!
I'm not sure how to fix this broader problem - or what else I could/should have done there (other than leave for greener pastures)!
> which is very much a political and left-wing stance
Then I have to ask, is it then a political and right-wing stance NOT to ask these questions?
Then I have to ask, is it then a political and right-wing stance NOT to ask these questions?
How much does being a woman affect your ability to engineer?
Should a woman only be hired because they're a woman, even if they're a poor engineer? That seems way more sexist than the alternative.
Should a woman only be hired because they're a woman, even if they're a poor engineer? That seems way more sexist than the alternative.
An alternative interpretation is that by opening more positions for women, they're trying to make a societal improvement, by opening doors to people (women, in this case), that meet too many closed doors.
Given their (in relative terms) failure, one could say that this is a complex problem, and addressing one issue is unfortunately not enough.
> even if they're a poor engineer?
This is not something GP wrote. They wrote they had significant issues because, in a sense, they created a problem (hiring methodologies) in order to solve one that didn't previously exist (gender bias).
Given their (in relative terms) failure, one could say that this is a complex problem, and addressing one issue is unfortunately not enough.
> even if they're a poor engineer?
This is not something GP wrote. They wrote they had significant issues because, in a sense, they created a problem (hiring methodologies) in order to solve one that didn't previously exist (gender bias).
I would say reasonably. Products benefit from broad points of view. Companies should avoid making soap dispensers that don't work on black skin because they didn't hire black people.
The cliche is that tech companies are aiming to change the world. Software has real impacts on humans. Maybe the group of people "changing the world" should be a bit more diverse than just Dudes.
The cliche is that tech companies are aiming to change the world. Software has real impacts on humans. Maybe the group of people "changing the world" should be a bit more diverse than just Dudes.
"products benefit from a broad point of view" lol
Let's not let Hacker News be a place where we misquote someone with a low-effort reply :)
I think we are at about 10% right now in a department of a bit less than 100 engineers. A quick google search shows the industry is at 25%. I would be curious to know what the current graduating classes of engineers is at. My guess would be 30%? Requiring our recruiters to hit 40% means more work for fewer candidates for a marginal benefit for our company.
To be fair I would expect more female engineers to show a benefit in the retention rates of female engineers so I think this initiative could be net positive for the company but I also doubt the people pushing for this are being data driven.
To be fair I would expect more female engineers to show a benefit in the retention rates of female engineers so I think this initiative could be net positive for the company but I also doubt the people pushing for this are being data driven.
How many women are engineers as a percent of total engineers? Given the current ratio in my generation (mid thirties) we are at least decades away of having a significant ratio of senior engineers candidates, so I'm not sure your question is relevant to assess anything.
strong female engineers exist, so i would ask why you're not seeing them as candidates.
He didn’t say they had zero female engineers.
Are you saying you'd prefer to talk about politics, at work? Because it sounds like you consider this to be a political issue, that you'd like addressed.
They didn't say that at all. Why are you putting words in their mouth?
Are you saying they don't consider this issue political, or that they don't want it addressed? What words do you think I put in their mouth?
“prefer to talk about politics, at work?”
To answer your question, no, they did not say that.
Seems like the GP tried https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions and failed
I find it incredibly funny that you'd find an innocuous question about someone's post to be some kind of sinister rhetorical strategy.
Its also very funny that anyone would consider the contents of a question about a post to be "putting words in their mouth". I am absolutely authentically curious about why someone would take the extremely funny step of appearing to rail against politics being discussed at work - by complaining about a "political" issue that's happening at their work.
Its also very funny that anyone would consider the contents of a question about a post to be "putting words in their mouth". I am absolutely authentically curious about why someone would take the extremely funny step of appearing to rail against politics being discussed at work - by complaining about a "political" issue that's happening at their work.
I find it incredibly funny that you deceptively try to put words in people’s mouths by “asking questions”
Then are dumb enough to keep trying your failed “ask questions” trick.
Also your sense of humor is highly underdeveloped. Go watch some Curb your enthusiasm or something.
Curb your enthusiasm theme starts playing
[deleted]
> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
I really detest such things, and the "problem" is easily solved by "I don't give a fuck".
I don't give a fuck if you are male or female, or anything in between, if you are, black, white, yellow or whatever, neither do I care about your sexual preferences, or your religion. And neither should anyone else care.
I do care about how well you can do your job, how well you fit in our team, etc.
I helped hire most of our team members, and by luck they are very diverse in all of the above mentions traits. But who should care?
This is 2021, nobody should give a fuck about those things anymore. If you do, in either direction, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
I really detest such things, and the "problem" is easily solved by "I don't give a fuck".
I don't give a fuck if you are male or female, or anything in between, if you are, black, white, yellow or whatever, neither do I care about your sexual preferences, or your religion. And neither should anyone else care.
I do care about how well you can do your job, how well you fit in our team, etc.
I helped hire most of our team members, and by luck they are very diverse in all of the above mentions traits. But who should care?
This is 2021, nobody should give a fuck about those things anymore. If you do, in either direction, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
"How well you fit in our team", especially when applied to things like interviewing and hiring, often has a strong correlation with "are you not a member of an underrepresented group", often unintentionally.
That is strange. When I do interviews, I will look if this is a nice person, if this is a professional person. I don't really think about which "group" they might belong to.
Your definition of what a "nice person" looks like may be predicated on the breadth of your experience with different people. For many (most?) people, the closer someone is to what their friends/family look and act like the "nicer" they are. That's not a condemnation of you or anyone else - it's normal.
I think some humility is in order. It's possible that one is a perfect, unbiased judge of character. On the other hand it's possible that one is just human, with a predilection for equating "like me and my friends" to "nice" or "professional".
I think some humility is in order. It's possible that one is a perfect, unbiased judge of character. On the other hand it's possible that one is just human, with a predilection for equating "like me and my friends" to "nice" or "professional".
It seems not in this case, as this person hired a diverse team as measured by gender, race and sexual orientation. I'd venture there are multiple approaches to seeking interpersonal compatibility and some of those approaches tend to have better outcomes than others. It seems good to try to learn from people who practice those more successful approaches.
I've seen too many people say stuff like this then go on to blatantly discriminate to think people who say it are self-aware enough about unconscious biases to not discriminate. There is stuff everyone picks up along the way to becoming an adult that they didn't have any say in picking up, but it's there anyway, and it's not going to go away if you pretend like it's not there.
Personally, there's a part of me deep down that does want to discriminate, and I have to kick that part's ass any time it rears its ugly head. Even being part of several marginalized identities is no guard against it.
Personally, there's a part of me deep down that does want to discriminate, and I have to kick that part's ass any time it rears its ugly head. Even being part of several marginalized identities is no guard against it.
That's a position of privilege. Only people who aren't discriminated against can afford to take a position of indifference.
I legitimately believe that "not giving a fuck about differences" is the goal we should all aim for. Yes, I am lucky that I can afford this mindset, but if I want everyone to also benefit from this privilege (such that it isn't a privilege anymore, but the standard), how do I do ?
I live in a country where the differences are handled almost the exact opposite to what is done in the US. Instead of spreading positive discrimination that reinforces the idea that we're all different and actually promoting communautarism, we believe that our differences are fundamentally a private matter and when we want to build something together we leverage our common interest and values. It's all idealistic but in practice our racism isn't as widespread and brutal as other places, which is why I'm convinced it is the right way to follow
I live in a country where the differences are handled almost the exact opposite to what is done in the US. Instead of spreading positive discrimination that reinforces the idea that we're all different and actually promoting communautarism, we believe that our differences are fundamentally a private matter and when we want to build something together we leverage our common interest and values. It's all idealistic but in practice our racism isn't as widespread and brutal as other places, which is why I'm convinced it is the right way to follow
"not giving a fuck about differences" is 100% the goal. But there are differences, so ignoring them is just sticking your head in the sand.
I agree that there are differences. I also agree that minorities deal with discrimination. But the solution is relentlessly not giving a fuck, and now comes the big part: also making sure everyone else doesn't give a fuck (about the differences).
This last part is crucial for not being indifferent or sticking your head in the sand. We ignore the differences, but we don't ignore the bastards that do take those differences into account.
This last part is crucial for not being indifferent or sticking your head in the sand. We ignore the differences, but we don't ignore the bastards that do take those differences into account.
I don't know, sounds pretty political. Talk of this is probably banned at Basecamp.
> I don't know, sounds pretty political. Talk of this is probably banned at Basecamp.
I'm sure discrimination is banned at Basecamp.
I'm sure discrimination is banned at Basecamp.
In the first reply you wrote, it was unclear to me if / easy to get the impression that, you would have ignore those who discriminated based on differences -- good that you clarified here that it wasn't meant in that way :-)
It's not about ignoring differences, it's about making sure our differences aren't important. It's a subtle difference but it's what makes the ideology work.
The best example is that it is forbidden to have public statistics based on religion. Not because religion doesn't matter (it does), not because religion is irrelevant (it isn't), but because pointing out our different beliefs is the best way to pit people against each other
The best example is that it is forbidden to have public statistics based on religion. Not because religion doesn't matter (it does), not because religion is irrelevant (it isn't), but because pointing out our different beliefs is the best way to pit people against each other
> The best example is that it is forbidden to have public statistics based on religion. Not because religion doesn't matter (it does), not because religion is irrelevant (it isn't), but because pointing out our different beliefs is the best way to pit people against each other
Not sure that’s such a good example. When something is painfully obvious to everyone, the suppressing statistics only leads to more resentment, conspiracy theories and political unrest (or support for far-something groups).
A good example is terrorism in Europe. You can be pretty sure that if the race/religion isn’t mentioned, it’s not white & atheist/christian.
Not sure that’s such a good example. When something is painfully obvious to everyone, the suppressing statistics only leads to more resentment, conspiracy theories and political unrest (or support for far-something groups).
A good example is terrorism in Europe. You can be pretty sure that if the race/religion isn’t mentioned, it’s not white & atheist/christian.
I don't even understand what "privilege" means anymore. I used to, but it now just seems to be a word that gets thrown down to try to end the conversation, whenever someone's arguing with a white guy. How did we get to this point where you can't even have a valid opinion about something if you're coming from some position of privilege?
It seems to be the result of a multi-dimensional formula taking into account every possible variable you can imagine.
Is kind of like a Credit Score, but determined by Twitter. The process is opaque and you cannot dispute it. You also can't get your Privilege Score beforehand, but you WILL be told your relative Privilege Position compared to other people if you say something wrong.
Is kind of like a Credit Score, but determined by Twitter. The process is opaque and you cannot dispute it. You also can't get your Privilege Score beforehand, but you WILL be told your relative Privilege Position compared to other people if you say something wrong.
Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.
> Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.
It doesn't make sense. You are essentially if you are non-minority, your opinion should be ignored unless its in-line with the opinion of those in the minority. How is that respecting an opinion as "valid"?
It doesn't make sense. You are essentially if you are non-minority, your opinion should be ignored unless its in-line with the opinion of those in the minority. How is that respecting an opinion as "valid"?
It sounds to me as if you think someone who hasn't been discriminated against, cannot have any meaningful thoughts.
As if a social worker could only help out with problems s/he had experienced him/herself already.
> Hope that made sense.
A bit, not that much
As if a social worker could only help out with problems s/he had experienced him/herself already.
> Hope that made sense.
A bit, not that much
You can put words in my mouth all day but here is exactly what I wrote.
> When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination.
We all appreciate attempts to understand and empathize with us. You can go very far by talking with us and trying to place yourself in our shoes, but we don't appreciate it when you talk over us, attempt to silence our voices, or, case in point, put words in our mouths and exaggerate our points beyond recognition.
Please try and engage this topic in good faith and not through pedantics and wordplay. If you fundamentally disagree that the victims of discrimination should have the loudest voice in the matter, I'd love to talk further.
> When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination.
We all appreciate attempts to understand and empathize with us. You can go very far by talking with us and trying to place yourself in our shoes, but we don't appreciate it when you talk over us, attempt to silence our voices, or, case in point, put words in our mouths and exaggerate our points beyond recognition.
Please try and engage this topic in good faith and not through pedantics and wordplay. If you fundamentally disagree that the victims of discrimination should have the loudest voice in the matter, I'd love to talk further.
> should defer to the experts in the area
There is not always such a thing as "the experts".
People who look the same, grew up in the same place, have the same parents, can still have the opposite opinions.
Then, who is the expert -- when they disagree with each other, the complete opposite.
(Real world example from where I live.)
I'm not in the US though, actually things seem a bit weird over there. The history looks quite different here where I live.
> put words in my mouth all day
Not sure what you have in mind, I still think that what you wrote, sounds weird (I hope you don't mind). As if someone who got bullied in school, automatically should know better how to mitigate such problems in school. (Be an expert?)
There is not always such a thing as "the experts".
People who look the same, grew up in the same place, have the same parents, can still have the opposite opinions.
Then, who is the expert -- when they disagree with each other, the complete opposite.
(Real world example from where I live.)
I'm not in the US though, actually things seem a bit weird over there. The history looks quite different here where I live.
> put words in my mouth all day
Not sure what you have in mind, I still think that what you wrote, sounds weird (I hope you don't mind). As if someone who got bullied in school, automatically should know better how to mitigate such problems in school. (Be an expert?)
When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims, the bullied kids will beg and plead you to reconsider and listen to their voices instead. Not because everyone else's opinions are invalid, but because they are the ones who can speak the clearest about issues that others are blind to.
I'm playing along with your analogy here, but I actually think it's a terribly weak analogy. Racial discrimination is often so ingrained in the culture that its perpetrators aren't always hulking bullies menacingly taking lunch money from people. They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it for a bit when it's convenient for them. They can't fathom that the experience of the discriminated may be so vastly different than their imagination permits, simply because they haven't experienced it firsthand.
Too many of us have been silenced and told to shut up both explicitly and implicitly. When it comes to racial discrimination, we will not go unheard. In this instance, in this matter, our voices do weigh much more than yours and that's simply the fact you'll have to live with.
I'm playing along with your analogy here, but I actually think it's a terribly weak analogy. Racial discrimination is often so ingrained in the culture that its perpetrators aren't always hulking bullies menacingly taking lunch money from people. They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it for a bit when it's convenient for them. They can't fathom that the experience of the discriminated may be so vastly different than their imagination permits, simply because they haven't experienced it firsthand.
Too many of us have been silenced and told to shut up both explicitly and implicitly. When it comes to racial discrimination, we will not go unheard. In this instance, in this matter, our voices do weigh much more than yours and that's simply the fact you'll have to live with.
> I'm playing along with your analogy here
No, I think not. Look here:
> When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims
That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness.
I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something"
and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least.
I never said that, and I don't think that, and I feel surprised, maybe a little bit ill, that you somehow misinterpreted what I wrote, that much.
> They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it
I suppose there are such people.
> have been silenced and told to shut up
I feel sad for the cases when that's happened to you and others
> our voices do weigh much more than yours
That's odd, you start writing "our" and "yours" as if you now believe that I'm in some antagonist group, just because I said "not only X can have good ideas".
I'm happy that my friends who look different than me, different skin color for example, don't think like that. We think about each other as "we" together, not as "us" and "them".
I think it's good to end the conversation here. In any case I'm probably not replying any further. And if you did reply to this, I think that that reply would misinterpret something I wrote, but I wouldn't reply and point out what that misunderstanding was about.
No, I think not. Look here:
> When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims
That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness.
I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something"
and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least.
I never said that, and I don't think that, and I feel surprised, maybe a little bit ill, that you somehow misinterpreted what I wrote, that much.
> They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it
I suppose there are such people.
> have been silenced and told to shut up
I feel sad for the cases when that's happened to you and others
> our voices do weigh much more than yours
That's odd, you start writing "our" and "yours" as if you now believe that I'm in some antagonist group, just because I said "not only X can have good ideas".
I'm happy that my friends who look different than me, different skin color for example, don't think like that. We think about each other as "we" together, not as "us" and "them".
I think it's good to end the conversation here. In any case I'm probably not replying any further. And if you did reply to this, I think that that reply would misinterpret something I wrote, but I wouldn't reply and point out what that misunderstanding was about.
As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page.
And for the sake of clarity - Yes, anyone can and will conjure up great ideas and solutions. No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong".
For your convenience, let me paste my original comment that you had a beef with:
> Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.
I thought it was clearly implied that the voice of the discriminated be priotitized over others 'in the events of clashing opinions'. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize for my weak writing. English is obviously not my first language.
Lastly, when you engage in a discussion with a minority person in matters regards to treatment of minority groups, do not be surprised that terms like "we" "us" and "your" get thrown around. It's simply how conversations naturally flow around such topics, and not indicative of the speaker's bias towards identity politics. You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. And that's not even mentioning my wife and her family.
Have a good week mate!
And for the sake of clarity - Yes, anyone can and will conjure up great ideas and solutions. No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong".
For your convenience, let me paste my original comment that you had a beef with:
> Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.
I thought it was clearly implied that the voice of the discriminated be priotitized over others 'in the events of clashing opinions'. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize for my weak writing. English is obviously not my first language.
Lastly, when you engage in a discussion with a minority person in matters regards to treatment of minority groups, do not be surprised that terms like "we" "us" and "your" get thrown around. It's simply how conversations naturally flow around such topics, and not indicative of the speaker's bias towards identity politics. You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. And that's not even mentioning my wife and her family.
Have a good week mate!
> As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page
Ok, I definitely agree with you about that
> No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong".
Oh ok. I first got the impression that you did, thanks for replying and explaining
About the quote:
> When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face,
I read that as having ideas about what to do about it, whilst you seem to have referred to what has happened to minority people in the past.
I'm thinking that "discussing" here is a bit ambiguous and I'm sorry that I didn't realize I had interpreted it differently from what you meant
> English is obviously not my first language.
Not my first either :-)
(btw I'm a bit surprised, I was guessing that you had grown up in the US in a primarily English speaking part of the country)
> You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described.
I'd think we would be good friends if we met
Have a good week & summer you too
Ok, I definitely agree with you about that
> No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong".
Oh ok. I first got the impression that you did, thanks for replying and explaining
About the quote:
> When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face,
I read that as having ideas about what to do about it, whilst you seem to have referred to what has happened to minority people in the past.
I'm thinking that "discussing" here is a bit ambiguous and I'm sorry that I didn't realize I had interpreted it differently from what you meant
> English is obviously not my first language.
Not my first either :-)
(btw I'm a bit surprised, I was guessing that you had grown up in the US in a primarily English speaking part of the country)
> You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described.
I'd think we would be good friends if we met
Have a good week & summer you too
It's possible for person to be more of an expert on issues "minorities" face than a single member of a minority. If it's their area of expertise and they have information from and exposure to wide swaths of those minorities. A third generation Asian American graduate from Sandford working at a startup in SF isn't having the same experience as a Vietnamese immigrant chicken farmer..
I am not indifferent towards people who discriminate, whether that is positive or negative discrimination. But thankfully those people are a minority.
I mean, I think this is like saying it's O.K. to not care about climate change because we have done enough and it's not a problem anymore. i.e. It's way better than it was and it doesn't effect me so I can live my life however I want, I am not worried about the future generations that may have that problem because of my actions.
In this situation, you are saying it doesn't effect you so you have the privelege of not caring.
Totally fair! Wish everyone were in that position.
In this situation, you are saying it doesn't effect you so you have the privelege of not caring.
Totally fair! Wish everyone were in that position.
You don't seem to get my point: everyone should care about the environment, and nobody should care about the color of your skin.
Edit: let me be more specific. In a company, I don't want to hear "Are the women compensated the same as the men?", I want to hear "Is everyone fairly compensated?". There is a very big difference between the 2.
Edit: let me be more specific. In a company, I don't want to hear "Are the women compensated the same as the men?", I want to hear "Is everyone fairly compensated?". There is a very big difference between the 2.
I see what you're getting at, and yeah that sort of just world would be nice. You could ask "is everyone fairly compensated?" now though, and many people would not think to consider the various disparities that exist - the current system, to their mind, is fair.
So you have to look at the data, gather the facts, and force the issue:
---
Is everyone fairly compensated?
Yes
But, it looks like a woman is paid 20% less than a man for the same position. Is everyone fairly compensated?
Yes. (Insert sexist reasoning here).
Are women compensated the same as men?
No.
Why is that fair?
---
You could repeat this same thought process for so many other examples, where the general concept of fairness is rooted in inequality, bias, and prejudice.
So you have to look at the data, gather the facts, and force the issue:
---
Is everyone fairly compensated?
Yes
But, it looks like a woman is paid 20% less than a man for the same position. Is everyone fairly compensated?
Yes. (Insert sexist reasoning here).
Are women compensated the same as men?
No.
Why is that fair?
---
You could repeat this same thought process for so many other examples, where the general concept of fairness is rooted in inequality, bias, and prejudice.
(Just FYI, I also actually didn't understand what you meant. Thanks for the follow up and explanation)
Most guys I know in the tech industry see it rather differently. The way they (we) see it is simple: there is rampant illegal discrimination in tech, and it's all against straight white guys like us. That's Europe. In the USA you'd probably include Asians too. Nonetheless I don't know a single guy who argues for affirmative action in favour of straight white guys: everyone argues for simply caring only about who does good work and damn the rest. That's not a position of indifference of course, it's a strongly held belief.
Look at this very thread. Just a few posts above this one is a guy who says he works at a firm where 40% of all recruitment efforts have to be for female engineers. Those sorts of policies are everywhere. That's actual, concrete discrimination. Firms put bonus pots aside for women, they set up competitions and career opportunities from which men are banned. Men are being barred from board positions and top executive roles all over the place.
At the last place I worked, after firing the head of sales the CEO announced at a company all hands that the next head of sales had to be a woman, and that's why the firm had been without one for so many months. It's of course illegal but the agencies that enforce these laws are run by people steeped in identity politics, so they aren't enforced. When one was finally located she turned out to be wildly incompetent. In the first management offsite she got up and said she had no idea why anyone bought our product. She didn't mean this in a "the product is bad, I'll shock them out of denial" way. She meant it in the sense that she really didn't understand what the product actually did (it was a rather obscure product for software developers). In a sales meeting with a customer she started trying to convince the customer not to use our product, apparently without realising she was doing so. The prior male head of sales had been fired simply for displaying low energy, this woman is of course un-fireable despite demonstrating repeatedly she has zero understanding of the companies products!
That same company invited a third party training company to use the offices at the weekend to run programming classes. These classes were open to everyone except straight, white men. I kid you not, that was the actual rule. If you were a white male you were expected to bring social media evidence that you were gay. Like, photos of you making out with other men or something like that. The justification for this was to keep the lessons "safe". Myself and my (gay) manager went to HR to complain, the head of HR spent 30 minutes trying to defend it. There was no apology and nothing was done about it.
This stuff is routine, it is daily life. It passes by without notice. If even one of these things happened in the reverse direction at a large company it'd make international news.
It's this kind of poisonous ideology that Basecamp are trying to expunge from their firm with this announcement, and what can the average man do but applaud? Who doesn't want to just come to work and have peaceful relations with their co-workers, regardless of race or gender? Only leftist activists, and which firms really need them? They're far more trouble than they're worth.
Look at this very thread. Just a few posts above this one is a guy who says he works at a firm where 40% of all recruitment efforts have to be for female engineers. Those sorts of policies are everywhere. That's actual, concrete discrimination. Firms put bonus pots aside for women, they set up competitions and career opportunities from which men are banned. Men are being barred from board positions and top executive roles all over the place.
At the last place I worked, after firing the head of sales the CEO announced at a company all hands that the next head of sales had to be a woman, and that's why the firm had been without one for so many months. It's of course illegal but the agencies that enforce these laws are run by people steeped in identity politics, so they aren't enforced. When one was finally located she turned out to be wildly incompetent. In the first management offsite she got up and said she had no idea why anyone bought our product. She didn't mean this in a "the product is bad, I'll shock them out of denial" way. She meant it in the sense that she really didn't understand what the product actually did (it was a rather obscure product for software developers). In a sales meeting with a customer she started trying to convince the customer not to use our product, apparently without realising she was doing so. The prior male head of sales had been fired simply for displaying low energy, this woman is of course un-fireable despite demonstrating repeatedly she has zero understanding of the companies products!
That same company invited a third party training company to use the offices at the weekend to run programming classes. These classes were open to everyone except straight, white men. I kid you not, that was the actual rule. If you were a white male you were expected to bring social media evidence that you were gay. Like, photos of you making out with other men or something like that. The justification for this was to keep the lessons "safe". Myself and my (gay) manager went to HR to complain, the head of HR spent 30 minutes trying to defend it. There was no apology and nothing was done about it.
This stuff is routine, it is daily life. It passes by without notice. If even one of these things happened in the reverse direction at a large company it'd make international news.
It's this kind of poisonous ideology that Basecamp are trying to expunge from their firm with this announcement, and what can the average man do but applaud? Who doesn't want to just come to work and have peaceful relations with their co-workers, regardless of race or gender? Only leftist activists, and which firms really need them? They're far more trouble than they're worth.
> where 40% of all recruitment efforts have to be for female
This is a huge insult to any woman that is good at their job.
In my team we hire the best. That means that any woman in my team is on average as good as any man in my team.
If we had quotas, that would mean that the men in my team are on average better than the women, since they pick the best of both segments, but one segment has way less candidates. How do those women feel to be places into the bucket of "filling seats"? How do project managers select who they want on their team? And then they cry that people are getting discriminated. Self fulfilling prophecy.
This is a huge insult to any woman that is good at their job.
In my team we hire the best. That means that any woman in my team is on average as good as any man in my team.
If we had quotas, that would mean that the men in my team are on average better than the women, since they pick the best of both segments, but one segment has way less candidates. How do those women feel to be places into the bucket of "filling seats"? How do project managers select who they want on their team? And then they cry that people are getting discriminated. Self fulfilling prophecy.
The examples you’ve mentioned are quite egregious and I understand how you would hold a negative opinion about such efforts. However, I’d argue they come from leaders in a lot of organizations not understanding why inclusivity is actually important, let alone how to implement it.
The scope of creating a workforce with more representation is not small and probably requires long term planning, constant feedback, and buy-in from stakeholders on all fronts. Companies who only want to appear inclusive are bound to take unilateral, drastic measures in order to meet an observable target without considering the higher order effects.
Basecamp’s approach is just avoiding the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. Employees who felt unwelcome at work won’t suddenly be happy when they can’t even talk about it. Power to make changes will be concentrated at the top with people apparently determined to keep the status quo.
The scope of creating a workforce with more representation is not small and probably requires long term planning, constant feedback, and buy-in from stakeholders on all fronts. Companies who only want to appear inclusive are bound to take unilateral, drastic measures in order to meet an observable target without considering the higher order effects.
Basecamp’s approach is just avoiding the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. Employees who felt unwelcome at work won’t suddenly be happy when they can’t even talk about it. Power to make changes will be concentrated at the top with people apparently determined to keep the status quo.
peteretep(2)
Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically.
Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political tools. Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.
Discrimination happens against an individual. If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discretely address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act, it is a moral act of taking care of a coworker.
Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political tools. Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.
Discrimination happens against an individual. If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discretely address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act, it is a moral act of taking care of a coworker.
> You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically.
pssst those two things are connected
> Discrimination happens against an individual.
This is just weirdly wrong?
> If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act
This is an incredibly political act.
pssst those two things are connected
> Discrimination happens against an individual.
This is just weirdly wrong?
> If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act
This is an incredibly political act.
It's hard not to escape the conclusion that the goal of Basecamp's new policy is to quietly suppress or ultimately evict people who think like you.
There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee diversity and product design before, and it's always a joke. You get anecdotes about face recognition not working on black people (reality: the software in question just had trouble with low contrast images and also struggled with white people's faces). And that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing someone actually argue that more women == better product because, well, that's a pretty sexist thing to believe isn't it? It implies men have no empathy, or that there's a universe of product requirements women will only tell to other women, etc.
If discrimination is happening against an individual and you work with the management chain to resolve it, that's not a political act, because you aren't attempting to radically remake the entire organisation for everyone (politics), but only address the specific problem that was actually observed.
There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee diversity and product design before, and it's always a joke. You get anecdotes about face recognition not working on black people (reality: the software in question just had trouble with low contrast images and also struggled with white people's faces). And that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing someone actually argue that more women == better product because, well, that's a pretty sexist thing to believe isn't it? It implies men have no empathy, or that there's a universe of product requirements women will only tell to other women, etc.
If discrimination is happening against an individual and you work with the management chain to resolve it, that's not a political act, because you aren't attempting to radically remake the entire organisation for everyone (politics), but only address the specific problem that was actually observed.
There is an absolute wealth of connection between more diversity and better products: it’s not that a monoculture can’t make products for everyone, it’s that it’s easier for a team that has wider representation to do so: it’s a competitive advantage for them.
Want examples beyond hand driers? Apple missed menstrual cycle tracking in the Health app. NASA offered to send 1,000 tampons with the first woman in space - and had to abandon its first all-woman spacewalk for bad planning in kit availability. Google Photos tagged black people as gorillas. (Regardless of the cause, it shipped). SnapChat shipped a yellowface filter. Google Translate delivers highly gendered results when translating from gendered languages into English. Google Home is 70% more likely to recognise male voices because of training set bias. Women are 49% more likely to be injured in car accidents because the seating position for crash testing is designed for men. And - yes! - Pinterest has struggled to reach men as users apparently because of its SEO strategy.
Want more examples? Ask any passing woman what app she uses that clearly didn’t think about women.
Diverse teams make better products. The stats are out there.
Trying to argue this highly political. We wouldn’t even be able to talk about your point at Basecamp. Does that not worry you? Don’t assume they will always agree with your politics just because they’ve done this.
Want examples beyond hand driers? Apple missed menstrual cycle tracking in the Health app. NASA offered to send 1,000 tampons with the first woman in space - and had to abandon its first all-woman spacewalk for bad planning in kit availability. Google Photos tagged black people as gorillas. (Regardless of the cause, it shipped). SnapChat shipped a yellowface filter. Google Translate delivers highly gendered results when translating from gendered languages into English. Google Home is 70% more likely to recognise male voices because of training set bias. Women are 49% more likely to be injured in car accidents because the seating position for crash testing is designed for men. And - yes! - Pinterest has struggled to reach men as users apparently because of its SEO strategy.
Want more examples? Ask any passing woman what app she uses that clearly didn’t think about women.
Diverse teams make better products. The stats are out there.
Trying to argue this highly political. We wouldn’t even be able to talk about your point at Basecamp. Does that not worry you? Don’t assume they will always agree with your politics just because they’ve done this.
It's a pretty subtle distinction but I'll try to make it.
The examples you give are mostly product examples (i.e. the product lacking features or not correctly addressing its target audience). Therefore I think it would be appropriate to discuss those in the workplace, but NOT as a function of e.g. the gender make-up or racial make-up of the team, but rather as a function of competence in addressing those issues.
In particular, imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are building a product, and we receive the feedback that many women find it difficult to use, and we want to fix that by hiring an expert.
The goal is to hire someone who understands marketing this type of product to women. Although it's maybe likely the most suitable candidate for this would be a woman, it could also possibly be someone else - and we would be looking for experience/evidence toward competence in that area, regardless of the candidate's gender or other characteristics.
To make the conversation apolitical, it would be about specific competencies and lacks of the team or product, NOT about the team itself having "not enough short blue-eyed Turkish women over 50" or some other group.
Also, to keep the conversation apolitical, the conversation would not extend to broader social questions outside of the specific product or problem. It would not stray into generalizations about groups. It would not appeal to emotional arguments like "safety."
The examples you give are mostly product examples (i.e. the product lacking features or not correctly addressing its target audience). Therefore I think it would be appropriate to discuss those in the workplace, but NOT as a function of e.g. the gender make-up or racial make-up of the team, but rather as a function of competence in addressing those issues.
In particular, imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are building a product, and we receive the feedback that many women find it difficult to use, and we want to fix that by hiring an expert.
The goal is to hire someone who understands marketing this type of product to women. Although it's maybe likely the most suitable candidate for this would be a woman, it could also possibly be someone else - and we would be looking for experience/evidence toward competence in that area, regardless of the candidate's gender or other characteristics.
To make the conversation apolitical, it would be about specific competencies and lacks of the team or product, NOT about the team itself having "not enough short blue-eyed Turkish women over 50" or some other group.
Also, to keep the conversation apolitical, the conversation would not extend to broader social questions outside of the specific product or problem. It would not stray into generalizations about groups. It would not appeal to emotional arguments like "safety."
None of my examples needed experts to address — just someone of the affected group on the team and (yes) comfortable enough to speak up. Also, even in your hypothetical, there will still be issues that are difficult to raise internally because the entire area is political. And so nobody will, until your company embarrasses itself in very public ways.
People bring politics and emotion. If your customers or staff are people, it is more effective to be able to discuss their issues directly without contorting yourself into a "just focus on the work" correctness.
People bring politics and emotion. If your customers or staff are people, it is more effective to be able to discuss their issues directly without contorting yourself into a "just focus on the work" correctness.
Another (potentially fatal!) example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.h...
> Women are more likely than men to suffer adverse side effects of medications because drug dosages have historically been based on clinical trials conducted on men, suggests new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago.
> Women are more likely than men to suffer adverse side effects of medications because drug dosages have historically been based on clinical trials conducted on men, suggests new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago.
[deleted]
Is the implication here that Apple had no women working on the Health app, Google Photos has no black team members (and if they did, they would have explicitly checked this case?), Snapchat has no asians, etc? Or that some magic ratio would have caught these issues?
There's some serious assumptions buried there that don't pass the smell test.
There's some serious assumptions buried there that don't pass the smell test.
Yes, that is absolutely the implication. These mistakes are so egregious they're almost instantly obvious to people who know to look. For instance, the Health app tracked seemingly everything under the sun, including blood-alcohol levels. The reaction from women when it shipped was instant: where's the period tracker?
If there was a woman on that team it says even less good things about Apple that they shipped without it.
But: Apple's diversity report from then [1] says they were 80% male in tech, so while the assumption might be serious, I don't think it's unreasonable.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/12/5949453/no-surprise-apple...
If there was a woman on that team it says even less good things about Apple that they shipped without it.
But: Apple's diversity report from then [1] says they were 80% male in tech, so while the assumption might be serious, I don't think it's unreasonable.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/12/5949453/no-surprise-apple...
Apple case is somewhat odd as it's a guilt by omission. I would bet large amounts of money on there being at least woman within the product chain on this (director, PM, TPM, designers). That is, I don't think there's as strong of a correlation between presence of an identity and attention to features/products they would be affected by. For example, I could see a PM reading articles like this [1] and deciding there's too much potential heat on a period app in the default offerings. FWIW I also think this should have been there, and Apple can position themselves nicely w.r.t privacy concerns.
Like, at its core, I agree with the statement that having women on the team would not decrease the probability that these sorts of mistakes don't happen. But its positive impact has to be non-deterministic (or else getting into some implications about <identity> as a group which I can't get behind).
[1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/13/18079458/menstrual-...
Like, at its core, I agree with the statement that having women on the team would not decrease the probability that these sorts of mistakes don't happen. But its positive impact has to be non-deterministic (or else getting into some implications about <identity> as a group which I can't get behind).
[1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/13/18079458/menstrual-...
If there was a woman on that team it says even less good things about Apple that they shipped without it.
So you admit it's nothing to do with diversity, then, just an ambient assumption that the needs of women should automatically trump the needs of men and women combined?
The simplest explanation for Apple's decision is not that they're all raging sexists who need to be forced to hire more women by activists, but rather that when adding features to an app they are ranked by how useful they'd be to the entire userbase. Feature development is a zero sum game - adding that means not adding a different feature. Any feature exclusively for women will have half utility by that obvious metric and lose automatically to features useful for everyone. So the real question is why would anyone expect a general purpose health app to have a period tracker? Isn't that a pretty grotesque sense of entitlement by a small handful of women?
As for the others, come on. That's exactly what I mean by ridiculous arguments. Any photo app should have a black team member who is tasked to spend all day taking selfies and not, say, fixing bugs or adding features? If some company was dumb enough to actually do that, they'd just get criticised in other ways, because such black-testing jobs would be menial low wage jobs, not highly paid and respected software engineering positions. Some of those examples aren't even oversights, like Apple's straightforward prioritization decisions or the fact that Google Translate uses gendered language when translating languages that use genders pervasively. They're just stuff a small minority of activists have chosen to get faux-offended over. And the few that remain are clearly not caused by lack of diversity awareness given you chose to cite Google Home (I'll take your word for it on the stat), a product from one of the companies most visibly committed to filling the ranks with women. They even hired a black female AI ethics researcher, so obviously it's not lack of diversity that caused the training set problems.
In other words none of the examples you cite have anything to do with "diversity" and cannot, because as you admit, you have no idea what the demographics of those teams is. You're just assuming that they must be all made up of un-caring men who never think about others, which is exactly the sexist assumption underlying all identity politics that I highlighted!
So you admit it's nothing to do with diversity, then, just an ambient assumption that the needs of women should automatically trump the needs of men and women combined?
The simplest explanation for Apple's decision is not that they're all raging sexists who need to be forced to hire more women by activists, but rather that when adding features to an app they are ranked by how useful they'd be to the entire userbase. Feature development is a zero sum game - adding that means not adding a different feature. Any feature exclusively for women will have half utility by that obvious metric and lose automatically to features useful for everyone. So the real question is why would anyone expect a general purpose health app to have a period tracker? Isn't that a pretty grotesque sense of entitlement by a small handful of women?
As for the others, come on. That's exactly what I mean by ridiculous arguments. Any photo app should have a black team member who is tasked to spend all day taking selfies and not, say, fixing bugs or adding features? If some company was dumb enough to actually do that, they'd just get criticised in other ways, because such black-testing jobs would be menial low wage jobs, not highly paid and respected software engineering positions. Some of those examples aren't even oversights, like Apple's straightforward prioritization decisions or the fact that Google Translate uses gendered language when translating languages that use genders pervasively. They're just stuff a small minority of activists have chosen to get faux-offended over. And the few that remain are clearly not caused by lack of diversity awareness given you chose to cite Google Home (I'll take your word for it on the stat), a product from one of the companies most visibly committed to filling the ranks with women. They even hired a black female AI ethics researcher, so obviously it's not lack of diversity that caused the training set problems.
In other words none of the examples you cite have anything to do with "diversity" and cannot, because as you admit, you have no idea what the demographics of those teams is. You're just assuming that they must be all made up of un-caring men who never think about others, which is exactly the sexist assumption underlying all identity politics that I highlighted!
Periods are relevant to a "small handful" of women? Have you discussed your thinking with any women?
Is it a "pretty grotesque" sense of entitlement at work when a man looks for a urinal in a public building? Or when a disabled person looks for the wheelchair ramp? These things have half utility at best by your "obvious metric".
Take this further: imagine architecture firms were staffed mostly (80%+) by women. They keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies), they don't provide urinals and so on.
Is it a wild assumption that having more men – or, god, "experts in catering to men (who might be men but also women)" - on their teams would help address these repeated own goals? Or do we need to spend years getting the data that shows us the real, mysterious, non-political underlying cause of this gender bias in buildings?
Is it a "pretty grotesque" sense of entitlement at work when a man looks for a urinal in a public building? Or when a disabled person looks for the wheelchair ramp? These things have half utility at best by your "obvious metric".
Take this further: imagine architecture firms were staffed mostly (80%+) by women. They keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies), they don't provide urinals and so on.
Is it a wild assumption that having more men – or, god, "experts in catering to men (who might be men but also women)" - on their teams would help address these repeated own goals? Or do we need to spend years getting the data that shows us the real, mysterious, non-political underlying cause of this gender bias in buildings?
It seems to me that buildings and medicine and cars and gym equipment and everything, need to be usability tested on all groups of people: short, tall, men, women, black, white, thin, fat, old, young, wheelchair, blind, deaf.
But I don't think all those groups of people need to take part in the construction work.
It'd be nice with more diversity in tech. So please don't misunderstand. I just think that there are other better examples of how diversity is good.
(Usability testing: Testing early prototypes I suppose -- it's not that easy to redo, say, a car, once it's in production.)
> keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies),
That thought makes me feel upset! (Although I'm not a human. But I am tall) Thanks for a good example
But I don't think all those groups of people need to take part in the construction work.
It'd be nice with more diversity in tech. So please don't misunderstand. I just think that there are other better examples of how diversity is good.
(Usability testing: Testing early prototypes I suppose -- it's not that easy to redo, say, a car, once it's in production.)
> keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies),
That thought makes me feel upset! (Although I'm not a human. But I am tall) Thanks for a good example
I feel like you're deliberately mis-interpreting me. It's a small number of women who kick up a big fuss on Twitter about the choices of Apple's PM team.
[deleted]
“Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.” - this is such a great line and very easy to forget.
> You are hired to build product
When making a product, have you ever given your feedback on it? Or are you just a "warm chair" churning out code that was instructed to you?
When making a product, have you ever given your feedback on it? Or are you just a "warm chair" churning out code that was instructed to you?
>Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.
Absolutely, but so is treating them as individuals.
Absolutely, but so is treating them as individuals.
> Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act.
Unwanted by whom?
Unwanted by whom?
By most people. You know, non-activists. We just want to come to work, do our jobs, hang out with other people passionate about what they do. Just enjoy this time and not engage in political activism. Is this too much to ask?
In this case, I was referring specifically to the policy mentioned in the article.
But it’s a valid question more broadly as well, and some of the other answers have been dismissive.
In general it is unwanted by people who prefer to be treated (and to treat others) as individuals rather than group members. People who want to interact with others based on individual qualities and merits, irrespective of group associations (especially immutable characteristics like height, skin colour, hair colour, etc).
I believe this (for now) still represents the majority of people in the US, and probably in some other countries as well.
But it’s a valid question more broadly as well, and some of the other answers have been dismissive.
In general it is unwanted by people who prefer to be treated (and to treat others) as individuals rather than group members. People who want to interact with others based on individual qualities and merits, irrespective of group associations (especially immutable characteristics like height, skin colour, hair colour, etc).
I believe this (for now) still represents the majority of people in the US, and probably in some other countries as well.
> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
I don't understand why would any company want employees to openly discuss "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" This is a terrible question for any specific company to answer. Calculate the average wage of male and female employees? Very likely it won't be equal. And run regression to control different variables (experiences, skills)? If this is not inviting unnecessary internal fight, I can't think of anything else. Not any sane person would want to do this its own company.
"are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" Same spirit, if you don't believe it, nobody can prove it.
"what problems does our company sole, and for whom?" not sure what's the point here.
I don't understand why would any company want employees to openly discuss "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" This is a terrible question for any specific company to answer. Calculate the average wage of male and female employees? Very likely it won't be equal. And run regression to control different variables (experiences, skills)? If this is not inviting unnecessary internal fight, I can't think of anything else. Not any sane person would want to do this its own company.
"are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" Same spirit, if you don't believe it, nobody can prove it.
"what problems does our company sole, and for whom?" not sure what's the point here.
I don't understand why would any company want to openly discuss...
That's the point; companies don't want to discuss it but oppressed employees do.
That's the point; companies don't want to discuss it but oppressed employees do.
I think a problem is that people don't want to discuss these subjects. They want to tell other people about the problems. This creates an atmosphere where, if you have the correct opinions, you are free to lecture ad nauseam, and if you do not then you must keep your ideas a secret on penalty of ignominious and instant termination.
[deleted]
Even salary between men at the same level may not be same. there are too many variables.
Sounds just as dumb as when Hacker News banned "politics" for a period, and people were discouraged from posting EFF blog posts and the like, because "politics" is an impressively vague word.
Politics is life, it doesn't have to be toxic.
Politics is life, it doesn't have to be toxic.
In my experience, when people say "I don't want politics at work", what they mean is they don't want what you'd call toxic politics. For example, I consider my workplace generally apolitical despite our large and active DEI committees, because they consistently frame their work in positive terms: lots of "here's how we can make people happier and more successful!", occasional "suchandsuch was a tragedy and we hope to work towards a better future", nothing in the vein of "X group is bad" or "Y politician must be defeated".
There's political activism that's related to your employment/career, and then there's political activism unrelated to your employment/career.
Discussing career related political activism at work - such as unionization, or fair pay, because it actively affects you in the workplace - is fine to me.
However, woke politics, like gender equality, abortion, or some other trending topic that is unrelated to your workplace, should be discouraged. Things like that are more akin to religion - it's private, and should be kept off the workplace. Do it in your own private time, with people who also want to do it in their private time.
Discussing career related political activism at work - such as unionization, or fair pay, because it actively affects you in the workplace - is fine to me.
However, woke politics, like gender equality, abortion, or some other trending topic that is unrelated to your workplace, should be discouraged. Things like that are more akin to religion - it's private, and should be kept off the workplace. Do it in your own private time, with people who also want to do it in their private time.
Gender equality is the law of the land, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a "woke" topic.
Eh, feels pretty different.
HN’s ban was intentionally a short term reboot/cooldown, during a particularly hot time - not a broad and indefinite ban.
Society is hard. I think it’s good to experiment, and when you’re explicit about a timeline, it seems like the stakes are reasonable.
HN’s ban was intentionally a short term reboot/cooldown, during a particularly hot time - not a broad and indefinite ban.
Society is hard. I think it’s good to experiment, and when you’re explicit about a timeline, it seems like the stakes are reasonable.
Starting a comment with "sounds dumb" isn't a great way to make your case that "it doesn't have to be toxic".
> I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt
I'm not, especially as the post then moves straight into dissolving the DEI committee and moving its responsibilities to HR.
I'm not, especially as the post then moves straight into dissolving the DEI committee and moving its responsibilities to HR.
That is a net benefit to the company and employees. The DEI committees I've seen are filled with some of the most viciously aggressive people. It's simply not possible to have a conversation with them about these issues that doesn't start with "you're right, I'll shut up and listen to you tell us how we should fix things."
They moved it back to an employee who cares and was doing a good job without being a toxic coworker. That seems good for future hires as well as current employees of all kinds.
Seems pretty clear to me that they mean general political discussions and not those that relate to the company. Imagine being on a team where there are differing opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it keeps getting brought up in threads? You think that team is going to gel?
Hmm, my jury is out on all of this, but you raise a good point. I was in exactly that position where I had to work closely with someone who I knew had strongly differing opinions to me on Israel/Palestine.
I'm not sure if it was an unspoken agreement or just lucky, but we made damned sure not to bring it up at work ... and we managed to work effectively together.
My gut here is that the founders just botched the delivery of these policies, but I'll keep thinking about it.
I'm not sure if it was an unspoken agreement or just lucky, but we made damned sure not to bring it up at work ... and we managed to work effectively together.
My gut here is that the founders just botched the delivery of these policies, but I'll keep thinking about it.
Unfortunately, I took their announcement at face value but looks like from this article, that their intent was to eliminate company criticism theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy
I appreciate this. I think often we will frame things in a negating way, which doesn't end up working that well. I find "don't be political" as telling me to not touch something...I end up wanting to touch it. Whereas "keep channels civil and focused on work" tells me what the goal is and helps me recenter on that when I stray. Because I think the goal is not to be "not political" but really to "be civil and focused" as you mentioned.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I suspect that this represents a practical consolidation of power by leadership in tech. While you can't come out and say "hey, we want to corner the market in white male nerds", you can say things like "Mean people suck, why can't we all just get along, no politics on slack, we're good right?"
Think of it as the tech-liberal backlash. Tech has been wrestling with representation and diversity for a while now, indeed more visibly than many industries, and some limited progress has been made, maybe not as much in raw numbers than in qualitative stuff like less-hostile workplaces. But it is far from the _worst_ industry for diversity.
Meanwhile, it gets harder and harder to hire engineers, and the dominant class isn't going away anytime soon. If you can figure out how to signal to them that "hey, Basecamp/Coinbase/MyCo is a place you can just be you and chat about games and gear without worrisome questions about equal pay" then you potentially achieve a short-term recruiting advantage.
I say "short-term" because of course, it's short-sighted. But worse, it's cynical, as it wants to halt the minimal progress that has been made behind a smokescreen of civility and fairness. And given that it's being openly pushed by white male leadership, it's fully reactionary, and white-male supremacist. It's a harsh term to use but we haven't really uncovered a more accurate one.
Think of it as the tech-liberal backlash. Tech has been wrestling with representation and diversity for a while now, indeed more visibly than many industries, and some limited progress has been made, maybe not as much in raw numbers than in qualitative stuff like less-hostile workplaces. But it is far from the _worst_ industry for diversity.
Meanwhile, it gets harder and harder to hire engineers, and the dominant class isn't going away anytime soon. If you can figure out how to signal to them that "hey, Basecamp/Coinbase/MyCo is a place you can just be you and chat about games and gear without worrisome questions about equal pay" then you potentially achieve a short-term recruiting advantage.
I say "short-term" because of course, it's short-sighted. But worse, it's cynical, as it wants to halt the minimal progress that has been made behind a smokescreen of civility and fairness. And given that it's being openly pushed by white male leadership, it's fully reactionary, and white-male supremacist. It's a harsh term to use but we haven't really uncovered a more accurate one.
Not everything is racially motivated. They are just making business decisions in a small business. The whole reason they are doing it is probably ridiculous and cynical takes like this.
It doesn't have to have a particular animus to have the effect.
The question is, why make a big blog post about it in the first place? They can't claim innocence, since they followed Brian Armstrong pretty much to the letter, and have the walkouts to boot. So we can assume the attention was calculated.
Just look at how many posts on HN are now like "I want to work there!" Recruitment signalling accomplished.
The backlash is real, and to me the interesting part is it's semi-liberal tech dudes leading the charge.
BTW do you mean to say that bringing up issues of equal pay justify overt censorship as a "business decision"? Just asking because that was the issue I mentioned above.
The question is, why make a big blog post about it in the first place? They can't claim innocence, since they followed Brian Armstrong pretty much to the letter, and have the walkouts to boot. So we can assume the attention was calculated.
Just look at how many posts on HN are now like "I want to work there!" Recruitment signalling accomplished.
The backlash is real, and to me the interesting part is it's semi-liberal tech dudes leading the charge.
BTW do you mean to say that bringing up issues of equal pay justify overt censorship as a "business decision"? Just asking because that was the issue I mentioned above.
I disagree. Discussions about diversity and equality are absolutely political debate. It's even boringly trending I must say.
It's barely a 30seconds discussion between founders, not a company-wide debate. You follow it up with a yearly report on actual diversity vs real world distribution. That is, if you're big enough a company to be compared to it.
For example: if you have zero women in tech, there is a problem, and you have people to remove from recruiting roles. If you're close-ish to the median of your recruiting pool, you're fine. What need do you have for ceaseless internal discussions about it?
It's barely a 30seconds discussion between founders, not a company-wide debate. You follow it up with a yearly report on actual diversity vs real world distribution. That is, if you're big enough a company to be compared to it.
For example: if you have zero women in tech, there is a problem, and you have people to remove from recruiting roles. If you're close-ish to the median of your recruiting pool, you're fine. What need do you have for ceaseless internal discussions about it?
Very interesting - the Basecamp statement addresses both discussions about politics broadly, and discussions about internal company policies related to diversity, ethics, and inclusion. In fact, it changes the power structures around those to make them more top-down. It seems a bit disingenuous to lump these changes in with the first kind.
> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
Whilst this is reasonable and well-intentioned, the unfortunate truth is that wokeness is used as tactic for gaining power. And in a company power struggles are bad for the company.
Whilst this is reasonable and well-intentioned, the unfortunate truth is that wokeness is used as tactic for gaining power. And in a company power struggles are bad for the company.
Forget banning politics at work -- that's obviously such a good idea that it should be considered an assumption. This post from chipotle_coyote makes a good argument for banning Slack at work.
[deleted]
I find the boundaries which the "On Politics At Work" blog sets to be very narrow and centered around what that the author thinks is the most pressing issue. The author names 4 points out of which 3 are about equality on the workfloor and one vague one about "what problems do we solve?".
I find it odd that no one even speaks about questions like: "Is this company a net-win for society? Are we perhaps making the world a worse place?". For example is it not important if you work at Uber to discuss how far "disrupting" is allowed to go? When does "disrupting" become eroding workclass rights? Shouldn't you discuss if it is ethical to get a large group of people to work below minimum wage? Or in case of Apple if it is acceptable that the supply chain becomes time and again "contaminated" with suppliers who use forced labour?
I find it odd that no one even speaks about questions like: "Is this company a net-win for society? Are we perhaps making the world a worse place?". For example is it not important if you work at Uber to discuss how far "disrupting" is allowed to go? When does "disrupting" become eroding workclass rights? Shouldn't you discuss if it is ethical to get a large group of people to work below minimum wage? Or in case of Apple if it is acceptable that the supply chain becomes time and again "contaminated" with suppliers who use forced labour?
For what it's worth, this was hastily written as I was thinking about what was happening at Basecamp. I would agree that it's very important to ask the questions you're asking-- that's why I added the final bullet. It wasn't the set of issues that were top of mind for me in the context of what was happening at BC, but I think they are critical, political questions that companies should ask.
> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
Because if you have data(like Google had) that women are paid more for same skillset or try to argue that the company is focusing too much on diversity at the expense of talent, do you think it doesn't count as politics. Honest question, I don't have strong opinion in these topics, but I know people who have.
Because if you have data(like Google had) that women are paid more for same skillset or try to argue that the company is focusing too much on diversity at the expense of talent, do you think it doesn't count as politics. Honest question, I don't have strong opinion in these topics, but I know people who have.
>But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
These are questions for people at work whose job description involves hiring, payroll, and the corporate charter. These aren't collective questions to be debated and answered by employees whose jobs are completely unrelated. If, for example, you are hired to be a programmer, then your job is to program - that's all. Its not up to you to decide what the company's mission should be, or, "whose problems we are trying to solve". While a programmer is debating these philosophical and political questions with other programmers, they aren't doing the job they were hired to do - program. Certainly if the ownership of a company decides that they want to hire people to not only program, but also opine on their political and moral beliefs, that is their right. But is also their right to decide they don't want to pay people they hire to opine and debate during work hours on issues that have no direct relevance to the job they were hired to do. Just as it is your right to refuse to accept a job at a company that hires you to exclusively do a job without bringing your political baggage into the workplace.
These are questions for people at work whose job description involves hiring, payroll, and the corporate charter. These aren't collective questions to be debated and answered by employees whose jobs are completely unrelated. If, for example, you are hired to be a programmer, then your job is to program - that's all. Its not up to you to decide what the company's mission should be, or, "whose problems we are trying to solve". While a programmer is debating these philosophical and political questions with other programmers, they aren't doing the job they were hired to do - program. Certainly if the ownership of a company decides that they want to hire people to not only program, but also opine on their political and moral beliefs, that is their right. But is also their right to decide they don't want to pay people they hire to opine and debate during work hours on issues that have no direct relevance to the job they were hired to do. Just as it is your right to refuse to accept a job at a company that hires you to exclusively do a job without bringing your political baggage into the workplace.
"Are we hiring diverse people I want to work with" is a question relevant to everyone, because it falls under workplace conditions, which is something you're not allowed to prevent employees from discussing.
Also, we're talking about tech workers who get stock compensation, right? They literally own (part of) the company.
Also, we're talking about tech workers who get stock compensation, right? They literally own (part of) the company.
If you don't like the people in a company, don't take a job there. Astounding to me that it is controversial that people who are hired to do a job should be spending their time doing the job they are paid to do instead of debating with other employees about what their employers should be doing. I don't see anyone suggesting that employees can't contact HR, or write letters to those whose actual job it is to making hiring decisions, or have discussions with the coworkers on their own time. If you are a shareholder, and you want to have input on how the company is run, there are numerous avenues to do so. The sense of entitlement is crazy.
> If you don't like the people in a company, don't take a job there.
What if you do like them and so you want more of them? Maintaining culture doesn't happen on its own.
Note everyone's job is making hiring decisions, most companies don't have central hiring like Google does (and do they really?).
What if you do like them and so you want more of them? Maintaining culture doesn't happen on its own.
Note everyone's job is making hiring decisions, most companies don't have central hiring like Google does (and do they really?).
Minor nit, but afaik Basecamp does not include any sort of stock or equity as part of its compensation package.
This is true but I felt like this subthread was generalizing back to the rest of the industry. It looks like they're doing profit sharing as an alternative, which does make you feel responsible for the company doing well, but doesn't give you power to affect it in the same way.
There will now be signs in the break room:
NO GOSSIP
NO POLITICS
YOU WERE NOT HIRED TO HAVE OPINIONS OF YOU OWN
JUST CODE
NO GOSSIP
NO POLITICS
YOU WERE NOT HIRED TO HAVE OPINIONS OF YOU OWN
JUST CODE
you're not wrong. it's just not explicitly stated, but an implicit understanding that your job is to <do the thing hired for>.
See what happens if you spend more than any trivial time on the job doing something else other than what you were hired for!
See what happens if you spend more than any trivial time on the job doing something else other than what you were hired for!
But you are making a separate contention now: that employees are spent considerable company time on discussions of politics. If they were, up till now it was with the endorsement of their managers.
The Basecamp policy is now that you can't discuss politics (or anything controversial) on any company platform, including e.g. in the break room, on the discord chat or whatever on your commute, out of office hours, etc. And they are officially removing any feedback mechanisms from company structures, figuratively salting the earth to prevent anyone discussing anything.
Obviously everyone could move to a platform in the cloud for discussions, but the writing is on the wall.
While this may well be a gross violation of labour laws, US employee rights are so weak it doesn't matter: say anything and you're canned.
The Basecamp policy is now that you can't discuss politics (or anything controversial) on any company platform, including e.g. in the break room, on the discord chat or whatever on your commute, out of office hours, etc. And they are officially removing any feedback mechanisms from company structures, figuratively salting the earth to prevent anyone discussing anything.
Obviously everyone could move to a platform in the cloud for discussions, but the writing is on the wall.
While this may well be a gross violation of labour laws, US employee rights are so weak it doesn't matter: say anything and you're canned.
Just as you ask for the right to be political on work premises and channels, they ask for the right to be apolitical on those same places. There are people on both sides of the fence. Which right is more important and how do we choose which one to disregard. There will always be disagreement between people and it should be practically impossible to create a society of perfect harmony. In order for both sides to at least tolerate each other's existence you need to create autonomous zones for each one. A company which doesn't want political involvement other than what is directly related to its business is exactly that. If you want to be politically active during working hours, then you don't fit into this company and there is no one stopping you from working for another one which is politically active or starting one yourself. People work better with people with the same core values. Only when both choices remain you actually have freedom and some semblance of tolerance. Remove either option and all you get is strife. Obviously some zones are "banned", like "I would like to kill people" and "I would like to rape people", because we all(or at least most ) agree this is not OK. However, I really hope all(or at least most) people have not gotten to the point where being apolitical is actually not OK and so is its zone.
Sounds awesome.
Exactly. I don't understand people who don't get this.
The more general problem is the same words can be interpreted differently by different people. On the internet, given a large enough audience, every interpretation with every possible emphasis will be brought out.
Say "keep company Slack channels civil and focused on work."
You have been canceled for "tone policing".
You have been canceled for "tone policing".
In a follow-up on DHH's blog[0], he says:
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
I would read this to mean that political issues that are tied to business decisions (like pay equality and recruiting practices) are in-bounds for discussion at work.
[0]: https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
I would read this to mean that political issues that are tied to business decisions (like pay equality and recruiting practices) are in-bounds for discussion at work.
[0]: https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
> I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt
It's not clear that they deserve the benefit of the doubt, if we are to believe Casey Newton's article, "What really happened at BaseCamp":
> Employees say the founders’ memos unfairly depicted their workplace as being riven by partisan politics, when in fact the main source of the discussion had always been Basecamp itself.
> “At least in my experience, it has always been centered on what is happening at Basecamp,” said one employee — who, like most of those I spoke with today, requested anonymity so as to freely discuss internal deliberations. “What is being done at Basecamp? What is being said at Basecamp? And how it is affecting individuals? It has never been big political discussions, like ‘the postal service should be disbanded,’ or ‘I don’t like Amy Klobuchar.’
> Interviews with a half-dozen Basecamp employees over the past day paint a portrait of a company where workers sought to advance Basecamp’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by having sensitive discussions about the company’s own failures. After months of fraught conversations, Fried and his co-founder, David Heinemeier Hansson moved to shut those conversations down.
https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec...
EDIT: formatting
It's not clear that they deserve the benefit of the doubt, if we are to believe Casey Newton's article, "What really happened at BaseCamp":
> Employees say the founders’ memos unfairly depicted their workplace as being riven by partisan politics, when in fact the main source of the discussion had always been Basecamp itself.
> “At least in my experience, it has always been centered on what is happening at Basecamp,” said one employee — who, like most of those I spoke with today, requested anonymity so as to freely discuss internal deliberations. “What is being done at Basecamp? What is being said at Basecamp? And how it is affecting individuals? It has never been big political discussions, like ‘the postal service should be disbanded,’ or ‘I don’t like Amy Klobuchar.’
> Interviews with a half-dozen Basecamp employees over the past day paint a portrait of a company where workers sought to advance Basecamp’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by having sensitive discussions about the company’s own failures. After months of fraught conversations, Fried and his co-founder, David Heinemeier Hansson moved to shut those conversations down.
https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec...
EDIT: formatting
I'm glad you enjoyed my post.
Well put...
> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work?
Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyone who drifts from that into the opposing side will be reprimanded, scarred for their remaining tenure at the company, and/or fired. Good luck objecting to your company having N number of positions literally reserved for only certain races. Source: company X recruiter.
Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyone who drifts from that into the opposing side will be reprimanded, scarred for their remaining tenure at the company, and/or fired. Good luck objecting to your company having N number of positions literally reserved for only certain races. Source: company X recruiter.
What the hell is water?
People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.
People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.
I think this is perhaps true in a different way than you mean it: politics has such a pervasive effect on people's lives that it is nearly impossible to remain resolutely neutral about everything (and going out of your way to try to do so anyway will come to be seen as its own stance).
No doubt you would be offended and angry if your CEO instituted a policy of workplace secularism, that extended to no career progression if you were a churchgoer. Or if important people commented on how smelly you were, and everyone laughed about Mr Stinker and your funny food. Banks wouldn't lend you money for a house in the nice part of town, because they all knew you were a snollygoster and they didn't want your kind at the local school.
You'd probably be angry at their prejudices. But I'm sure you'd understand, because groupthink is bad.
You'd probably be angry at their prejudices. But I'm sure you'd understand, because groupthink is bad.
And you'd be completely fine with being passed over for a job because there is a quota for pink people and you're not pink? One can object to bad solutions to a problem without denying the problem itself exists. It's exactly the stifling of these types of discussions to real problems that's the issue. Any suggestion of alternatives or pointing out problems with existing practices, and you get labeled a bigot.
You understand that white people are literally pink right?
And there is an effective white guy target at many workplaces: all but one. People choose other people like themselves.
The preposterous nature of your contention is that I would be passed over for being too white? Well, I would simply take one of the many other jobs my strategic class and race positioning allows me to take.
And there is an effective white guy target at many workplaces: all but one. People choose other people like themselves.
The preposterous nature of your contention is that I would be passed over for being too white? Well, I would simply take one of the many other jobs my strategic class and race positioning allows me to take.
The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.
How about all the qualified applicants that Harvard rejects in favor of legacy and athletic admits? And why hasn’t Harvard’s enrollment increased in step with its endowment?
Since you wrote the "pink" analogy and this post too, I can respond here:
The issue of anti-asian quotas at major american universities is absolutely a legitimate one that needs addressing.
Here's why it's a little bit more complicated than just: "Let's just remove all criteria for university admission besides high scores. That won't discriminate against asians and be a true meritocracy".
Because then, the amount of poor people getting into university would absolutely plummet, and the socioeconomic divide between the classes in the US would only grow further. Being able to do well on tests is a privilige based on having time to study, the money for tutors, and other factors. There is obviously a pure raw talent aspect, and the geniuses of the world might get in regardless of their race or poverty level. But there is not enough geniuses in the world. Most University student bodies are average and slightly above average humans. There has to be some way to promote balance in the student body - racially, economically, culturally. And right now, Asians are disproportionately pay that burden. It should be worked on, and improved.
But you should in no way conflate this problem with university admissions with "pink quotas" for hiring diverse groups of talent. The companies that are the most promoting the idea of improving their diversity through initiatives are the largest and richest tech companies. They do so not just because it's beneficial to the bottom line, but also because they can AFFORD to be choosy.
Joe Blow Software Co and Fizz Buzz Sandwiches aren't putting in diversity goals in their hiring strategy. They wait for people to come in to apply for jobs, and hope that they can get someone to cover a shift before the end of the week that isn't a drug addict.
Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft do it because they know that on any given day for any given position they're going to get 100 resumes, and they have what can only be described as a "loosely scientific" approach to weaning them out to 40 that can be phone screened, 5 that will come onsite, and 1 that will be hired. (Numbers are made up but are close to the real ratios).
Everything from the phone screen onward is data driven, meticulous, and kept to a strict quality bar. But the intake process has a lot of randomness, a lot of flexibility, and THAT is where the companies focus to say "Why don't we actually try to interview more women, and minorities for a change. What's the worst that can happen? We phone screen 50 people instead of 40, and so our "onsite efficiency ratio" drops from 12% to 10%.
There is no quota. There are goals to improve these numbers. But there is no quota in the professional world.
The issue of anti-asian quotas at major american universities is absolutely a legitimate one that needs addressing.
Here's why it's a little bit more complicated than just: "Let's just remove all criteria for university admission besides high scores. That won't discriminate against asians and be a true meritocracy".
Because then, the amount of poor people getting into university would absolutely plummet, and the socioeconomic divide between the classes in the US would only grow further. Being able to do well on tests is a privilige based on having time to study, the money for tutors, and other factors. There is obviously a pure raw talent aspect, and the geniuses of the world might get in regardless of their race or poverty level. But there is not enough geniuses in the world. Most University student bodies are average and slightly above average humans. There has to be some way to promote balance in the student body - racially, economically, culturally. And right now, Asians are disproportionately pay that burden. It should be worked on, and improved.
But you should in no way conflate this problem with university admissions with "pink quotas" for hiring diverse groups of talent. The companies that are the most promoting the idea of improving their diversity through initiatives are the largest and richest tech companies. They do so not just because it's beneficial to the bottom line, but also because they can AFFORD to be choosy.
Joe Blow Software Co and Fizz Buzz Sandwiches aren't putting in diversity goals in their hiring strategy. They wait for people to come in to apply for jobs, and hope that they can get someone to cover a shift before the end of the week that isn't a drug addict.
Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft do it because they know that on any given day for any given position they're going to get 100 resumes, and they have what can only be described as a "loosely scientific" approach to weaning them out to 40 that can be phone screened, 5 that will come onsite, and 1 that will be hired. (Numbers are made up but are close to the real ratios).
Everything from the phone screen onward is data driven, meticulous, and kept to a strict quality bar. But the intake process has a lot of randomness, a lot of flexibility, and THAT is where the companies focus to say "Why don't we actually try to interview more women, and minorities for a change. What's the worst that can happen? We phone screen 50 people instead of 40, and so our "onsite efficiency ratio" drops from 12% to 10%.
There is no quota. There are goals to improve these numbers. But there is no quota in the professional world.
To be clear I'm not arguing for or against the merits of any particular policy. I continued with the quota example because that's what started this branch of the thread. I agree the issue is complex, and my one sentence response doesn't do it justice at all.
My point is more that, it should be ok to question current practices; both those propagating societal issues, and those attempting to solve them. Currently on many topics, even slightly questioning the current remedy risks getting one labeled negatively.
My point is more that, it should be ok to question current practices; both those propagating societal issues, and those attempting to solve them. Currently on many topics, even slightly questioning the current remedy risks getting one labeled negatively.
> There is no quota. There are goals to improve these numbers. But there is no quota in the professional world.
You're simply misinformed on this. I have direct primary source information from recruiting personnel in "Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft" that there are significant specific quota'd positions. These programs leaking to non-woke press is going to be an outrage.
You're simply misinformed on this. I have direct primary source information from recruiting personnel in "Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft" that there are significant specific quota'd positions. These programs leaking to non-woke press is going to be an outrage.
Goals != Quotas.
This is frequently misunderstood by people outside these companies (and frequently by people inside them too without integrity).
You're supposed to meet goals without compromising on integrity or quality. e.g. you can't ship buggy messes.
And you can't hire substandard employees. There are mechanisms ("bar raisers") in place to do this, at least at Amazon.
I suppose I can't speak for Google, Facebook, or Microsoft. But I'm pretty sure that it's exactly the same and what you're getting is a game of broken telephone where an ambitious goal in a high stakes environment gets re-interpreted as a quota.
BTW, you're supposed to fail ~20-30% of your goals at Amazon, or you didn't set ambitious-enough ones.
This is frequently misunderstood by people outside these companies (and frequently by people inside them too without integrity).
You're supposed to meet goals without compromising on integrity or quality. e.g. you can't ship buggy messes.
And you can't hire substandard employees. There are mechanisms ("bar raisers") in place to do this, at least at Amazon.
I suppose I can't speak for Google, Facebook, or Microsoft. But I'm pretty sure that it's exactly the same and what you're getting is a game of broken telephone where an ambitious goal in a high stakes environment gets re-interpreted as a quota.
BTW, you're supposed to fail ~20-30% of your goals at Amazon, or you didn't set ambitious-enough ones.
You're suggesting I'm playing broken telephone game, yet you're the one extrapolating your company's experience to all the other hundreds.
I can't speak for Amazon's policies. But there are companies that have headcount for N people, and N/X slots will be for Y identity.
Then you have companies like Twitter that literally say on their hiring boards:
"Our vision for the future is clear.
50%.
At least half of our global workforce will be women.
25%
At least a quarter of our US workforce will be under-represented minorities."[0]
Key word "will", not "would like." How do you interpret that as a goal as opposed to a clear quota?
Honestly I can't wrap my head around how Twitter believes 45% men / 55% women is the ideal and 55% men / 45% women would be unacceptable.
[0]https://careers.twitter.com/en/diversity.html
Then you have companies like Twitter that literally say on their hiring boards:
"Our vision for the future is clear.
50%.
At least half of our global workforce will be women.
25%
At least a quarter of our US workforce will be under-represented minorities."[0]
Key word "will", not "would like." How do you interpret that as a goal as opposed to a clear quota?
Honestly I can't wrap my head around how Twitter believes 45% men / 55% women is the ideal and 55% men / 45% women would be unacceptable.
[0]https://careers.twitter.com/en/diversity.html
Most of the large tech companies have similar hiring policies. It’s not unreasonable to think what goes at Amazon is fairly similar to what goes on at Apple, Google, etc. There’s a reason the FAANG acronym exists.
Also, if your takeaway from “at least half the employees will be women” as a goal, at a time when the breakdown is 43% women, and has been a lot lower for the past decade, is that “55% women is ok but 55% men is not”, it’s pretty obvious you’re arguing in bad faith.
It’s pretty obvious that’s a goal that at least half the workforce will be women in fewer than 4 years. What that actually means is that Twitter is likely gonna barely cross the 50% mark, if they are even gonna meet it.
The reality is that the moment they hit 50% they will ease off on the effort to recruit more women than men, which, thanks to structural factors that have led to the current unbalanced distribution of employees, will only make their hiring easier ans allow them to continue hiring equitably.
Also, if your takeaway from “at least half the employees will be women” as a goal, at a time when the breakdown is 43% women, and has been a lot lower for the past decade, is that “55% women is ok but 55% men is not”, it’s pretty obvious you’re arguing in bad faith.
It’s pretty obvious that’s a goal that at least half the workforce will be women in fewer than 4 years. What that actually means is that Twitter is likely gonna barely cross the 50% mark, if they are even gonna meet it.
The reality is that the moment they hit 50% they will ease off on the effort to recruit more women than men, which, thanks to structural factors that have led to the current unbalanced distribution of employees, will only make their hiring easier ans allow them to continue hiring equitably.
They write "Our vision for the future is clear ...",
But not "Our future is clear, there will be ...".
There is a big difference.
> How do you interpret that as a goal as opposed to a clear quota?
They explicitly say it's a vision (goal).
(Still, goals and monetary incentives can have the same effect, it seems, looking at what thu2111 wrote nearby, about Google.)
But not "Our future is clear, there will be ...".
There is a big difference.
> How do you interpret that as a goal as opposed to a clear quota?
They explicitly say it's a vision (goal).
(Still, goals and monetary incentives can have the same effect, it seems, looking at what thu2111 wrote nearby, about Google.)
I worked at Google and was interviewing twice a week for years. They had "goals" then too. They made the same claims, that it wouldn't affect employee quality, and I believed it at first.
But the goals were incentivised with money and what happens when you do that? The system was bent in all sorts of creative but illegitimate ways to try and get there. Women would fail interviews and be passed to the next stages anyway. They were given the best interviewers that were preferred by the hiring committees, and men who were mis-interviewed were simply dropped on the floor instead of re-doing the process or filtering the bad interviewers out. I was told they were doing this by the recruiters themselves. They organised hiring events from which men were forbidden from taking part. And so on.
More problematically post-hiring there were no real controls, so women were unfireable. Women who caused so much trouble their team rejected them weren't fired like the men were, but rather were endlessly moved around between teams. Hiring isn't perfect so if you filter out the bad men and leave the bad women, it's the same as lowering the bar for women - the bar lowering just happens at a slightly different place.
But that was some years ago. Tech firms became much more extreme since then. A recruiter leaked YouTube's instructions to do biased hiring previously, and nothing happened. Firms have been given carte blance to discriminate against men by western governments, they're constantly attacked by an activist class who insist they do so - what do you think happens? Of course they are discriminating. How else could they achieve their goals? "Encouragement" is a fantasy, there aren't huge pools of women who are inexplicably refusing to apply to major tech firms.
But the goals were incentivised with money and what happens when you do that? The system was bent in all sorts of creative but illegitimate ways to try and get there. Women would fail interviews and be passed to the next stages anyway. They were given the best interviewers that were preferred by the hiring committees, and men who were mis-interviewed were simply dropped on the floor instead of re-doing the process or filtering the bad interviewers out. I was told they were doing this by the recruiters themselves. They organised hiring events from which men were forbidden from taking part. And so on.
More problematically post-hiring there were no real controls, so women were unfireable. Women who caused so much trouble their team rejected them weren't fired like the men were, but rather were endlessly moved around between teams. Hiring isn't perfect so if you filter out the bad men and leave the bad women, it's the same as lowering the bar for women - the bar lowering just happens at a slightly different place.
But that was some years ago. Tech firms became much more extreme since then. A recruiter leaked YouTube's instructions to do biased hiring previously, and nothing happened. Firms have been given carte blance to discriminate against men by western governments, they're constantly attacked by an activist class who insist they do so - what do you think happens? Of course they are discriminating. How else could they achieve their goals? "Encouragement" is a fantasy, there aren't huge pools of women who are inexplicably refusing to apply to major tech firms.
You said a lot of things in your first 2 paragraphs but at no point did you say "And then we hired women at a lower bar than we hired men"
"Women would fail interviews and be passed to the next stages anyway." sounds like it but the next stage isn't an offer - it's the onsite interview. If Google's process is anything like Amazon's, there is a screen-OUT stage and a screen-IN stage.
The screen out stage is primarily there to make sure not to waste the time of the full onsite interview loop. It's highly subjective and you are SUPPOSED to err on the side of letting people go through. You're SUPPOSED to have the most senior engineers on the team do these screens. But people frequently don't. They introduce their own biases, and managers use phone screens as practice for their most junior interviews. The outcome is qualified candidates sometimes don't even get a chance to prove their worth in an onsite loop.
So is it fair that some semi-qualified man didn't get a chance to prove their worth onsite but some semi-qualified woman did? No, but there is no way to make this process truly fair at the scale that FAAMNG hires.
So long as the FINAL process is fair, that's all that you can really do and ensure you don't hire unqualified people.
> They organised hiring events from which men were forbidden from taking part. And so on.
That sounds so much more insidious than it actually is. This is no more discriminatory than Women's Only universities. Or HBCU's. Amazon also does "women's only" hiring events. They have lower hire ratios because there is a pipeline intake problem too in our whole industry. But that's okay.
> More problematically post-hiring there were no real controls, so women were unfireable. Women who caused so much trouble their team rejected them weren't fired like the men were, but rather were endlessly moved around between teams. Hiring isn't perfect so if you filter out the bad men and leave the bad women, it's the same as lowering the bar for women - the bar lowering just happens at a slightly different place.
I have serious doubts of the reality of this statement. PEOPLE are essentially unfireable. It's extremely hard to get fired from a FAAMNG company once you're in. What you describe happens to all employees (being moved between teams).
> Firms have been given carte blance to discriminate against men by western governments
Just what way are you being discriminated against or oppressed? Making it easier for women to apply does not make it HARDER for Men. All the initiatives we discussed are IN ADDITION not INSTEAD OF.
"Women would fail interviews and be passed to the next stages anyway." sounds like it but the next stage isn't an offer - it's the onsite interview. If Google's process is anything like Amazon's, there is a screen-OUT stage and a screen-IN stage.
The screen out stage is primarily there to make sure not to waste the time of the full onsite interview loop. It's highly subjective and you are SUPPOSED to err on the side of letting people go through. You're SUPPOSED to have the most senior engineers on the team do these screens. But people frequently don't. They introduce their own biases, and managers use phone screens as practice for their most junior interviews. The outcome is qualified candidates sometimes don't even get a chance to prove their worth in an onsite loop.
So is it fair that some semi-qualified man didn't get a chance to prove their worth onsite but some semi-qualified woman did? No, but there is no way to make this process truly fair at the scale that FAAMNG hires.
So long as the FINAL process is fair, that's all that you can really do and ensure you don't hire unqualified people.
> They organised hiring events from which men were forbidden from taking part. And so on.
That sounds so much more insidious than it actually is. This is no more discriminatory than Women's Only universities. Or HBCU's. Amazon also does "women's only" hiring events. They have lower hire ratios because there is a pipeline intake problem too in our whole industry. But that's okay.
> More problematically post-hiring there were no real controls, so women were unfireable. Women who caused so much trouble their team rejected them weren't fired like the men were, but rather were endlessly moved around between teams. Hiring isn't perfect so if you filter out the bad men and leave the bad women, it's the same as lowering the bar for women - the bar lowering just happens at a slightly different place.
I have serious doubts of the reality of this statement. PEOPLE are essentially unfireable. It's extremely hard to get fired from a FAAMNG company once you're in. What you describe happens to all employees (being moved between teams).
> Firms have been given carte blance to discriminate against men by western governments
Just what way are you being discriminated against or oppressed? Making it easier for women to apply does not make it HARDER for Men. All the initiatives we discussed are IN ADDITION not INSTEAD OF.
You said a lot of things in your first 2 paragraphs but at no point did you say "And then we hired women at a lower bar than we hired men"
You're interpreting this the way you want to. If given an identical interview a man would fail and the woman automatically gets interviewed more, that is bar lowering. If given identical behaviour the man is fired and the woman is promoted, that is bar lowering. What do you think the point of interviewing or firing people is? And for sure the only person who ever generated reactions in my teams of the form "how the hell did this person get hired and why aren't they fired yet", was a female engineer who was the darling of the manager's manager, another female engineer who thought getting more women into tech management was a high priority.
Now, again, that was years ago. There are plenty of people since who came forward and said yes, Google and other tech firms use quotas in hiring. Recruiters, people who would know.
So is it fair that some semi-qualified man didn't get a chance to prove their worth onsite but some semi-qualified woman did? No
It's good you admit this, because that's the core of the issue. Not if hiring can be made truly, perfectly fair (whatever definition is used), but if it's actively being made unfair by gender-biased policies. To which the answer is an absolute yes.
That sounds so much more insidious than it actually is. This is no more discriminatory than Women's Only universities
You claim it's not insidious and then say, well, this type of discrimination goes unpunished elsewhere so it's OK. That doesn't make it not insidious. It just proves the underlying argument: that our society is by this point systematically biased against men despite the theoretical existence of equality laws. Do you think male-only hiring events would be tolerated? Surely not.
I have serious doubts of the reality of this statement. PEOPLE are essentially unfireable
I understand why you might think that, but that certainly wasn't true when I was there and IMHO it clearly still isn't true. There were at least two guys who I directly worked with who got fired for being unproductive. I knew quite a few others who were put on PIPs for various reasons. Google did, maybe still does, operate a policy of "up or out" in which being fired is automatic if you don't get promoted. It was very much possible to get fired there, unless you were a woman, in which case HR would have preferred to sacrifice a goat than fire a woman. Remember, the firm had "goals" to keep the female:male ratio as high as they could, and it was explicitly phrased as a moral issue.
And of course, look at James Damore. Fired and viciously publicly attacked for spelling out the reality of the situation: these firms discriminate horrendously in favour of women and against men, and yet it's not working, that approach doesn't generate a torrent of happy women in tech. It generates angry men who, rightly, feel they're being treated unfairly for genetic reasons.
Just what way are you being discriminated against or oppressed?
I just gave you a list but maybe repetition will help:
- Men are being banned from senior executive roles.
- Men are being banned from board seats, in some parts of the world, by law.
- Men are being banned from recruiting events.
- Men are being banned from training programmes (e.g. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/bbc-defends...)
- When women make an accusation against a man, they are automatically believed and their identity is protected. The same is not true for men. Again, in many parts of the world, this principle is enshrined in law: the law itself in unequitable.
- Men who point out obvious demographic truths backed by plenty of research are fired, like "women are less interested in computers than men". If women make claims directly contradicted by plenty of research, like "women are paid less than men due to discrimination", they are praised and rewarded.
- Men who want fair treatment of other men are routinely banned from "diversity committees", e.g. https://fortune.com/2015/01/23/diversity-work/ (but I saw this at my previous employer too). That's why the concept of diversity is so widely treated with derision. They want an absolute diversity of people who all hold their extremist beliefs.
- Beyond prizes in hiring-related competitions, there are bonus pots at firms set aside exclusively for women. This has been true at least since the early 90s at Microsoft.
- Job assessment is routinely biased against white men in ways that are obviously illegal, but again, men have no protection and SJW activists are so confident about this they actively boast about it in public. Consider this quote from an interview with someone at Atlassian on their new HR policies:
"A huge component for us was de-biasing the assessment process. There’s been a lot of talk and testing on de-biasing and we worked closely with our design team to remove bias from the process. What we realized were that systems weren’t designed to be anti-racist, for example, which isn’t the same as non-racist. We wanted to be actively conscious, for example, of being anti-racist"
This sort of list could go on all day. I know you really don't want to believe that because it undermines so many other beliefs that go along with the whole package, but women are lionised in our industry, men are second class citizens and the sexist/racist discrimination that occurs is all done by people who most loudly announce themselves as "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist". One day this whole ideology will be recognised by all as the dark evil it truly is. Until that day we have to point out its hypocrisies, every day.
You're interpreting this the way you want to. If given an identical interview a man would fail and the woman automatically gets interviewed more, that is bar lowering. If given identical behaviour the man is fired and the woman is promoted, that is bar lowering. What do you think the point of interviewing or firing people is? And for sure the only person who ever generated reactions in my teams of the form "how the hell did this person get hired and why aren't they fired yet", was a female engineer who was the darling of the manager's manager, another female engineer who thought getting more women into tech management was a high priority.
Now, again, that was years ago. There are plenty of people since who came forward and said yes, Google and other tech firms use quotas in hiring. Recruiters, people who would know.
So is it fair that some semi-qualified man didn't get a chance to prove their worth onsite but some semi-qualified woman did? No
It's good you admit this, because that's the core of the issue. Not if hiring can be made truly, perfectly fair (whatever definition is used), but if it's actively being made unfair by gender-biased policies. To which the answer is an absolute yes.
That sounds so much more insidious than it actually is. This is no more discriminatory than Women's Only universities
You claim it's not insidious and then say, well, this type of discrimination goes unpunished elsewhere so it's OK. That doesn't make it not insidious. It just proves the underlying argument: that our society is by this point systematically biased against men despite the theoretical existence of equality laws. Do you think male-only hiring events would be tolerated? Surely not.
I have serious doubts of the reality of this statement. PEOPLE are essentially unfireable
I understand why you might think that, but that certainly wasn't true when I was there and IMHO it clearly still isn't true. There were at least two guys who I directly worked with who got fired for being unproductive. I knew quite a few others who were put on PIPs for various reasons. Google did, maybe still does, operate a policy of "up or out" in which being fired is automatic if you don't get promoted. It was very much possible to get fired there, unless you were a woman, in which case HR would have preferred to sacrifice a goat than fire a woman. Remember, the firm had "goals" to keep the female:male ratio as high as they could, and it was explicitly phrased as a moral issue.
And of course, look at James Damore. Fired and viciously publicly attacked for spelling out the reality of the situation: these firms discriminate horrendously in favour of women and against men, and yet it's not working, that approach doesn't generate a torrent of happy women in tech. It generates angry men who, rightly, feel they're being treated unfairly for genetic reasons.
Just what way are you being discriminated against or oppressed?
I just gave you a list but maybe repetition will help:
- Men are being banned from senior executive roles.
- Men are being banned from board seats, in some parts of the world, by law.
- Men are being banned from recruiting events.
- Men are being banned from training programmes (e.g. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/bbc-defends...)
- When women make an accusation against a man, they are automatically believed and their identity is protected. The same is not true for men. Again, in many parts of the world, this principle is enshrined in law: the law itself in unequitable.
- Men who point out obvious demographic truths backed by plenty of research are fired, like "women are less interested in computers than men". If women make claims directly contradicted by plenty of research, like "women are paid less than men due to discrimination", they are praised and rewarded.
- Men who want fair treatment of other men are routinely banned from "diversity committees", e.g. https://fortune.com/2015/01/23/diversity-work/ (but I saw this at my previous employer too). That's why the concept of diversity is so widely treated with derision. They want an absolute diversity of people who all hold their extremist beliefs.
- Beyond prizes in hiring-related competitions, there are bonus pots at firms set aside exclusively for women. This has been true at least since the early 90s at Microsoft.
- Job assessment is routinely biased against white men in ways that are obviously illegal, but again, men have no protection and SJW activists are so confident about this they actively boast about it in public. Consider this quote from an interview with someone at Atlassian on their new HR policies:
"A huge component for us was de-biasing the assessment process. There’s been a lot of talk and testing on de-biasing and we worked closely with our design team to remove bias from the process. What we realized were that systems weren’t designed to be anti-racist, for example, which isn’t the same as non-racist. We wanted to be actively conscious, for example, of being anti-racist"
This sort of list could go on all day. I know you really don't want to believe that because it undermines so many other beliefs that go along with the whole package, but women are lionised in our industry, men are second class citizens and the sexist/racist discrimination that occurs is all done by people who most loudly announce themselves as "anti-sexist" or "anti-racist". One day this whole ideology will be recognised by all as the dark evil it truly is. Until that day we have to point out its hypocrisies, every day.
Just "setting quotas" is more than slightly missing the point. You can tell HR to hire more POC for senior level positions, which is what my last job essentially did, but it doesn't actually bring new diverse talent in.
I would like to see some more information about the amount of poor people getting into universities plummeting. It’s my understanding that many of the Asian quotas are keeping poor Asians out of prestigious universities and replacing them with average upper middle class students. If you have sources, I would love to read them.
Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones?
I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.
I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.
> Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones?
Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate.
This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it.
Harvard is also discriminating against Asians because there are 'too many'. This seems quite likely but is a separate issue. The historical injustice is present, but cannot be said to have the same character. I don't think criticism of other minority AA programs is justified, but you can have your own opinion.
This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it.
Harvard is also discriminating against Asians because there are 'too many'. This seems quite likely but is a separate issue. The historical injustice is present, but cannot be said to have the same character. I don't think criticism of other minority AA programs is justified, but you can have your own opinion.
Earlier in the 20th century, that reasoning was used to limit the admissions of Jewish students. The issue was cast as their being admitted at a disproportionately large rate as compared to the general population, so corrective measures were implemented.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...
Back then, there were zero black students at Harvard. The admissions process can’t become more fair by failing to correct for the vast injustices imposed on African-Americans. Arguing that Black students are taking what rightfully belongs Asian students is just as racist as Harvard’s anti-Jewish policies.
I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and it gets rather bad.
Again, I'm not questioning your heart, but I do think that words are powerful and words are how the society group think evolves.
Again, I'm not questioning your heart, but I do think that words are powerful and words are how the society group think evolves.
This has been covered to death wrt the Harvard discrimination scandal.
Asians do (on average) score higher. Asians were discriminated against due to this.
Asians do (on average) score higher. Asians were discriminated against due to this.
As if admission into Harvard (and most other elite schools) is solely based on test scores (and even grades). Give me a break.
For reasons folks may or may not agree with, most elite schools look at a wider range of factors than just scores and grades. Does this lead to there being room for discrimination? Yes. Does it guarantee that discrimination is happening? No.
Just as a simple example, there are plenty of non-Asian folks with high scores and high grades that get rejected too, often for similar reasons — namely, being narrowly focused on academics and not even being world-class at that.
For reasons folks may or may not agree with, most elite schools look at a wider range of factors than just scores and grades. Does this lead to there being room for discrimination? Yes. Does it guarantee that discrimination is happening? No.
Just as a simple example, there are plenty of non-Asian folks with high scores and high grades that get rejected too, often for similar reasons — namely, being narrowly focused on academics and not even being world-class at that.
I think it would be much better if admission into elite schools were based on objective test scores. It's easy to see how racism seeps into "Your extra-curriculars just aren't Harvard enough" or whatever subjective judgment call would be used to evaluate in-person interviews, extra-curriculars, essays, etc. It's a lot harder to see where the racism is coming from if the admissions criteria are "Higest X scores get admittance, random lottery to break ties." There is also transparent racism in the current system that says some races have to score higher than others to be admitted.
Again, this has been covered extensively in large schools discriminating against Asians.
Go google it if you’re interested. Big scandal recently.
I am very aware of the details of the accusations. My personal belief, backed with some actual detailed real life knowledge, is that most people who think that discrimination is going on don’t understand one of two related things:
1. How elite school applicants are rated. Most folks seem to think it’s just test scores and maybe grades. It’s not.
2. What successful applicants at elite schools look like on paper. Most people think that elite school student bodies are just a bunch of brainiacs with near perfect grades and scores. While grades and scores are certainly high, the defining characteristic of the core admits are that they have done something of note at the regional, national, or international level (not always true of fringe admits, but that’s a different story). Sometimes these people don’t even have near perfect test scores or grades (frankly, some come across as not terribly smart at all), but they are able to get compelling things done.
I recommend reading Cal Newport’s book on elite school admissions to get a better idea of how to get in.
Also, it seems like two courts have said that Harvard in particular did not discriminate against Asians.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/12/934122462/appeals-court-rules...
1. How elite school applicants are rated. Most folks seem to think it’s just test scores and maybe grades. It’s not.
2. What successful applicants at elite schools look like on paper. Most people think that elite school student bodies are just a bunch of brainiacs with near perfect grades and scores. While grades and scores are certainly high, the defining characteristic of the core admits are that they have done something of note at the regional, national, or international level (not always true of fringe admits, but that’s a different story). Sometimes these people don’t even have near perfect test scores or grades (frankly, some come across as not terribly smart at all), but they are able to get compelling things done.
I recommend reading Cal Newport’s book on elite school admissions to get a better idea of how to get in.
Also, it seems like two courts have said that Harvard in particular did not discriminate against Asians.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/12/934122462/appeals-court-rules...
I think you’re making a lot of assumptions of the average readers’ views on the admissions policies of elite schools.
I’d say I have a pretty solid view of how the admissions process works.
That’s not a stereotype- it’s true. Racial disparities is why the SAT got cancelled.
There is nothing in Asian brains that makes them different than non-Asian brains. SAT does not capture people's innate ability but something else.
Do you have any basis for thinking so? What else could explain it?
It's entirely cultural. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
[deleted]
Don't you think your theory requires evidence?
One can object to a proposed solution to a problem without contributing to the problem or being part of the problem.
Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.
Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.
One can offer an opinion, and if the motivation is not inherently racist it may have weight. But to your contention:
HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Other potential employees might be attracted to work at such a forward looking company.
What basis would you have for believing that such a goal is bad for a software company? Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?
Reply to reply: You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads. Why? What is the basis for believing it is any better, when it pretty clearly disadvantages minorities?
I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech. If this is a misapprehension please correct me.
HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Other potential employees might be attracted to work at such a forward looking company.
What basis would you have for believing that such a goal is bad for a software company? Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?
Reply to reply: You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads. Why? What is the basis for believing it is any better, when it pretty clearly disadvantages minorities?
I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech. If this is a misapprehension please correct me.
"You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads."
I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo.
"I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech."
> The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.
The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true.
> work at such a forward looking company.
"Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."
I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo.
"I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech."
> The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.
The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true.
> work at such a forward looking company.
"Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."
You've asserted several things that are themselves unsubstantiated or at least controversial.
"Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."
"Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."
>The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.
Managment may think many things, but that presuposes that diversity of thought comes from the diversity of skin. I can practically guarantee that if your company hired a diverse mix of races, but they were all of technical background and straight HS to college to work then you would not get the diversity of thought you would get if you focused your spare hiring capacity on hiring retiring US marines, radar techs, prisoners, people close to retiring age or any other group that is typically left out (or persevered to be left out) of the typical high tech startup.
Managment may think many things, but that presuposes that diversity of thought comes from the diversity of skin. I can practically guarantee that if your company hired a diverse mix of races, but they were all of technical background and straight HS to college to work then you would not get the diversity of thought you would get if you focused your spare hiring capacity on hiring retiring US marines, radar techs, prisoners, people close to retiring age or any other group that is typically left out (or persevered to be left out) of the typical high tech startup.
So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?
In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporting it doesn't preclude recruiting from other talent pools.
In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporting it doesn't preclude recruiting from other talent pools.
> So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?
That isn't at all what the commenter argued. They argued that diversity in ethnicity/race is not the same as diversity in background. The commenter did not provide a superlative or other qualifier.
That isn't at all what the commenter argued. They argued that diversity in ethnicity/race is not the same as diversity in background. The commenter did not provide a superlative or other qualifier.
You assume that hiring a black person to an all white team, gives much thought diversity. My argument is that it does not, if that person had a middle class background and similar upbringing.
If you hire a former gang-banger who is a wiz with eletronics, then you will have some real diversity.
If you hire a former gang-banger who is a wiz with eletronics, then you will have some real diversity.
You don't think that hiring a black guy will provide some useful perspective? (Or an immigrant?) I don't get why you contend that class is the only fundamental distinction here.
Tech is often focused on the minutiae of our machines, but even then information and learning is not evenly distributed. I've worked with various minority engineers and also Indian/Chinese/Persian/etc and they've all had really different views on how to approach things, how to manage conflicts, and different mathematical backgrounds too.
Tech is often focused on the minutiae of our machines, but even then information and learning is not evenly distributed. I've worked with various minority engineers and also Indian/Chinese/Persian/etc and they've all had really different views on how to approach things, how to manage conflicts, and different mathematical backgrounds too.
"does not give much diversity" isn't the same as "will not provide some useful perspective."
This is the issue I have when discussing these matters with certain people. When everything is presented in such stark black-and-white terms there's little room for discussion.
This is the issue I have when discussing these matters with certain people. When everything is presented in such stark black-and-white terms there's little room for discussion.
We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR.
Defiling work communication channels with political opinions only serves to distract, deride, and divide.
Defiling work communication channels with political opinions only serves to distract, deride, and divide.
> We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR.
Surely you must be joking.
Surely you must be joking.
If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?
That question doesn't really make sense in the context of a US workplace.
The employee:HR relationship is fundamentally adversarial over here. HR's job is to protect the company, including from its own employees. They will throw you under the bus if it benefits the company.
Most people won't run into issues with them, but if you think that someone important to the company's bottom line is behaving inappropriately and you go to HR about it, how would you expect them to react? It's a matter of incentives.
The employee:HR relationship is fundamentally adversarial over here. HR's job is to protect the company, including from its own employees. They will throw you under the bus if it benefits the company.
Most people won't run into issues with them, but if you think that someone important to the company's bottom line is behaving inappropriately and you go to HR about it, how would you expect them to react? It's a matter of incentives.
What's the point you're trying to make? That irredeemable companies are a nightmare to work for?
Well of course they are. And just like irredeemable relationships, you need to move on and improve your judgement to avoid a repeat. Bemoaning on Slack achieves nothing.
Well of course they are. And just like irredeemable relationships, you need to move on and improve your judgement to avoid a repeat. Bemoaning on Slack achieves nothing.
The point the post you're replying to was trying to make (true or not) was that US companies have this problem unilaterally — so there's no point to trying to avoid companies based on it, as long as the US is where you choose to live.
Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.
If you're hiring people or using your employer benefits their job is to help you with that.
> is our company discriminating, even unintentionally and do our LGBT and minority employees feel as safe and valued as our straight cis white employees
This is an HR responsibility. You either trust them to avoid and eliminate discrimination or you don't.
This is an HR responsibility. You either trust them to avoid and eliminate discrimination or you don't.
> This is an HR responsibility.
No, HRs responsibility is to make sure that legal liability for unlawful discrimination does not get imposed on the company, consistent with other corporate goals.
Actually mitigating discrimination may sometimes be the mechanism for that. Helping management create a smokescreen around acts of discrimination and find pretexts to force out people likely to discredit that smokescreen are also sometimes ways HR does that.
Mistaking HR for your advocate rather than management’s is a dangerous mistake.
No, HRs responsibility is to make sure that legal liability for unlawful discrimination does not get imposed on the company, consistent with other corporate goals.
Actually mitigating discrimination may sometimes be the mechanism for that. Helping management create a smokescreen around acts of discrimination and find pretexts to force out people likely to discredit that smokescreen are also sometimes ways HR does that.
Mistaking HR for your advocate rather than management’s is a dangerous mistake.
With what authority will HR eliminate discrimination?
At a minimum, they’d need to stop accepting employee referrals (how can they tell if the referrals biased?) and take over the technical interview process.
Also, what happens when an exec elsewhere in the company discriminates against someone? Will HR have the power to unilaterally fire the exec? The CEO? The chairman of the board? How would they even detect the discrimination?
Sadly, declaring that one division of a company will eliminate discrimination doesn’t work. You need the whole company to pull together, though realistically, that won’t work either.
Society as a whole has to decide to solve the problem. Looping around to the article, one of the political parties passed hundreds of bills to disenfranchise minority voters; arguing that minorities should have basic rights is (in the US, at least) politically controversial.
Charitably, I hope the goal is to force my values on the employees, and silence dissent (no bigoted discussions at work).
Invoke Godwin’s Law, and… Done.
At a minimum, they’d need to stop accepting employee referrals (how can they tell if the referrals biased?) and take over the technical interview process.
Also, what happens when an exec elsewhere in the company discriminates against someone? Will HR have the power to unilaterally fire the exec? The CEO? The chairman of the board? How would they even detect the discrimination?
Sadly, declaring that one division of a company will eliminate discrimination doesn’t work. You need the whole company to pull together, though realistically, that won’t work either.
Society as a whole has to decide to solve the problem. Looping around to the article, one of the political parties passed hundreds of bills to disenfranchise minority voters; arguing that minorities should have basic rights is (in the US, at least) politically controversial.
Charitably, I hope the goal is to force my values on the employees, and silence dissent (no bigoted discussions at work).
Invoke Godwin’s Law, and… Done.
You're hired to produce value, not instigate political change.
If your goal is to "force my values on the employees, and silence dissent (no bigoted discussions at work)", then go start your own company (although your demands best describe a cult).
If your goal is to "force my values on the employees, and silence dissent (no bigoted discussions at work)", then go start your own company (although your demands best describe a cult).
Even within this framework, “only discuss these things with HR” is untenable. Say a coworker harasses you and HR tells you it’s the first time someone has reported them. How can you know whether to revoke that trust without “talking politics” with your coworkers?
What if we don't, for not only Basecamp but for most employers worldwide in any industry? This is a very common view.
I live in Mexico and it's certainly not because I trust the police.
Because you don't truly find out how bad/toxic departments within a company are until you've been there a while.
I had the darkly humorous experience of meeting my HR rep for the very first time on a (pre-pandemic) video conference. Meeting agenda? I'm being fired!
Of course now that we all live in Covidland, we've had horror stories of whole business units just getting a pre-recorded message that they no longer work there.
Of course now that we all live in Covidland, we've had horror stories of whole business units just getting a pre-recorded message that they no longer work there.
[deleted]
Because "do I trust HR?" (a question to which the answer is almost certainly always "no, but it doesn't matter in most cases"), is only one minor criteria amongst a vast plethora of other important ones when deciding to join a company or not?
If you do, why were you offered a position?
What kind of a question is that? The first and foremost function of HR is to protect the company, you have no reason to trust them. And who even has such a deep insight into the HR of a company at the time of your hiring that they decide whether to take the job or not based on that info?
HR is on your employer's side and in most companies gets nothing done aside from avoiding liability.
As a European person, I'd say keep the political discussion to your union. Unions also often have much better political affiliation and can make things happen on a broader scale.
As a European person, I'd say keep the political discussion to your union. Unions also often have much better political affiliation and can make things happen on a broader scale.
> To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that?
This is just so alien to me. Maybe it's an American thing but I've never been in a workplace where this has been a thing. I've never seen these "quickly turning unpleasant" conversations in the workplace.
> 'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're trying to stave off the former. But it's not that easy to do that without also affecting the latter
In 2021, I think we've moved past the point of benefit of the doubt. DHH and Jason Fried and (supposed) to be smart switched on people who recognise their own privilege. They (should) know that you cannot ban the former without impacting the latter and genuinely hurting people.
This is just so alien to me. Maybe it's an American thing but I've never been in a workplace where this has been a thing. I've never seen these "quickly turning unpleasant" conversations in the workplace.
> 'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're trying to stave off the former. But it's not that easy to do that without also affecting the latter
In 2021, I think we've moved past the point of benefit of the doubt. DHH and Jason Fried and (supposed) to be smart switched on people who recognise their own privilege. They (should) know that you cannot ban the former without impacting the latter and genuinely hurting people.
[deleted]
The issue I see here is that Jason Fried and DHH state that this decision lands solely with them. Giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt is impossible until and unless they center marginalized voices and give them positions of power at Basecamp. Otherwise this decision is cowardice wrapped in some arbitrary policies.
Well, Basecamp is their company, isn’t it? If they don’t have the right to make those changes... who has?
The people who do the work that produces the value.
This is such a hilarious statement that you see all the time here.
> do the work that produces the value.
who then got paid for said value.
who then got paid for said value.
People who say things like that generally consider profit to be stealing because there would be no profit if everyone was paid for their value.
The way I see it is that profit occurs because the value of the end product is greater than the sum of its parts.
The way I see it is that profit occurs because the value of the end product is greater than the sum of its parts.
Unfortunately this won’t happen until the employee:employer power imbalance is changed, which effectively means a worker co-op.
> The issue I see here is that Jason Fried and DHH state that this decision lands solely with them.
To me that's just sensible leadership. To keep the company productive, you have to let the leaders make decisions while the subordinates focus on doing the work.
> Giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt is impossible
But maybe the only way to solve the problem of polarization is for all of us to give each other the benefit of the doubt more than we might be comfortable doing.
To me that's just sensible leadership. To keep the company productive, you have to let the leaders make decisions while the subordinates focus on doing the work.
> Giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt is impossible
But maybe the only way to solve the problem of polarization is for all of us to give each other the benefit of the doubt more than we might be comfortable doing.
I was a fan when Coinbase did this, I am a fan when Basecamp did this, I don't want or expect companies to "use their platform" just because they have one. If that's the premise of the company, go for it, if not then don't.
I am not a white cis male, as some might assume.
I am not a white cis male, as some might assume.
Had to make a throwaway because I was nervous to discuss opinions even remotely related to politics with my personal account, but wanted to share regardless.
This is an interesting move and I really don't think we are getting the whole story on what caused such a drastic change. It's interesting because, for the most part, I think it is safe to assume that most basecamp employees are liberal leaning, including the founders. My first thought was, why not just deal with these specific problem employees individually? Well, surely they must have tried. I can't imagine going public with such a drastic change if they didn't first at least try to correct the behavior of misbehaving employees. What's misbehaving? I would classify that as slinging personal insults/threats across the room. Would you fire these employees if they didn't stop this behavior? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like something basecamp would do. In fact, it might make it _worse_ for them from a PR perspective if they did this, even if the employees were completely out of line for what is appropriate workplace conversation.
So not sure. In this situation, I would give them the benefit of the doubt(other than on the poor communication). I've never worked at a place where politics was discussed heavily in either work chat or in person (outside of friends talking with friends, which IMO, is perfectly acceptable), but I've seen some conversations (such as the leaked Github chat) that are just plain toxic and I wouldn't feel comfortable rebuttaling extreme views without fear of retribution. I personally don't think that people should have to deal with that in a work environment, but just my 2c. I guess it's just where do you draw the line, and internally, they must have hit that point.
This is an interesting move and I really don't think we are getting the whole story on what caused such a drastic change. It's interesting because, for the most part, I think it is safe to assume that most basecamp employees are liberal leaning, including the founders. My first thought was, why not just deal with these specific problem employees individually? Well, surely they must have tried. I can't imagine going public with such a drastic change if they didn't first at least try to correct the behavior of misbehaving employees. What's misbehaving? I would classify that as slinging personal insults/threats across the room. Would you fire these employees if they didn't stop this behavior? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like something basecamp would do. In fact, it might make it _worse_ for them from a PR perspective if they did this, even if the employees were completely out of line for what is appropriate workplace conversation.
So not sure. In this situation, I would give them the benefit of the doubt(other than on the poor communication). I've never worked at a place where politics was discussed heavily in either work chat or in person (outside of friends talking with friends, which IMO, is perfectly acceptable), but I've seen some conversations (such as the leaked Github chat) that are just plain toxic and I wouldn't feel comfortable rebuttaling extreme views without fear of retribution. I personally don't think that people should have to deal with that in a work environment, but just my 2c. I guess it's just where do you draw the line, and internally, they must have hit that point.
I guess, I have more to say. This is such an interesting choice from so many perspectives. Thinking about it more, I think the blanket banning of all political discussion is kind of a silly notion. Now, as many others have already pointed out in this thread, employees may be wondering what's okay to discuss at all. But like they said in the post (and as others have seen from internal leaked chats), political conversations and opinions can get out of hand and become extremely toxic. Fast. It's a bit surprising how they handled this and how they possibly figured it could go over well. Especially considering their apparent already open political discussion friendly environment. Like I said before, I've never been involved in a company that has active public political discussions. To me, this does actually seem like breeding grounds for toxic coworker relations. However, as I already stated, it seems like this was already part of their internal culture. I think the right decision would just be to ban toxic arguments (and also define what a toxic argument is), and settling on a "agree to disagree" type of policy. Idk. Tough one.
I actually suspect this statement blindsided most of the company. It seems the way DHH and Jason operate is to lead with big philosophies and work backwards to the practical implications. This is not just evident in their company practices, but how they develop software.
I also suspect things weren't necessarily toxic within Basecamp. Given their recent book title "It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work" and activity on Twitter, maybe they just see the writing on the wall and would prefer to nip this in the bud. "Political talk" (however we're defining it) has become all-consuming in the past year and perhaps they recognize it as a big distraction for anyone trying to get work done.
It is a privileged stance, but I'm sure there are many who appreciate the workplace being a venue where employees are encouraged to talk about other things.
I also suspect things weren't necessarily toxic within Basecamp. Given their recent book title "It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work" and activity on Twitter, maybe they just see the writing on the wall and would prefer to nip this in the bud. "Political talk" (however we're defining it) has become all-consuming in the past year and perhaps they recognize it as a big distraction for anyone trying to get work done.
It is a privileged stance, but I'm sure there are many who appreciate the workplace being a venue where employees are encouraged to talk about other things.
This is a tricky one. On one hand, there's the obvious issues: almost everything you can talk about is societal or political. Talking about your lawn growing is societal because it means you can have a lawn and that gets into the housing crisis sooner or later. If people can't speak about politics, marginalized group will have difficulty bringing up tough issues that impact them in their day to day job.
On the other hand, I haven't seen a company where the various politics Slack channel didn't devolved to a couple of white guys in an eco chamber trashing anyone who isn't agreeing with their favorite issue of the day. And god forbid you're NOT part of that channel, because then you're the "one person who doesn't care" or some such. Some issues may be fairly one sided, at least at a high level (gender and race equality), others are much more nuanced (gentrification and housing, the school debt crisis) and the discussions are always bordering on needing HR involved to avoid people screaming at each other. Some are extremely subjective but just as heated in Slack (the whole working from home thing).
So how do you handle it? Let people talk about it but ban the slack channels? Ban it altogether? Have HR moderating the discussions? I honestly don't know. Right now it seems like the status quo of "let it happen and hope for the best" is the best of the bad options you have in front of you, but eventually something goes sour and you have to do something. Basecamp's approach is likely missing the mark, but I'd be curious what others are doing.
If your answer is "Nah, we have tons of political discussions at work and its all positives", you're probably not looking very hard.
On the other hand, I haven't seen a company where the various politics Slack channel didn't devolved to a couple of white guys in an eco chamber trashing anyone who isn't agreeing with their favorite issue of the day. And god forbid you're NOT part of that channel, because then you're the "one person who doesn't care" or some such. Some issues may be fairly one sided, at least at a high level (gender and race equality), others are much more nuanced (gentrification and housing, the school debt crisis) and the discussions are always bordering on needing HR involved to avoid people screaming at each other. Some are extremely subjective but just as heated in Slack (the whole working from home thing).
So how do you handle it? Let people talk about it but ban the slack channels? Ban it altogether? Have HR moderating the discussions? I honestly don't know. Right now it seems like the status quo of "let it happen and hope for the best" is the best of the bad options you have in front of you, but eventually something goes sour and you have to do something. Basecamp's approach is likely missing the mark, but I'd be curious what others are doing.
If your answer is "Nah, we have tons of political discussions at work and its all positives", you're probably not looking very hard.
Grass lawns are also just flat-out bad.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/more-sustainable-and-beautiful-...
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/more-sustainable-and-beautiful-...
Which is a perfect example of how nothing is truly apolitical.
I'm extremely late to the thread, but why is pointing out that manicured lawns may have negative environment effects now political? I'm genuinely curious because after reading this thread you get the impression that you shouldn't be allowed to exist because to do so would be a political act.
The climate crisis is political, and this has bearing on that.
Yep, exactly.
> And god forbid you're NOT part of that channel, because then you're the "one person who doesn't care" or some such
is this a serious thing actually happening to anyone?
is this a serious thing actually happening to anyone?
I worked at a company that had to institute a similar policy for more or less this reason: The people pushing certain political agendas wanted to force everyone else to pick a side on certain political issues.
When the conversations get to a point where even opting out is perceived as the "wrong answer", things get ugly.
When the conversations get to a point where even opting out is perceived as the "wrong answer", things get ugly.
Even on the same side, there's quite a few shouting matches that quickly spirals out when idealists "call out" pragmatists who compromise on a few things.
Not sure how appropriate it would be from a US context, but say Bernie-bros and Clinton / Biden supporters.
Not sure how appropriate it would be from a US context, but say Bernie-bros and Clinton / Biden supporters.
That's the biggest thing imo. Twitter is filled right now with this idea that it was probably an ultra conservative person ruffling people's feather and they were tired of the arguments between transphobic and lgbtq people or something.
I don't work at Basecamp, but I find that unlikely: they'd likely have fired the transphobic person (or at least I hope they would have). They didn't say they wouldn't do politics, just that they didn't want politics discussed over company infrastructure.
But even if the room was all on the same side of the political pendulum, things still get pretty ugly.
I don't work at Basecamp, but I find that unlikely: they'd likely have fired the transphobic person (or at least I hope they would have). They didn't say they wouldn't do politics, just that they didn't want politics discussed over company infrastructure.
But even if the room was all on the same side of the political pendulum, things still get pretty ugly.
Basecamp's post specifically called this out as a problem.
Then I think their problem is not “politics” but being unable to deal with individual employees who are being unreasonable and uncivil.
That's easy to say until you see how it actually happens. Basecamp would likely still be in the news, just instead of being about banning politics talks, it would be because they're somehow preventing their employees from supporting some cause or another.
This move is generating even more unrest and publicity for them
Oh for sure. Writing the blog post (at all) and putting that policy in without discussing it within the company was a REAAAAAAALLY bad/tone deaf move. When they announced it originally I assumed it had been implemented for weeks and they had the expected all hands meeting internally and concerns/edge cases worked out.
They clearly didn't. Saying that was dumb would be the understatement of the week.
They clearly didn't. Saying that was dumb would be the understatement of the week.
It would have been instantly leaked by employees, might as well get ahead of things.
It would have, but after the employees had time to raise their concerns internally. Instead many of them felt kind of betrayed, as they learnt the new policy at the same time the rest of us did. Not really cool.
+1 exactly what I was wondering. And if it is, what’s stopping a company from defining the culture as, “It’s ok if you want to talk about this at work, and it’s also ok if you don’t want to.”
Then the activists will say that the company is problematic because they know about the discussion and don't take a stance on the issue.
Because the people who don't want to will then have to eat lunch alone at their desk talking to no one. They're a tiny company.
But yes, there were likely other solutions to try before this one, including but not limited to: not blogging about whatever solution they picked.
But yes, there were likely other solutions to try before this one, including but not limited to: not blogging about whatever solution they picked.
One place I worked at had a politics channel, designed to keep the chat out of the general spaces. Mainly because the team worked across the world and politics were US-centric first and UK-centric second, and nobody wanted a ping on one of the global chat channels only to get a link complaining about a sleazy American politician or the debate on Brexit as if none of the rest of the world (and the politics there) existed.
As it happened, we noticed the few people with even vaguely right-wing opinions or ideals were dogpiled by a much larger contingent of left-wing people. It was an ugly sight, and I wasn't happy with that at all. It eventually settled down and the diversity of opinion opened up enough for people to have a sensible chat, but those first few months were utterly fucking shameful. It was about then that I stopped identifying as left wing and decided that there isn't a side to pick unless you've made it who you are.
I still disagreed with most of the conservative viewpoints, but disagreement is fine. A bit of healthy back and forth, get another drink, and then change the topic.
As it happened, we noticed the few people with even vaguely right-wing opinions or ideals were dogpiled by a much larger contingent of left-wing people. It was an ugly sight, and I wasn't happy with that at all. It eventually settled down and the diversity of opinion opened up enough for people to have a sensible chat, but those first few months were utterly fucking shameful. It was about then that I stopped identifying as left wing and decided that there isn't a side to pick unless you've made it who you are.
I still disagreed with most of the conservative viewpoints, but disagreement is fine. A bit of healthy back and forth, get another drink, and then change the topic.
Reminds me of this essay: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html
That touches on what I feel, I think. In my own words, once you have something as an identity, criticism or disagreement very quickly turns into an attack on who you are; an attack on your being. It's not about the issue any more, it's about you feeling threatened and fighting back to protect yourself and feel safe.
Ultimately I identify as myself and that encompasses a small collection of things where I feel intensely vulnerable but also very secure in knowing that, relating to my experience of growing up, abandonment, attachment, my mental health, and so on. Attacking those aspects of my being is likely to hurt me, and is the point where I would decide whether this person needs to be present in my life or not.
So I would speak out strongly on the topic of depression and suicide, for example, because part of who I am - my identity - is that I tried multiple times and survived each time, and that long-term state of depression significantly changed who I am.
If someone made fun of me for being some bleeding-heart liberal whenever I talk about compassion or some spiritual experience? whatever...I don't care. It's not for everyone.
Ultimately I identify as myself and that encompasses a small collection of things where I feel intensely vulnerable but also very secure in knowing that, relating to my experience of growing up, abandonment, attachment, my mental health, and so on. Attacking those aspects of my being is likely to hurt me, and is the point where I would decide whether this person needs to be present in my life or not.
So I would speak out strongly on the topic of depression and suicide, for example, because part of who I am - my identity - is that I tried multiple times and survived each time, and that long-term state of depression significantly changed who I am.
If someone made fun of me for being some bleeding-heart liberal whenever I talk about compassion or some spiritual experience? whatever...I don't care. It's not for everyone.
> 1. No more societal and political discussions at Basecamp. Today's social and political waters are especially choppy. Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn't have to wonder if staying out of it means you're complicit, or wading into it means you're a target. These are difficult enough waters to navigate in life, but significantly more so at work. It's become too much. It's a major distraction. It saps our energy, and redirects our dialog towards dark places. It's not healthy, it hasn't served us well. And we're done with it at Basecamp.
I wonder what's the context here
I wonder what's the context here
I think those are particularly choice words coming from Basecamp, who have been particularly active in calling out Apple's treatment of iOS and the App Store, which is in at least some sense political advocacy. Life is necessarily political; and they should be more aware of it than most others.
I'm not endorsing Apple's behavior with the App Store, but seriously, this is very out-of-character and I don't like the tone or the content of the messaging here.
I'm not endorsing Apple's behavior with the App Store, but seriously, this is very out-of-character and I don't like the tone or the content of the messaging here.
They also say, "We're in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge."
Advocacy on the policies of one of the world's foremost software distribution gatekeeper seems well within how they define "their business". I don't think it takes much squinting to see how they can view this sort of advocacy as in their lane, while the popular political discussions of the day are not.
Advocacy on the policies of one of the world's foremost software distribution gatekeeper seems well within how they define "their business". I don't think it takes much squinting to see how they can view this sort of advocacy as in their lane, while the popular political discussions of the day are not.
In other words, “some political advocacies are good for our business and some are not. As a result, let’s ban all of them.”
DHH's follow-up post says this:
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
I think some (not all) of the changes outlined in the post make some degree of sense, but the overall tone of the blog post just comes off as incredibly condescending
DHH specified that advocating for things on personal accounts is fine.
The context is the same as many other companies - employee activists creating strife and division internally and causing other employees to feel uncomfortable.
The expression “employee activists” makes it seem very one-sided.
What about old-school companies where everyone played golf. If you were, say, someone who liked hiking and canoeing, you might have been made to feel like you don’t fit in. Is that the same thing as being made to feel uncomfortable about social issues? Or is it somehow different because “playing golf” is normal, but “advocating for social justice” is not?
A word like “activist” is extremely imprecise. Any time someone is making other people uncomfortable, isn’t that important?
If I was a woman and the water cooler discussion every Monday morning was about various men and their misadventures picking up women in bars, I’d say there was discussion causing strife and division, but few people would say “activists” were involved. If I then complained about the unprofessional water-cooler talk, would I be the activist trying to change the company culture?
If it’s the “strife and division” that’s the problem, we need not restrict ourselves to discussion “activism.” But if the real problem is that we’re ok with some strife and division, but not others, well...
We ought to come clean about that and say, basically, “Don’t try to change anything, not even the stuff that makes you uncomfortable, because this is how we like it, and if something has to change, that something is you."
What about old-school companies where everyone played golf. If you were, say, someone who liked hiking and canoeing, you might have been made to feel like you don’t fit in. Is that the same thing as being made to feel uncomfortable about social issues? Or is it somehow different because “playing golf” is normal, but “advocating for social justice” is not?
A word like “activist” is extremely imprecise. Any time someone is making other people uncomfortable, isn’t that important?
If I was a woman and the water cooler discussion every Monday morning was about various men and their misadventures picking up women in bars, I’d say there was discussion causing strife and division, but few people would say “activists” were involved. If I then complained about the unprofessional water-cooler talk, would I be the activist trying to change the company culture?
If it’s the “strife and division” that’s the problem, we need not restrict ourselves to discussion “activism.” But if the real problem is that we’re ok with some strife and division, but not others, well...
We ought to come clean about that and say, basically, “Don’t try to change anything, not even the stuff that makes you uncomfortable, because this is how we like it, and if something has to change, that something is you."
But this post isn't about playing golf..? None of this is. What?
The point is that "creating strife and division internally and causing other employees to feel uncomfortable" can happen without an employee activist pushing a politically charged agenda.
My personal interpretation: If the primary intent of the policy is to reduce the instaces of exployees feeling ostracized, there are better ways to achieve it than a blanket ban on "political discussion".
My personal interpretation: If the primary intent of the policy is to reduce the instaces of exployees feeling ostracized, there are better ways to achieve it than a blanket ban on "political discussion".
Shutting down all discussion of things that affect their employees is an extreme overreaction.
thanks for the inference. I wonder about the particulars, though
At Coinbase, employees demanded that the company take an official public position on Black Lives Matter. Probably the same was going on at Basecamp.
Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets.
That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop.
So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.
You can’t disconnect this from the current US political situation. They’re joined at the hip.
That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop.
So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.
You can’t disconnect this from the current US political situation. They’re joined at the hip.
> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop
Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop.
It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely, but you’re not ok with both sides being silenced, or at least “toned down”, for the sake of promoting fairness, inclusion, and productivity.
Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop.
It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely, but you’re not ok with both sides being silenced, or at least “toned down”, for the sake of promoting fairness, inclusion, and productivity.
> Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely
But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people.
I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it actually proves my point: you’re ascribing a political “side” to my speech when I’m just trying to say “gays are gonna get told to stop mentioning their husbands like we used to”. And that’s entirely my point: you’re coding my existence and participation in banal chitchat as political, and these policies make that much more dangerous for me.
But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people.
I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it actually proves my point: you’re ascribing a political “side” to my speech when I’m just trying to say “gays are gonna get told to stop mentioning their husbands like we used to”. And that’s entirely my point: you’re coding my existence and participation in banal chitchat as political, and these policies make that much more dangerous for me.
I don’t think I misread you, and I think I fully understand what you mean - to some, simply saying “my husband and I” triggers the feeling that you’re shoving an agenda in their face. I get it, and I don’t disagree at all.
But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. Clearly, without any context, if ever a word were to be said about this hypothetical scenario, it would be inherently political, and you would already know from which side. So, clearly, you’ve also already ascribed politics to this anodyne chitchat.
But I also think it’s disingenuous to leap from “banning political discussions at work” to “the LGBTQ family has to pretend they don’t exist”. If culture is such that people discuss what they did with their significant other or family over the weekend, then setting an environment where everyone is welcome to discuss that freely falls on leadership.
Somebody finding fault with that is going to have to be dealt with by HR the same way you might deal with a person who constantly shames everyone else for eating sugary donuts every morning - an opinion they can keep to themselves, without attacking or threatening others.
I’m not saying the line is always easy to find, but it’s not nearly as complex as most make it out to be.
But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. Clearly, without any context, if ever a word were to be said about this hypothetical scenario, it would be inherently political, and you would already know from which side. So, clearly, you’ve also already ascribed politics to this anodyne chitchat.
But I also think it’s disingenuous to leap from “banning political discussions at work” to “the LGBTQ family has to pretend they don’t exist”. If culture is such that people discuss what they did with their significant other or family over the weekend, then setting an environment where everyone is welcome to discuss that freely falls on leadership.
Somebody finding fault with that is going to have to be dealt with by HR the same way you might deal with a person who constantly shames everyone else for eating sugary donuts every morning - an opinion they can keep to themselves, without attacking or threatening others.
I’m not saying the line is always easy to find, but it’s not nearly as complex as most make it out to be.
> But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody.
It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting. The fact that a handful of non-conservative folks might also find my existence offensive doesn’t really change the fact that mostly, it’s “conservative” identified folks.
It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting. The fact that a handful of non-conservative folks might also find my existence offensive doesn’t really change the fact that mostly, it’s “conservative” identified folks.
> It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting.
Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage. Out of those that don’t, few would find “the existence” of a gay person “offensive” even if they reject extending state sanction to gay marriage. For a long time many Americans opposed re-marriage for divorced people. That doesn’t mean they found the existence of divorced people offensive.
I don’t see the point in treating everything short of complete acceptance as equivalent to opposing someone’s “existence.” Some people in America don’t want, as a matter of government policy, immigrants like me coming to the US from Muslim countries. They’re not opposed to “my existence”—invariably they’ll leave me alone if I leave them alone.
Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage. Out of those that don’t, few would find “the existence” of a gay person “offensive” even if they reject extending state sanction to gay marriage. For a long time many Americans opposed re-marriage for divorced people. That doesn’t mean they found the existence of divorced people offensive.
I don’t see the point in treating everything short of complete acceptance as equivalent to opposing someone’s “existence.” Some people in America don’t want, as a matter of government policy, immigrants like me coming to the US from Muslim countries. They’re not opposed to “my existence”—invariably they’ll leave me alone if I leave them alone.
> Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage.
This just simply isn’t true.
This just simply isn’t true.
For the record, it's 49% support according to Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...
And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...
And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).
Progress is also good, but it remains true that we aren’t exactly at “majority support” yet. And it’s not guaranteed to keep climbing either. I hope it does, obviously, because that’s a very good thing for me. We’re just not there yet.
We’ve crossed majority support: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/544500-poll-majority-of-re....
I’m from a Muslim country, and among Muslim Americans same sex relationships are taboo. While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself. (Almost no Muslim Americans identity as LGBT, and virtually no mosques will perform same sex marriages: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres....) But the many Muslim Americans who oppose same sex marriage don’t oppose the “existence” of gay people. They believe, consistent with their religion, that marriage is for procreation and government sanction should only be extended to heterosexual relationships. They are also probably ignorant on the issue of sexual orientation being an innate trait. My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
I’m from a Muslim country, and among Muslim Americans same sex relationships are taboo. While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself. (Almost no Muslim Americans identity as LGBT, and virtually no mosques will perform same sex marriages: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres....) But the many Muslim Americans who oppose same sex marriage don’t oppose the “existence” of gay people. They believe, consistent with their religion, that marriage is for procreation and government sanction should only be extended to heterosexual relationships. They are also probably ignorant on the issue of sexual orientation being an innate trait. My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
> While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don't like to reach for statistics in this kind of debate - because of what you've highlighted here. The numbers on the survey say one thing, but they paint a rosier picture than reality.
> My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
I consider my relationship with my husband to be a core part of my identity (certainly not the only part, of course). It's a major part of who I am and how I move about the world; how I exist within it and relate to it. And this is what straight people do, as well - and for them, it's considered absolutely normal (and society even encourages it in some ways).
What's unfair, to me, is to say that my "existence" is only relegated to physically living - life is about a lot more than that. We're not talking about killing the gays, here. We're talking about people who'd like to force the gays back into the closet so that they don't have to hear about relationships that they think are an affront to their religion.
Your Aunts aren't calling for the extermination of gay people, and that's good. But we shouldn't pretend that "they can live" is tolerant.
---
As an aside, we're pretty far into the weeds with this, although I think what we're talking about is still important to discuss. My original comment, last night, was about how the policy can harm people, and how it can be abused - not so much about what we're discussing now.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don't like to reach for statistics in this kind of debate - because of what you've highlighted here. The numbers on the survey say one thing, but they paint a rosier picture than reality.
> My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
I consider my relationship with my husband to be a core part of my identity (certainly not the only part, of course). It's a major part of who I am and how I move about the world; how I exist within it and relate to it. And this is what straight people do, as well - and for them, it's considered absolutely normal (and society even encourages it in some ways).
What's unfair, to me, is to say that my "existence" is only relegated to physically living - life is about a lot more than that. We're not talking about killing the gays, here. We're talking about people who'd like to force the gays back into the closet so that they don't have to hear about relationships that they think are an affront to their religion.
Your Aunts aren't calling for the extermination of gay people, and that's good. But we shouldn't pretend that "they can live" is tolerant.
---
As an aside, we're pretty far into the weeds with this, although I think what we're talking about is still important to discuss. My original comment, last night, was about how the policy can harm people, and how it can be abused - not so much about what we're discussing now.
It's frustrating to see the goalposts in these discussions move from "most of us agree the state shouldn't do anything to penalize same-sex couples" to "we should litigate what's in the heart of Rayiner's aunt".
I want to commend you both for having a civilized conversation about something that can get very heated.
Speaking from my own (ex-Christian) upbringing, I got only the vaguest references to people being gay as a child/teen except that they were all sinners. I certainly couldn't have held a rational conversation about it because, aside from references inside the church I didn't know any gay people (maybe I did, who could know).
It wasn't until I reached adulthood and left that community behind that I began to realize the way LGBTQ* people are and were demonized within certain christian circles.
The argument that marriage is solely for procreation, and/or the property of religions doesn't really hold water. Christians I have come across, seem to think they invented marriage, which is just not even close to historically accurate.
As to procreation only, this is fraught with the way laws treat things like next of kin, power of attorney and tax benefits. None of those things, have anything to do with procreation and yet they're a big part of marriage.
On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.
Speaking from my own (ex-Christian) upbringing, I got only the vaguest references to people being gay as a child/teen except that they were all sinners. I certainly couldn't have held a rational conversation about it because, aside from references inside the church I didn't know any gay people (maybe I did, who could know).
It wasn't until I reached adulthood and left that community behind that I began to realize the way LGBTQ* people are and were demonized within certain christian circles.
The argument that marriage is solely for procreation, and/or the property of religions doesn't really hold water. Christians I have come across, seem to think they invented marriage, which is just not even close to historically accurate.
As to procreation only, this is fraught with the way laws treat things like next of kin, power of attorney and tax benefits. None of those things, have anything to do with procreation and yet they're a big part of marriage.
On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.
> On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.
I'm happy to hear that; it is actually good to hear. I really do think things are getting better, albeit perhaps too slowly.
My own background is similar to yours (ex-Christian, not knowing LGBT people growing up, etc). What you said resonates with me quite a bit.
I'm happy to hear that; it is actually good to hear. I really do think things are getting better, albeit perhaps too slowly.
My own background is similar to yours (ex-Christian, not knowing LGBT people growing up, etc). What you said resonates with me quite a bit.
The Republican party has shrunk substantially (10%?) due to Trump's Presidency.
I'm curious how that affects the numbers going forward.
Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it. I think you can read it as protecting conversations around gay people. Consider the following hypothetical:
You: "... my husband..."
Me: "You know, I don't think gay people should be married. Marriage is blah blah blah"
------------------------
By my reading of the OP "my" comment there would be prohibited. Now, I'm bringing politics (or religion - which I also feel is and should be banned at work) into things to talk about why I condemn you or oppose your marriage.
In other words, rather than explain exactly what political positions and discussions are permitted we should just not have political discussions at work. If you mention your husband, I shouldn't tell you my thoughts about marriage or homosexuality. Conversely, if I mention I attend a Mormon Temple, you shouldn't tell me your thoughts regarding Mormonism. Details (within reason) about oneself are fine, but political discussion based on those details are not.
Of course, it's possible I've misread the document, and if they do intend to silence homosexuals from letting slip any details about their life, or whatever, then I oppose their changes. I think all people should be equally free at work to talk about themselves and their lives where it is appropriate. This document is just setting the guideline that political discussions are not appropriate.
You: "... my husband..."
Me: "You know, I don't think gay people should be married. Marriage is blah blah blah"
------------------------
By my reading of the OP "my" comment there would be prohibited. Now, I'm bringing politics (or religion - which I also feel is and should be banned at work) into things to talk about why I condemn you or oppose your marriage.
In other words, rather than explain exactly what political positions and discussions are permitted we should just not have political discussions at work. If you mention your husband, I shouldn't tell you my thoughts about marriage or homosexuality. Conversely, if I mention I attend a Mormon Temple, you shouldn't tell me your thoughts regarding Mormonism. Details (within reason) about oneself are fine, but political discussion based on those details are not.
Of course, it's possible I've misread the document, and if they do intend to silence homosexuals from letting slip any details about their life, or whatever, then I oppose their changes. I think all people should be equally free at work to talk about themselves and their lives where it is appropriate. This document is just setting the guideline that political discussions are not appropriate.
OK, but it could also go...
Bob: "... my husband..." Fred: "oh" Bob: "What?" Fred: "nothing" Bob: "Okay..." Fred: "....i think i'll go finish my lunch at my desk" Bob: "hey don't forget to finish that code review for me later" Fred: <acts different in subtle and plausibly deniable way with Bob from now on" Bob: "Hey, do you have a problem with me being gay?" Fred: "DON'T MAKE THIS POLITICAL" etc.
Bob: "... my husband..." Fred: "oh" Bob: "What?" Fred: "nothing" Bob: "Okay..." Fred: "....i think i'll go finish my lunch at my desk" Bob: "hey don't forget to finish that code review for me later" Fred: <acts different in subtle and plausibly deniable way with Bob from now on" Bob: "Hey, do you have a problem with me being gay?" Fred: "DON'T MAKE THIS POLITICAL" etc.
It could, but how would a corporate policy that permits discussing politics help anything? If Fred is anti-gay and going to subtly be a jerk to Bob from now on, do you think that in the alternate reality where discussion of politics were permitted that things would be better? In this alternate reality do you expect Bob to have a quick workplace chat with Fred that convinces him to be cool with gay people?
That's the same argument people use against legalizing gay marriage or creating laws forbidding private businesses from discriminating against gay people. "You're not going to make anyone not homophobic this way!"
No, not immediately. But if you ban politics in this context then you are tacitly encouraging homophobic behaviour.
Bob: "Boss, Fred is being homophobic"
Boss: "What happened?"
Bob: <retells above story>
Boss: "Look, don't ask don't tell. He didn't force you to make it a thing. He didn't say anything. What exactly did he do wrong? He's right, you're the one that made it political, and we banned that at the office."
It's an exit valve out of difficult conversations.
No, not immediately. But if you ban politics in this context then you are tacitly encouraging homophobic behaviour.
Bob: "Boss, Fred is being homophobic"
Boss: "What happened?"
Bob: <retells above story>
Boss: "Look, don't ask don't tell. He didn't force you to make it a thing. He didn't say anything. What exactly did he do wrong? He's right, you're the one that made it political, and we banned that at the office."
It's an exit valve out of difficult conversations.
> Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it.
You fundamentally misunderstand what I’m trying to say, though: it’s not that the new policy explicitly says “gays must hide again”. It’s that a large number of people think “being gay” is political; any mention that you are gay is inherently “throwing it in their face,” and so a policy banning “political discussion” gives significant cover to those who’d like to pretend gay people don’t exist. They can claim, legitimately in many people’s minds, that hearing about someone’s “sexual preferences” is political speech.
Of course it all feels contrived and silly, because popular opinion is legitimately (yet slowly) moving toward the position of “gay people existing is not political.” But we are far, far from that position today. The things I’m describing are not a fever dream, but things that actually still happen to LGBT people in the workplace.
You fundamentally misunderstand what I’m trying to say, though: it’s not that the new policy explicitly says “gays must hide again”. It’s that a large number of people think “being gay” is political; any mention that you are gay is inherently “throwing it in their face,” and so a policy banning “political discussion” gives significant cover to those who’d like to pretend gay people don’t exist. They can claim, legitimately in many people’s minds, that hearing about someone’s “sexual preferences” is political speech.
Of course it all feels contrived and silly, because popular opinion is legitimately (yet slowly) moving toward the position of “gay people existing is not political.” But we are far, far from that position today. The things I’m describing are not a fever dream, but things that actually still happen to LGBT people in the workplace.
I find about 50% of my coworkers offensive in one way or another. Doesn't mean I make it an issue or throw it in their face or try to sabotage their work or anything like that. A lot of people who would never be friends in their private lives work together in tolerance and cooperation at the office. Expecting everyone to approve of every aspect of how you live is unrealistic.
> Expecting everyone to approve of every aspect of how you live is unrealistic.
Who asked for that, though? This is precisely my point: my existence is being conflated with “approving every aspect of how you live.”
That’s the entire problem, right there. People can and will and do cause problems for LGBT people in the workplace just for existing, for saying boring things like “my husband and I went to the movies.”
Who asked for that, though? This is precisely my point: my existence is being conflated with “approving every aspect of how you live.”
That’s the entire problem, right there. People can and will and do cause problems for LGBT people in the workplace just for existing, for saying boring things like “my husband and I went to the movies.”
cozuya(4)
>But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Basecamp is not at all saying people should not reveal, let alone actively hide, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything like that.
I think anyone else at the company who considered such a thing political and tried to tell that person or the chat that what they're doing is political would be the only individual who's violating the "no politics at work" policy (perhaps in addition to other policies, too).
I understand your concern in general, here, but I don't see any reason why "gays are gonna get told to stop mentioning their husbands like we used to" is a thing that would start happening as a result of this policy change at Basecamp. I very strongly share your opinion that a conservative person who would do such a thing is deeply in the wrong, but I don't really think I see how it would apply to this particular situation.
I don't think "banning political discussion" at all carries the implications you're concerned about at most companies, and I think if it did happen at such a company it would be the thing that's violating the policy.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Basecamp is not at all saying people should not reveal, let alone actively hide, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything like that.
I think anyone else at the company who considered such a thing political and tried to tell that person or the chat that what they're doing is political would be the only individual who's violating the "no politics at work" policy (perhaps in addition to other policies, too).
I understand your concern in general, here, but I don't see any reason why "gays are gonna get told to stop mentioning their husbands like we used to" is a thing that would start happening as a result of this policy change at Basecamp. I very strongly share your opinion that a conservative person who would do such a thing is deeply in the wrong, but I don't really think I see how it would apply to this particular situation.
I don't think "banning political discussion" at all carries the implications you're concerned about at most companies, and I think if it did happen at such a company it would be the thing that's violating the policy.
> I think anyone else at the company who considered such a thing political and tried to tell that person or the chat that what they're doing is political would be the only individual who's violating the "no politics at work" policy (perhaps in addition to other policies, too).
You'd think, wouldn't you? :)
This is the problem though: it all depends on who hears the complaint, and what biases they hold. There's nothing in the policy that's definitively banning this kind of harassment-labeled-as-politics, and so it could easily still happen.
And I'm so adamant about the possibility because I've seen this happen! It's not a hypothetical to me. It's really gross, but it still plays out this way today. The US has made a lot of progress in this particular area, but it's still not a given that your management will support you or that you're going to end up in a workplace where bias is the exception, and not the norm.
You'd think, wouldn't you? :)
This is the problem though: it all depends on who hears the complaint, and what biases they hold. There's nothing in the policy that's definitively banning this kind of harassment-labeled-as-politics, and so it could easily still happen.
And I'm so adamant about the possibility because I've seen this happen! It's not a hypothetical to me. It's really gross, but it still plays out this way today. The US has made a lot of progress in this particular area, but it's still not a given that your management will support you or that you're going to end up in a workplace where bias is the exception, and not the norm.
Exhibit A: Two people are hurt by not conforming to a privileged mold of what is considered political.
> Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop.
As someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, I want to say - I respect your opinions, I can see some of the arguments for them, I'm willing to listen, and I would have absolutely no problem working with you, employing you, or hanging out. I'm really sorry it's come to this, and it is definitely my side of the political spectrum that is more to blame.
I never really get chance to say that to anyone, so there it is FWIW.
As someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, I want to say - I respect your opinions, I can see some of the arguments for them, I'm willing to listen, and I would have absolutely no problem working with you, employing you, or hanging out. I'm really sorry it's come to this, and it is definitely my side of the political spectrum that is more to blame.
I never really get chance to say that to anyone, so there it is FWIW.
I agree here. I miss having loud good faith arguments with conservative coworkers (and ones more liberal than me) at lunch time and strongly disagreeing on some issues, and then just getting back to work talking about how much we hated Oracle databases. Mind you these were coworkers from all backgrounds.
I just miss high quality political debate. What we have how is just name calling and tribalism.
I just miss high quality political debate. What we have how is just name calling and tribalism.
Thank you, that actually means a lot to me!
While I wish my work environment allowed me to express my views as everyone else does, I do genuinely appreciate hearing other side, and I’ve certainly gained valuable perspective on some issues this way.
As the other reply from atonse mentioned, I would love an environment where ideas can be discussed (and even disagreed with) but with mutual respect for each other as people with differing life experiences.
I think we mostly have more in common than most of us think, and I think we would all have a lot less hate, a lot more shared understanding, and ultimately better outcomes at work and at home.
While I wish my work environment allowed me to express my views as everyone else does, I do genuinely appreciate hearing other side, and I’ve certainly gained valuable perspective on some issues this way.
As the other reply from atonse mentioned, I would love an environment where ideas can be discussed (and even disagreed with) but with mutual respect for each other as people with differing life experiences.
I think we mostly have more in common than most of us think, and I think we would all have a lot less hate, a lot more shared understanding, and ultimately better outcomes at work and at home.
Your potential... embarrassment? at being outed as a conservative is nowhere near as threatening as being outed as a gay or trans person.
[deleted]
How are you defining "conservative"?
I don't know your lived experience. I'm going to try not to doubt it. Maybe your coworkers are toxic and you are trying to talk to them about why low taxes are good because they encourage innovation, and that government-run agencies are not as efficient as private enterprises, and they are screaming the Communist Manifesto back at you.
But in my experience, that's not the kinds of opinions that I see the modern discourse have no tolerance for. Happy to be hear some stories otherwise and have my own mind be opened about the kind of discrimination you're talking about.
But in my experience, that's not the kinds of opinions that I see the modern discourse have no tolerance for. Happy to be hear some stories otherwise and have my own mind be opened about the kind of discrimination you're talking about.
The kind of toxicity I’m talking about doesn’t even involve a conversation.
As an example, a couple months ago at the start of a dev meeting, my boss made a joke about a protest organized by business owners in the area urging our governor to open up businesses. It was covered as a largely conservative group.
Here’s roughly how that went:
Boss: “Doesn’t seem like a chance of this lockdown ending with all of those morons protesting this week”
Coworker A: “Yeah, it’s scary how many of them think the virus doesn’t exist”
Coworker B (imitating conservatives): “I’ll just shoot at the virus with my gun”
Everyone laughs
Coworker A: “The problem is they’re just not educated. If only we could steal their kids away and take them to some private education camp”
Boss grunts with agreement.
Coworker B: “Or they should just be prevented from having kids at all”
Coworker A: “Maybe it’s for the best that they’re the ones that will die off. Natural selection at work.”
Everyone laughs. Then the meeting starts.
It escalates so quickly, in an awkward “half joking” way, that at no point to I feel able to jump in and provide perspective that many of them feel their livelihoods are threatened. That maybe we’re lucky that we haven’t missed a paycheck. That maybe they’re protesting not out of ignorance, but rather perspective we don’t have.
Sometimes it’s simpler - my boss jokes that a neighbor put up a Trump sign and he “always thought they seemed like inbreds”, or a coworker questions why his friends daughter is dating a conservative who “hates women”.
Is that my cue to explain “actually, I’m a conservative but believe strongly in women’s equality” or “hey, just because I have strong feelings about the 2nd amendment precisely as a means for women and minorities to protect themselves doesn’t mean I’m a bigot or an inbred?”
To be fair, I have not outed myself as either a conservative or LGBTQ. Maybe they would think twice about what they say if I do. Maybe these are perfectly innocent jokes using a form of hyperbole that I’m just not getting.
But I’ve also had plenty of conversations with friends and family along the “I wish gay people would keep it to themselves” and “kids need a mom and dad”. In those cases I’ve always felt able to have a discussion advocating against their ideas without feeling like my tires would be slashed in the parking lot.
As an example, a couple months ago at the start of a dev meeting, my boss made a joke about a protest organized by business owners in the area urging our governor to open up businesses. It was covered as a largely conservative group.
Here’s roughly how that went:
Boss: “Doesn’t seem like a chance of this lockdown ending with all of those morons protesting this week”
Coworker A: “Yeah, it’s scary how many of them think the virus doesn’t exist”
Coworker B (imitating conservatives): “I’ll just shoot at the virus with my gun”
Everyone laughs
Coworker A: “The problem is they’re just not educated. If only we could steal their kids away and take them to some private education camp”
Boss grunts with agreement.
Coworker B: “Or they should just be prevented from having kids at all”
Coworker A: “Maybe it’s for the best that they’re the ones that will die off. Natural selection at work.”
Everyone laughs. Then the meeting starts.
It escalates so quickly, in an awkward “half joking” way, that at no point to I feel able to jump in and provide perspective that many of them feel their livelihoods are threatened. That maybe we’re lucky that we haven’t missed a paycheck. That maybe they’re protesting not out of ignorance, but rather perspective we don’t have.
Sometimes it’s simpler - my boss jokes that a neighbor put up a Trump sign and he “always thought they seemed like inbreds”, or a coworker questions why his friends daughter is dating a conservative who “hates women”.
Is that my cue to explain “actually, I’m a conservative but believe strongly in women’s equality” or “hey, just because I have strong feelings about the 2nd amendment precisely as a means for women and minorities to protect themselves doesn’t mean I’m a bigot or an inbred?”
To be fair, I have not outed myself as either a conservative or LGBTQ. Maybe they would think twice about what they say if I do. Maybe these are perfectly innocent jokes using a form of hyperbole that I’m just not getting.
But I’ve also had plenty of conversations with friends and family along the “I wish gay people would keep it to themselves” and “kids need a mom and dad”. In those cases I’ve always felt able to have a discussion advocating against their ideas without feeling like my tires would be slashed in the parking lot.
You're getting downvoted, but I upvoted you. That sounds pretty shitty, I'm sorry.
What you're describing is not acceptable, and frankly reeks of classism. Lack of education for large parts of the US is not a matter of choice, but a complete lack of access.
Eugenics was super popular amongst the liberal elite in the first half of the 20th century until Hitler took things too far.
I'm not going to pretend that I haven't done something similar amongst like-minded left-leaning friends. The conservative response to the pandemic has been absolutely horrifying. The anti-intellectualism and science denialism cannot be excused by the fear of livelihood loss. There are plenty of liberal small business owners too, and they're wearing masks.
But that's shooting the shit with close friends in a private space. This should not happen in a professional setting.
And, in the context of what we're talking about on this thread, it cannot be justified as discussion of politics. This is bullying behaviour.
What you're describing is not acceptable, and frankly reeks of classism. Lack of education for large parts of the US is not a matter of choice, but a complete lack of access.
Eugenics was super popular amongst the liberal elite in the first half of the 20th century until Hitler took things too far.
I'm not going to pretend that I haven't done something similar amongst like-minded left-leaning friends. The conservative response to the pandemic has been absolutely horrifying. The anti-intellectualism and science denialism cannot be excused by the fear of livelihood loss. There are plenty of liberal small business owners too, and they're wearing masks.
But that's shooting the shit with close friends in a private space. This should not happen in a professional setting.
And, in the context of what we're talking about on this thread, it cannot be justified as discussion of politics. This is bullying behaviour.
Thank you for the upvote and supportive response!
I presume the downvote is from someone who similarly sees this as just a group of like-minded people making jokes.
But this same kind of talk would be considered unacceptable if made about anyone other than a political orientation.
And while you've had a very measured and respectful response, even your response is accompanied with labels of "anti-intellectualism" and "science denialism". I'm sure you don't mean this as a personal attack on me, and I in no way equate it to what my colleagues were saying in my provided example.
But if I have what I believe to be well-reasoned justification and context for my opinion that isn't being represented, being labeled as "anti-intellectual" before I even have my say doesn't feel too good.
The protest my colleagues were joking about, at the time, was about businesses being allowed to open at all, not about mask wearing or distancing. My boss, just weeks after this incident, in a moment of Zoom frustration, lamented that at some point "we just need to accept the risk and open up". His opinion is afforded nuance by his peers, but the "other side" is not.
I could just as well point to polling that showed that liberals significantly overestimate the likelihood of dying from COVID as science denialism. A NY Times article on this subject classified it as such.
I could point to people physically attacking a woman in a sparse park for not wearing a mask while jogging alone as anti-intellectualism.
Or to the woman who went to great expense to set up properly spaced outdoor dining who was prevented from opening her restaurant while a film crew across the street was allowed to host a jam-packed gathering inside tents as a perfectly justified reason for joining such a protest.
How does all this relate?
Because whether my colleagues use bullying language, or more reserved language like "anti-intellectualism", the result is the same - one group is marginalized as lesser and put into a position where attempting to come forward and join the discussion immediately puts them into a box that is seen not as just a difference of opinion with proper reasoning to support it, but instead as something that intrinsically makes them inferior and less abled.
Even though, I suspect, if an actual discussion were allowed to happen, and we could remove many of these labels, we would find ourselves largely to be in agreement on most issues, and could empathize with each other even where we disagree. I highly doubt you condone the crazier examples of the left, and I can assure you I don't agree with many of the fringe ideas on the right.
This leads back to the issue at hand - if political discussion is allowed, in the current climate, then it will quickly lead to bullying and marginalization of whichever group is in the minority. Dressing it up with nicer words doesn't really help - if one side is quickly painted as intellectually inferior without respect for their own life experiences and reasoning, then it will not lead to a productive or respectful work environment.
I'm still not sure banning all political discussion is the answer, but there is clearly something wrong with the way we see each other and talk about each other that has to change before political discussion can return to being as benign in the workplace as it probably should be.
I presume the downvote is from someone who similarly sees this as just a group of like-minded people making jokes.
But this same kind of talk would be considered unacceptable if made about anyone other than a political orientation.
And while you've had a very measured and respectful response, even your response is accompanied with labels of "anti-intellectualism" and "science denialism". I'm sure you don't mean this as a personal attack on me, and I in no way equate it to what my colleagues were saying in my provided example.
But if I have what I believe to be well-reasoned justification and context for my opinion that isn't being represented, being labeled as "anti-intellectual" before I even have my say doesn't feel too good.
The protest my colleagues were joking about, at the time, was about businesses being allowed to open at all, not about mask wearing or distancing. My boss, just weeks after this incident, in a moment of Zoom frustration, lamented that at some point "we just need to accept the risk and open up". His opinion is afforded nuance by his peers, but the "other side" is not.
I could just as well point to polling that showed that liberals significantly overestimate the likelihood of dying from COVID as science denialism. A NY Times article on this subject classified it as such.
I could point to people physically attacking a woman in a sparse park for not wearing a mask while jogging alone as anti-intellectualism.
Or to the woman who went to great expense to set up properly spaced outdoor dining who was prevented from opening her restaurant while a film crew across the street was allowed to host a jam-packed gathering inside tents as a perfectly justified reason for joining such a protest.
How does all this relate?
Because whether my colleagues use bullying language, or more reserved language like "anti-intellectualism", the result is the same - one group is marginalized as lesser and put into a position where attempting to come forward and join the discussion immediately puts them into a box that is seen not as just a difference of opinion with proper reasoning to support it, but instead as something that intrinsically makes them inferior and less abled.
Even though, I suspect, if an actual discussion were allowed to happen, and we could remove many of these labels, we would find ourselves largely to be in agreement on most issues, and could empathize with each other even where we disagree. I highly doubt you condone the crazier examples of the left, and I can assure you I don't agree with many of the fringe ideas on the right.
This leads back to the issue at hand - if political discussion is allowed, in the current climate, then it will quickly lead to bullying and marginalization of whichever group is in the minority. Dressing it up with nicer words doesn't really help - if one side is quickly painted as intellectually inferior without respect for their own life experiences and reasoning, then it will not lead to a productive or respectful work environment.
I'm still not sure banning all political discussion is the answer, but there is clearly something wrong with the way we see each other and talk about each other that has to change before political discussion can return to being as benign in the workplace as it probably should be.
I definitely didn't mean to accuse you of anti-intellectualism or science denialism, you've given me no reason to think either of those traits.
But I do have to paint "conservatives" for lack of a better word with that brush based on specifically mask and COVID vaccination responses.
I don't ascribe all anti-intellectualism to the right. Essential Oils, Vaccinations causing Autism, Healing Crystals, and Chakras are all anti-intellectualist science-denialism with a profoundly leftist tint.
But you have to admit that the people downplaying COVID, effectiveness of masks, and saying they are unlikely to take a vaccine are generally conservatives. And when this is the most prevalent subject of news in the world today, it ends up influencing people's perspectives.
But I do have to paint "conservatives" for lack of a better word with that brush based on specifically mask and COVID vaccination responses.
I don't ascribe all anti-intellectualism to the right. Essential Oils, Vaccinations causing Autism, Healing Crystals, and Chakras are all anti-intellectualist science-denialism with a profoundly leftist tint.
But you have to admit that the people downplaying COVID, effectiveness of masks, and saying they are unlikely to take a vaccine are generally conservatives. And when this is the most prevalent subject of news in the world today, it ends up influencing people's perspectives.
> Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company,
What is a "straight white" liberal company? Are you saying you've asked all your coworkers their sexual orientation, or are you making assumptions based on heteronormativity. Dating people of the opposite gender doesn't necessarily make one straight.
As a not-entirely-straight man in tech, I have never discussed my degree of "straightness" at work, but I would be a bit taken aback by someone assuming this.
What is a "straight white" liberal company? Are you saying you've asked all your coworkers their sexual orientation, or are you making assumptions based on heteronormativity. Dating people of the opposite gender doesn't necessarily make one straight.
As a not-entirely-straight man in tech, I have never discussed my degree of "straightness" at work, but I would be a bit taken aback by someone assuming this.
This sort of over-reaction to throwaway comments is a big part of the problem. Take the most generous interpretation - maybe they just mean "a company where I am in the minority politically", that's all you need to take to follow the point.
Stop being the language police or we'll never make any progress. Tolerance, generosity, always assume the best of someone.
Stop being the language police or we'll never make any progress. Tolerance, generosity, always assume the best of someone.
Good lord.
Straight white could simply meant mostly white or mostly straight and white
Straight white could simply meant mostly white or mostly straight and white
Funny, I feel like there is a healthy conservative movement in the US and you are literally surrounded by conservatives all the time. In fact I think 74 million of them voted in the last election. So please explain how being a white male makes you some kind of victimized under-class.
"There are two billions Muslims on earth, please explain how Islamophobia could possibly be real."
adamors(1)
Kinda depends on what you do and say as a conservative I guess. I agree that in liberal circles there is a bias against conservatives, but that's also because many conservative views are intolerant.
Expressing "I'm a conservative" should be fine, but saying "I think homosexuality is gross. Oh by the way I'm conservative" is not. Unfortunately, the "conservatives" are often associated with the latter.
I also think it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance, and not all views should be equally freely expressed. Taking a more extreme example (and definitely not saying OP or all conservatives are like this), but I'm ok with a klan member feeling his only means of survival at a work place is to keep his mouth shut about his beliefs.
Expressing "I'm a conservative" should be fine, but saying "I think homosexuality is gross. Oh by the way I'm conservative" is not. Unfortunately, the "conservatives" are often associated with the latter.
I also think it's ok to be intolerant of intolerance, and not all views should be equally freely expressed. Taking a more extreme example (and definitely not saying OP or all conservatives are like this), but I'm ok with a klan member feeling his only means of survival at a work place is to keep his mouth shut about his beliefs.
> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.
I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?
I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?
Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel:
“I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!”
“I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!”
Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing to share with coworkers. Only one of the statements happens to involve (and even take a stance on!) a political debate which was extremely prominent in US national politics 6 years ago and extremely divisive and highly-charged.
If a company has a policy like this, what should their response be to these two people? Should one, both, or neither message be allowed in the company’s casual chat channel?
“I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!”
“I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!”
Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing to share with coworkers. Only one of the statements happens to involve (and even take a stance on!) a political debate which was extremely prominent in US national politics 6 years ago and extremely divisive and highly-charged.
If a company has a policy like this, what should their response be to these two people? Should one, both, or neither message be allowed in the company’s casual chat channel?
The blog post specifically mentioned the work chat channel. Talk about whatever you want in other channels.
If you were in the middle of a meeting to plan a new product launch and suddenly announced "I'm getting married this weekend!" what kind of reaction would you expect? People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment and to get back to work. If you kept on trying to turn every discussion about work back to how it relates to your upcoming wedding, they'd eventually get annoyed and write you off as an obnoxious weirdo, and they'd be right.
If you were in the middle of a meeting to plan a new product launch and suddenly announced "I'm getting married this weekend!" what kind of reaction would you expect? People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment and to get back to work. If you kept on trying to turn every discussion about work back to how it relates to your upcoming wedding, they'd eventually get annoyed and write you off as an obnoxious weirdo, and they'd be right.
“ No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account. “
They banned it in all channels, and told their employees to chat on Signal:
“ People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can't happen where the work happens anymore.”
So - it’s not like what you asserted, at all. What you asserted is somewhat reasonable (even if I would want to nitpick at the edge cases) ... but they’re not saying anything close to what you’re saying.
They banned it in all channels, and told their employees to chat on Signal:
“ People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can't happen where the work happens anymore.”
So - it’s not like what you asserted, at all. What you asserted is somewhat reasonable (even if I would want to nitpick at the edge cases) ... but they’re not saying anything close to what you’re saying.
They also didn't ban "chitchat". They banned harassing people about politics, which is entirely reasonable.
The banned talking about politics, and my entire point is that my participation in idle chit-chat, when it indirectly confirms my sexuality, is coded as political and thus off-limits. And that this tends to get weaponized against disadvantaged groups.
I don't doubt that there are people who will try to claim that any mention of a same-sex relationship is political.
Based on everything Jason and DHH have ever said or done, do you think that their intent with this policy is to forbid people from mentioning their same sex partners?
Do you believe that they would take seriously any complaint in that regard?
There is definitely a spectrum of behavior contained in "political discussions". Do think there's not any part of that spectrum that should be discouraged at work? I think they made it pretty clear what area of the spectrum of behavior they're targeting and it's not "casual mentions of same-sex partners".
Based on everything Jason and DHH have ever said or done, do you think that their intent with this policy is to forbid people from mentioning their same sex partners?
Do you believe that they would take seriously any complaint in that regard?
There is definitely a spectrum of behavior contained in "political discussions". Do think there's not any part of that spectrum that should be discouraged at work? I think they made it pretty clear what area of the spectrum of behavior they're targeting and it's not "casual mentions of same-sex partners".
I have no idea who Jason and DHH are beyond this announcement, so I have no idea which political discussions they intend to prohibit in practice. But clearly there have been some political discussions there that they intend to prohibit now, so it’s not crazy to give same-sex marriage as an example of a prominent divisive highly-charged political topic in the United States. What’s a better example that you think these two people would intend to prohibit?
To me it seems very clear that merely mentioning the fact of a same sex relationship is not a political statement.
If person A mentions they are in a same sex relationship, then person B goes on a rant about how it should be illegal and how dare you bring it up, then to me person B is the one making the discussion political, not person A.
I do see how if person B is the boss, this would be a problem, but I don't think Jason and DHH are that person B.
As an example, here is a Twitter thread about another organization that dealt with an excess of "political discussion"
https://twitter.com/graceisforyou/status/1386739669866455043
That is the sort of thing I imagine Basecamp is trying to prevent.
If person A mentions they are in a same sex relationship, then person B goes on a rant about how it should be illegal and how dare you bring it up, then to me person B is the one making the discussion political, not person A.
I do see how if person B is the boss, this would be a problem, but I don't think Jason and DHH are that person B.
As an example, here is a Twitter thread about another organization that dealt with an excess of "political discussion"
https://twitter.com/graceisforyou/status/1386739669866455043
That is the sort of thing I imagine Basecamp is trying to prevent.
Theology-driven (in bio) person starts a "justice-orientated" non-profit while admitting in the same sentence that she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"
Gets a lot of criticism on her approach. //Unclear if this is fair or not. We don't know what they did and the criticisms she is describing are very vague.
Decides that because she doesn't understand the critics, it must be that they don't want to actually fix anything, they just wanted control of the organization.
Weaponizes the language that oppressed minorities use to carve out a semblance of agency in a discriminatory world in bad faith. //"Did you just assume my sexuality" is a 4chan-level troll, and as much of a cliche as her pinned tweet equating racism with talking about racism.
I could go on but the key point is this person's story is a Choose Your Own Adventure for Outrage.
If you already agree with her you read this and think "how horrifying, we must do everything possible to prevent this". If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
The word woke has been completely appropriated. Not a single "woke" person I know would ever describe themselves as woke anymore. It has been completely appropriated by bad faith actors who use it as a blanket statement for basically everything they disagree with. A bit like US Republicans saying the MLB moving the All-Star game is an example of "cancel culture".
Gets a lot of criticism on her approach. //Unclear if this is fair or not. We don't know what they did and the criticisms she is describing are very vague.
Decides that because she doesn't understand the critics, it must be that they don't want to actually fix anything, they just wanted control of the organization.
Weaponizes the language that oppressed minorities use to carve out a semblance of agency in a discriminatory world in bad faith. //"Did you just assume my sexuality" is a 4chan-level troll, and as much of a cliche as her pinned tweet equating racism with talking about racism.
I could go on but the key point is this person's story is a Choose Your Own Adventure for Outrage.
If you already agree with her you read this and think "how horrifying, we must do everything possible to prevent this". If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
The word woke has been completely appropriated. Not a single "woke" person I know would ever describe themselves as woke anymore. It has been completely appropriated by bad faith actors who use it as a blanket statement for basically everything they disagree with. A bit like US Republicans saying the MLB moving the All-Star game is an example of "cancel culture".
> she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"
Critical Theory != Justice
Critical theory is a niche academic discipline that involves looking at certain issues in a specific way. It has its uses, but it is in no way the end-all, be-all last word on everything. It is not synonymous with every meaning and use of the word justice, and there are certainly many ways to pursue justice without it. It's absolutely nothing at all like running a web-hosting service without knowing about HTTP or DNS.
>If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
If you stop reading because of one word and then get mad at assumptions about what you think the rest says, you are not a person who should be taken seriously.
Critical Theory != Justice
Critical theory is a niche academic discipline that involves looking at certain issues in a specific way. It has its uses, but it is in no way the end-all, be-all last word on everything. It is not synonymous with every meaning and use of the word justice, and there are certainly many ways to pursue justice without it. It's absolutely nothing at all like running a web-hosting service without knowing about HTTP or DNS.
>If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.
If you stop reading because of one word and then get mad at assumptions about what you think the rest says, you are not a person who should be taken seriously.
Actually and honestly: I do not know whether or not Jason and DHH would personally do that. I would caution that you never really know what biases people hold simply from reading their Twitter.
That said, I would be surprised if they took a complaint like this seriously. But what I’m saying is that people used to take this particular complaint seriously within the past 10 years; and that this complaint is easily generalized to a lot of other complaints that feel very relevant.
And moreover the even bigger point is now I have to worry because this has happened to me. Why wouldn’t I be worried it would happen again?
(And this policy is creeping in at multiple workplaces: Coinbase, Basecamp, and at least one other place I’m not at liberty to actually say - and the trend is very concerning).
That said, I would be surprised if they took a complaint like this seriously. But what I’m saying is that people used to take this particular complaint seriously within the past 10 years; and that this complaint is easily generalized to a lot of other complaints that feel very relevant.
And moreover the even bigger point is now I have to worry because this has happened to me. Why wouldn’t I be worried it would happen again?
(And this policy is creeping in at multiple workplaces: Coinbase, Basecamp, and at least one other place I’m not at liberty to actually say - and the trend is very concerning).
I agree that you shouldn't have to worry about that.
I think people also shouldn't have to worry about losing their job or being pushed aside if they just want to do work and not kneel down with people, or raise their fists, or recite loyalty oaths to certain causes. Some people just want to come to work and do work and go home, and that should be allowed too.
I hope we can find a compromise where neither person needs to worry. I think that is what Basecamp is making an honest attempt at here.
I think people also shouldn't have to worry about losing their job or being pushed aside if they just want to do work and not kneel down with people, or raise their fists, or recite loyalty oaths to certain causes. Some people just want to come to work and do work and go home, and that should be allowed too.
I hope we can find a compromise where neither person needs to worry. I think that is what Basecamp is making an honest attempt at here.
If that’s the goal you want, I hope we agree then that this kind of policy isn’t a good way to achieve it because of the really large potential for collateral damage.
Like sure - you can kill an ant with a hand grenade, but is that the best tool for the job?
Like sure - you can kill an ant with a hand grenade, but is that the best tool for the job?
This announcement is discussing specific prohibitions based on the content of workplace discussions, not the specific timing or context-appropriateness of the discussion. Obviously there are times and contexts at work where outbursts or abrupt personal discussions are inappropriate regardless of their specific content, but I think it’s very clear that this is not what this announcement is talking about.
Most companies have places where employees interact outside meetings.
> People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment
Have you never been in a workplace before? That is absolutely not what would happen, especially in HN's darling startup atmosphere.
No normal person, being told their colleague was getting married would brush it off and say it's not relevant to the work discussion, and nor should they. It's inhuman and gross. I'm not a robot. I want to celebrate with my coworkers. We spend a lot of time together, playing like we shouldn't get personal with our time is absurd.
Have you never been in a workplace before? That is absolutely not what would happen, especially in HN's darling startup atmosphere.
No normal person, being told their colleague was getting married would brush it off and say it's not relevant to the work discussion, and nor should they. It's inhuman and gross. I'm not a robot. I want to celebrate with my coworkers. We spend a lot of time together, playing like we shouldn't get personal with our time is absurd.
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's destructive of what this site is supposed to be for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Not every office is full of robots. People chitchat during meetings.
The same sex couple message doesn't seem political because there are just sharing an experience. It would be political if they continued on about the law was unfair and needs to change.
I don’t think the line is nearly as complicated as most people make it out to be.
Somebody discussing their plans and related challenges may have political notions attached, but the “right and wrong” are not the focal point.
If someone responds with “good, gay marriage is wrong”, you’ve clearly crossed into political debate, and opened the line for personal attacks.
If someone responds with “everyone who’s against this is a Nazi”, you have also done the same.
If, instead, the response is centered around the person’s own experience (“I’m sorry to hear that, I know some family with a similar struggle”) then it’s fine.
It’s not terribly different if you’re discussing being disappointed that your insurance rates went up.
“Sucks that we have to pay $75 more a month” is fine. Adding that “it’s all because of Obamacare” crosses the line.
I don’t see the line being that difficult, it’s just that most people on BOTH sides take these statements as their cue to start engaging in their political debate, usually abandoning all subtlety and nuance while gathering the pitchforks and drawing warlines.
People forget how much diversity of opinion there is, from gay couples against marriage, to Christian supporters of gay marriage, to libertarians who don’t support any state recognized marriage at all.
Same goes for taxes, HUD approved appliances, EPA regulations, etc.
Name a political debate, and I’ll give you people I’ve met or worked with who don’t fit into the media-prescribed boxes.
Most importantly, people have seemingly forgotten that whether you agree or disagree with the cause, it’s entirely possible to just be supportive of your fellow humans for the sake of wanting them to be happy.
Somebody discussing their plans and related challenges may have political notions attached, but the “right and wrong” are not the focal point.
If someone responds with “good, gay marriage is wrong”, you’ve clearly crossed into political debate, and opened the line for personal attacks.
If someone responds with “everyone who’s against this is a Nazi”, you have also done the same.
If, instead, the response is centered around the person’s own experience (“I’m sorry to hear that, I know some family with a similar struggle”) then it’s fine.
It’s not terribly different if you’re discussing being disappointed that your insurance rates went up.
“Sucks that we have to pay $75 more a month” is fine. Adding that “it’s all because of Obamacare” crosses the line.
I don’t see the line being that difficult, it’s just that most people on BOTH sides take these statements as their cue to start engaging in their political debate, usually abandoning all subtlety and nuance while gathering the pitchforks and drawing warlines.
People forget how much diversity of opinion there is, from gay couples against marriage, to Christian supporters of gay marriage, to libertarians who don’t support any state recognized marriage at all.
Same goes for taxes, HUD approved appliances, EPA regulations, etc.
Name a political debate, and I’ll give you people I’ve met or worked with who don’t fit into the media-prescribed boxes.
Most importantly, people have seemingly forgotten that whether you agree or disagree with the cause, it’s entirely possible to just be supportive of your fellow humans for the sake of wanting them to be happy.
I've learned from experience that it's never a good idea to bring your personal problems to work, no matter what they are or how unjust they are. Work just isn't the place for it.
I think there's some level of "leave your personal life at home" that isn't completely bad. I don't talk about all of my personal problems at the office.
But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust accordingly (and offer any personal or workplace support that is appropriate).
To use a somewhat silly analogy - we understand that if someone is too sick to work, then they shouldn't come to work. We don't tell people "work just isn't the place for your illness," because we know that some illnesses really make it impossible to do any work. And, that if you don't go home and rest, the ultimate impact to the business will be worse in the long run because you can't recover.
I think some personal problems rise to that level. Getting cut off in traffic and being annoyed? I don't know, maybe not. "The cops just shot 3 more black people like me at traffic stops this weekend and I'm having a really hard time concentrating now" might be a "personal problem" that is highly relevant to bring up at work (and coded as "political," to boot). That kind of thing would understandably rattle you, and it takes time to heal from.
I guess my point is: we're not robots, and it's not possible to really "check it at the door" most of the time. It never really has been.
The Basecamp policy isn't going to stop people from bringing their personal problems to work, overall. But it'll silence black people and gay people from bringing their problems to work, because those are "political" problems to some people.
But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust accordingly (and offer any personal or workplace support that is appropriate).
To use a somewhat silly analogy - we understand that if someone is too sick to work, then they shouldn't come to work. We don't tell people "work just isn't the place for your illness," because we know that some illnesses really make it impossible to do any work. And, that if you don't go home and rest, the ultimate impact to the business will be worse in the long run because you can't recover.
I think some personal problems rise to that level. Getting cut off in traffic and being annoyed? I don't know, maybe not. "The cops just shot 3 more black people like me at traffic stops this weekend and I'm having a really hard time concentrating now" might be a "personal problem" that is highly relevant to bring up at work (and coded as "political," to boot). That kind of thing would understandably rattle you, and it takes time to heal from.
I guess my point is: we're not robots, and it's not possible to really "check it at the door" most of the time. It never really has been.
The Basecamp policy isn't going to stop people from bringing their personal problems to work, overall. But it'll silence black people and gay people from bringing their problems to work, because those are "political" problems to some people.
If something happening in society or your personal life is preventing you from doing your job, you don't have to explain it in the company wide channel. In fact, doing so probably won't help you or the company much. Most companies offer sick days and mental health days, for which you don't need to provide any explanation whatsoever. Many companies also pay for confidential mental health services. If your problem can't be solved with those benefits, disability insurance is also commonplace at companies and typically covers mental illness that would prevent you from doing your work. Companies should offer all of those things if they don't. I would go so far as to say that companies should be legally required to offer all of those things if they don't. But I don't think talking about personal or societal dumpster fires in the company chat will do anything to help the person affected, and will likely cause one person or group's problems to affect the work of the rest of the company without leading to any kind of resolution for anyone.
As a counter-point: one of the things I've found the most helpful during the pandemic was the meetings with my coworkers where we set the agenda aside, and just talked about our struggles.
The resources and tools you mentioned are useful and good, but there's something different about supporting each other directly.
The resources and tools you mentioned are useful and good, but there's something different about supporting each other directly.
While I wouldn't personally talk to my coworkers about my struggles, because I like to keep work and personal life as separate as possible, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so privately, on your own time, and not in company-wide channels.
[deleted]
Why do you think your marriage is of such general interest that you bring it up in a company chat channel? Talk about it in person, with people who give a shit.
Oh, c'mon. You think he should never mention his spouse to his coworkers, even in passing? You can't think of any situation in which it would be totally ordinary to say something about "my husband" or "my wife" in a work channel?
Anyway, I need to get off HN, I'm working from home and my wife just told me that lunch is ready.
Anyway, I need to get off HN, I'm working from home and my wife just told me that lunch is ready.
Neither of those messages should be posted in the workplace.
And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.
Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.
And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.
Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.
Because people aren’t robots, and like to get to know the people with whom they spend ~40 hours every week?
But not if that involves gay husbands or racist police or housing policy. (And since housing is Topic #1 in SV that might prove a bit difficult.) Only the weather, who you saw dining together at the yacht club, and ... IDK. You can't even have a good old vim/emacs at Basecamp.
> Only the weather
But be careful of anything touching on long-term trends...
But be careful of anything touching on long-term trends...
> And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.
Well, to be fair - when I say “my husband” that doesn’t talk about sexual preferences any more than saying “my wife.”
I don’t see how that’s talking about sex, do you?
Well, to be fair - when I say “my husband” that doesn’t talk about sexual preferences any more than saying “my wife.”
I don’t see how that’s talking about sex, do you?
In conjunction with knowing your gender, I believe it does, or at least provides a very strong suggestion.
The point is neither should matter, and I would argue, neither should be known, in the workplace.
The point is neither should matter, and I would argue, neither should be known, in the workplace.
I mean, anonymous handles and no in-person (or zoom) chat might make that sorta possible, but you can’t get around the problem.
The real issue is that this is only a problem in one direction: nobody complains when someone says “my wife,” and some people definitely complain when someone says “my husband”.
It definitely gets made about sex, and gay sex specifically, by the people making the complaint. They’re the ones making it about sex and not leaving it alone as a conversation about one’s spouse.
The real issue is that this is only a problem in one direction: nobody complains when someone says “my wife,” and some people definitely complain when someone says “my husband”.
It definitely gets made about sex, and gay sex specifically, by the people making the complaint. They’re the ones making it about sex and not leaving it alone as a conversation about one’s spouse.
Which is why it should all be avoided in the workplace. This is not a debate about the merits of gay or straight sexual orientation.
My coworkers have no need to know if I am in a relationship, have children, etc. If they ask I will (and do) tell them I am not interested in having that conversation and I will never ask them or engage further if they bring their partner/spouse/children up.
I'm there to do a job and leave as quickly as possible upon completing the days work. Everything else, in my opinion, is a distraction hampering that goal.
My coworkers have no need to know if I am in a relationship, have children, etc. If they ask I will (and do) tell them I am not interested in having that conversation and I will never ask them or engage further if they bring their partner/spouse/children up.
I'm there to do a job and leave as quickly as possible upon completing the days work. Everything else, in my opinion, is a distraction hampering that goal.
That's a principled and consistent stand, which I applaud you for maintaining. But I don't think that majority of the working world would take such a hard-line stance against sharing any details of their personal lives.
So - we have to deal with the world we have, which is "many, if not most, workers share some degree of personal information about their lives in the workplace." That's the reality we have to deal with.
So - we have to deal with the world we have, which is "many, if not most, workers share some degree of personal information about their lives in the workplace." That's the reality we have to deal with.
I think it’s because it’s really just putting your fingers in your ears, ignoring the fact you simply redefined the problem instead of solving it. The next step is, who gets to decide what is and is not “political”? The answer tends to be the last people you want.
[deleted]
Your fundamental error is not recognizing the existence of the "tolerant bigot".
Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues.
People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is against gay marriage is "against your right to exist". Tolerance is putting up with things you disapprove of not approving everything.
Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues.
People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is against gay marriage is "against your right to exist". Tolerance is putting up with things you disapprove of not approving everything.
You're not really wrong, on any point. But you did make an interesting connection, that a lot of people are making: "Tolerance is [...] not approving everything."
It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of my life." (And, specifically, that I have experienced this before myself and have seen it happen to others and that it's not all that uncommon).
But I'm not asking for approval - but you jumped there anyways. Why is that? To me, that reads as "asking for tolerance" is the same as "asking for approval," but that would contradict what you stated earlier.
There's a logical inconsistency there, and I don't know how you resolve it?
It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of my life." (And, specifically, that I have experienced this before myself and have seen it happen to others and that it's not all that uncommon).
But I'm not asking for approval - but you jumped there anyways. Why is that? To me, that reads as "asking for tolerance" is the same as "asking for approval," but that would contradict what you stated earlier.
There's a logical inconsistency there, and I don't know how you resolve it?
People, including me, are making the "tolerance is not approval" connection because we look at society and see a lot of tolerance and then we see lots of people who conflate tolerance with approval, sometimes explicitly, e.g. if someone says "I am very tolerant, I support gay marriage," they are using the word "tolerant" wrong.
Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. Acquiring your right to marry was political, but exercising that right is not. If someone doesn't understand this and interprets you referencing your husband as some political statement, they are wrong, and I expect most HR departments would realize that if push came to shove.
Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. Acquiring your right to marry was political, but exercising that right is not. If someone doesn't understand this and interprets you referencing your husband as some political statement, they are wrong, and I expect most HR departments would realize that if push came to shove.
> Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political.
My argument is "my relationship is political because I am gay" and part of why I make that argument is because people have told me they think it's political.
So - you disagree. About what, precisely? If you don't want to believe me that this has happened to me, and happened to others, that's something only you can decide and control.
But it would be nice if you could at least assume I'm telling you the truth about my own life and experiences, and engage in debate accordingly. Otherwise just be up front about the fact that you don't think I'm telling the truth about this, or that you think I'm wildly mistaken.
My argument is "my relationship is political because I am gay" and part of why I make that argument is because people have told me they think it's political.
So - you disagree. About what, precisely? If you don't want to believe me that this has happened to me, and happened to others, that's something only you can decide and control.
But it would be nice if you could at least assume I'm telling you the truth about my own life and experiences, and engage in debate accordingly. Otherwise just be up front about the fact that you don't think I'm telling the truth about this, or that you think I'm wildly mistaken.
My point is not what has or hasn't happened to you. My point is that, if someone tells you your marriage is political, they are wrong. They don't know what politics is and the law is on your side. I don't see what else you can really ask for (besides approval).
Who cares if they’re actually right or wrong? The point of all of this is that if they want, under this Basecamp policy, they could cry to their management about “drewbug01 is being political and waving around his sexuality in my face and I’d like a politics-free workspace”.
And if that manager happens to also be jerk? Or even just not like me very much and want cover to get rid of me? They’ve got it.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you and I think it’s unpolitical. Enough people believe that it is so it is. This is the part that’s such a huge problem.
And if that manager happens to also be jerk? Or even just not like me very much and want cover to get rid of me? They’ve got it.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you and I think it’s unpolitical. Enough people believe that it is so it is. This is the part that’s such a huge problem.
> some people’s entire existence political, full stop
> you uninvited certain people entirely
Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?
> you uninvited certain people entirely
Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?
Not unable to work; unwelcome at work.
I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue.
So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they could, and I have to worry about it. And not too long ago, companies did enforce it that way.
(Just to continue with one specific example, I don’t think the problem is contained only to this one example)
I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue.
So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they could, and I have to worry about it. And not too long ago, companies did enforce it that way.
(Just to continue with one specific example, I don’t think the problem is contained only to this one example)
If someone comes to me and reports anyone (of any gender) for using that sentence and claiming that it was political, they'll be first invited to repeat themself because I must have heard them incorrectly and then if that doesn't clue them in, I'll continue along the conversation until they realize that I don't believe that's the least bit political of a statement and if they continue to think that it is, they are only welcome to do that thinking at work with their mouth shut and away from their keyboard.
Good on you (genuinely) but you do recognize that there are plenty of people who would be much more sympathetic to the complainer, right?
Yes, of course. I've seen that number decrease over the decades, but it's obviously not zero (and probably never will be).
It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous political discussion (including this one [Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ]).
Political discussion (like religious discussion) tends to generate more heat than light and I don't begrudge a company wanting to focus official work channels on, well, work.
It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous political discussion (including this one [Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ]).
Political discussion (like religious discussion) tends to generate more heat than light and I don't begrudge a company wanting to focus official work channels on, well, work.
I agree that political discussion generates more heat than light, and I agree that the company should be able to prohibit specific topics. At the same time, Basecamp’s definition of “political” is extremely broad (“every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant”) and I don’t blame people for worrying that anodyne statements would fall under its umbrella.
To take a few hot-button issues from today: what if you’re Black, and a police officer racially profiles you on your way to work? What if your trans child is taking puberty blockers, or playing sports? Forget taking specific stances — is it acceptable to even let on to your coworkers that these things are happening in your life?
To take a few hot-button issues from today: what if you’re Black, and a police officer racially profiles you on your way to work? What if your trans child is taking puberty blockers, or playing sports? Forget taking specific stances — is it acceptable to even let on to your coworkers that these things are happening in your life?
I think they are. I also don’t think they are appropriate in #official, #work, or during the meat of a work meeting, which is what it seems like Basecamp is saying.
I think they are, too. But I also think Basecamp’s wording (especially before they changed it [1]) leaves a ton of room for interpretation. And I’m not confident that many of them people who jumped in to defend this would be on the same page as us.
[1] https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1386810666221150210?s=...
[1] https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1386810666221150210?s=...
These are things that you might bring up in personal conversation with friends at work. Airing your personal list of daily grievances, trials and tribulations on chat channels might get you some murmers of sympathy but most people will be rolling their eyes behind your back.
I think there a difference. A statement of indisputable fact i.e. "I went to the park with my husband" is different from an opinion or belief such as "I think x should be y", regardless of how accepted it is in the workplace or society as a whole.
I’m telling you though - that’s not how it plays out. This is something I’ve lived through - I’ve been asked not to talk about relationships at work because they aren’t heteronormative.
It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.
It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.
Even if this policy were intended to be used this way, or winds up being used this way, (which I don't support), it still seems better than the alternative. If you reference your husband and somebody says "Aaah, political, can't say that" - do you want to be sharing personal details with this person? Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you?
If you have anti-gay coworkers who buzz you for anodyne references like this you could just not talk to them or buzz them for their references to wives, girlfriends, whatever. You could escalate to management or HR if you felt they were treating you unfairly.
If the corporate policy permits politics at worse, that would seem to make situation worse, not better.
If you have anti-gay coworkers who buzz you for anodyne references like this you could just not talk to them or buzz them for their references to wives, girlfriends, whatever. You could escalate to management or HR if you felt they were treating you unfairly.
If the corporate policy permits politics at worse, that would seem to make situation worse, not better.
> Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you?
I would prefer that corporate policy not give them this new, shiny tool to harass me.
The problem, in this instance, isn’t the banning of political speech per se - rather it is that the ban can be cruelly weaponized against regular speech you just don’t want to hear because it offends your own “political views.”
That’s going to remain true as long as anti-gay views are legitimately held by a mainstream political party here, which is very much still the case today.
I would prefer that corporate policy not give them this new, shiny tool to harass me.
The problem, in this instance, isn’t the banning of political speech per se - rather it is that the ban can be cruelly weaponized against regular speech you just don’t want to hear because it offends your own “political views.”
That’s going to remain true as long as anti-gay views are legitimately held by a mainstream political party here, which is very much still the case today.
You think that the statement “I think my marriage should remain legal” is significantly different from the statement “I went to the park with my husband”?
Yes.
It's obviously different. And this is an example of why politics is a dangerous subject in the workplace. I haven't challenged your belief, in fact, I don't even know your belief and you're already on the attack.
If you say "I am married", that's a fact. If someone says they disagree with your marriage then they are stating an opinion.
If you say "I am married", that's a fact. If someone says they disagree with your marriage then they are stating an opinion.
> I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue.
Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my opinion.
Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my opinion.
> Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation.
Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.”
If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political views by about half the country, this wouldn’t be nearly so bad.
Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.”
If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political views by about half the country, this wouldn’t be nearly so bad.
I don't see the political part in this. If I was gay and somebody would respond to me like that, I would instantly ask "Do you have a problem with me having a husband? Where were you living the last couple of decades? Are you some muslim extremist or something?" Keep it light and funny, and tear the bastard apart.
It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
> I don't see the political part in this
> it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing.
I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes the managers are jerks as well. Sometimes their managers, too.
It happens. I don't like it, it shouldn't happen: but it happens.
> it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.
I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing.
I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes the managers are jerks as well. Sometimes their managers, too.
It happens. I don't like it, it shouldn't happen: but it happens.
You have more experience than me of course, so I believe you. It's a sad thing that we are still only at this level.
Indeed, it is sad. But hey, progress does happen, even if it's slow. I'm not incredibly morose about it all the time, or anything - just cautious about losing some of that progress.
I’m sorry but I don’t quite get how company policy would impact this interaction with a coworker, in practice.
If they are showing prejudice or treating you unfairly it is them that should be reported. It must be a pretty fucked up workplace for the opposite to happen?
If they are showing prejudice or treating you unfairly it is them that should be reported. It must be a pretty fucked up workplace for the opposite to happen?
I think the GP comment is referring to LGBT people who are out, willingly or not, to their coworkers. Which bathroom a trans person uses, for example, is considered a political issue by some people.
But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleable political system. We could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment that makes being late for standup punishable by prison, couldn't we? Is it now political to be late for standup? You end up arguing over the degree to which something is political, which leads back to what everyone is complaining about: the enforcement of this policy cannot be anything but arbitrary.
Personally, I think that if the Basecamp folks want to ban a particular type of politics then they should grow a spine and say what they mean, instead of expecting everyone to read between the lines for them. If they did that then perhaps they could expect people to agree to disagree, but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.
But I also think that point can be generalized, to the boring but obvious conclusion that everything involving interaction between human beings is political, since those interactions occur within the context of a malleable political system. We could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment that makes being late for standup punishable by prison, couldn't we? Is it now political to be late for standup? You end up arguing over the degree to which something is political, which leads back to what everyone is complaining about: the enforcement of this policy cannot be anything but arbitrary.
Personally, I think that if the Basecamp folks want to ban a particular type of politics then they should grow a spine and say what they mean, instead of expecting everyone to read between the lines for them. If they did that then perhaps they could expect people to agree to disagree, but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.
> but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now.
And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work environment?
And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work environment?
I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.
And, being current events, they're already being discussed in plenty of places. For people who find it stressful to discuss these things, it's good to have a place where you know they won't be discussed, where you can focus fully on something that you can actually do something about.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the act of adopting a broad "no talking about politics or society" rule, specifically right now, is itself a very political act. They are doing exactly the thing you say they're trying to avoid.
But isn't the place to discuss those issues, if they are impacting you at your workplace, with your manager, HR or your union? Not to start a thread on the work discussion forum?
I don’t think so, for a variety of reasons. But one of them is that managers and HR reps are often keen to just make a problem “go away” - so coworkers agitating over that problem is often required for any substantial change.
Notably, the US tech workforce is almost entirely in unionized, as well - so that avenue isn’t available.
Notably, the US tech workforce is almost entirely in unionized, as well - so that avenue isn’t available.
I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. Perhaps implicitly the new policy assumes it is obvious you can mention your husband and anybody giving you problems because of that is violating the policy.
I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".
I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".
> I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent.
No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.
Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.
But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.
> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.
I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.
No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.
Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.
But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.
> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.
I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.
"I love my family!"
"That's good...hold up are you conservative?"
"Yes"
"Stop pushing your politics on us!"
This mindset is demonizing and insidious, full stop. It's simply unacceptable in a civil society
This mindset is demonizing and insidious, full stop. It's simply unacceptable in a civil society
Discrimination in any form should not be accepted. But is this still a political topic? I thought we all already decided that.
I think a lot of people replying have the same mindset: “haven’t we already decided that discrimination is bad?”
I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.
I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.
I agree, but strangely enough, both extreme right and extreme left seem to love discrimination in some form.
I honestly believe that the real solution is treat everyone the same, and to demand from everyone to do the same.
When your solution includes distinction, you will never get rid of the distinction.
I honestly believe that the real solution is treat everyone the same, and to demand from everyone to do the same.
When your solution includes distinction, you will never get rid of the distinction.
I think I agree with what you said about American conservatism; it's an interesting idea at least.
But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp?
So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.
I can't think of many political topics that necessarily amount to uninviting someone from daily work conversation at a company like Basecamp.
But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp?
So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth.
I can't think of many political topics that necessarily amount to uninviting someone from daily work conversation at a company like Basecamp.
It wasn’t that long ago that even in tech, you couldn’t mention same-sex spouses without backlash. And that’s still the case today in other industries (particularly ones that don’t have a sizable internet culture influence like tech does).
So like to apply that specifically to a work context: that’s saying “no watercooler chat about what you and your spouses got up to over the weekend” because your spouse existing is a “political” concept. And by extension, that employee isn’t very much welcome.
You can extend that metaphor in other directions though: company PACs supporting anti-gay politicians, benefits that exclude LGBT employees, etc. Now that’s all “political” too.
(There are other areas too, I think - this particular identity-based angle on it is relevant to me personally so I can see these examples clearly. I feel confident there are others.)
So like to apply that specifically to a work context: that’s saying “no watercooler chat about what you and your spouses got up to over the weekend” because your spouse existing is a “political” concept. And by extension, that employee isn’t very much welcome.
You can extend that metaphor in other directions though: company PACs supporting anti-gay politicians, benefits that exclude LGBT employees, etc. Now that’s all “political” too.
(There are other areas too, I think - this particular identity-based angle on it is relevant to me personally so I can see these examples clearly. I feel confident there are others.)
Another basic example: imagine working at Basecamp and being like "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" (whatever the Rails equivalent is) Like maybe you want to have a more diverse team and this is one way of trying to recruit for it.
Without these "oh politics is sin" things, the bosses saying no might require them to justify it. Instead they can now weasel their way out of this kind of stuff, and basically shield themselves from criticism on this front, even if people internally might want to change [0]
Lots of conservative ideology is around this, trying to turn some subjective defense of beliefs into like... some objective rules about not doing X/Y/Z (basically maintaining the status quo). I'm not saying the decision makers are conservative, but that's what the result is going to be here.
(tbh I think there are good reasons to minimize discussions about current events into places where people aren't forced to be exposed to them at work. I know I don't want to, just cuz I'm already exposed to it a lot. But there's a difference between banning politics talk and just asking people to keep it in certain areas IMO)
[0] https://basecamp.com/about/team they don't have the engineering/non-engineering split here, but 50-odd people and they have 3 Dans + 3 Jasons. There are definitely companies with more absurd balances and the people at Basecamp probably would like to see improvements! But this kinda stuff makes it harder.
Without these "oh politics is sin" things, the bosses saying no might require them to justify it. Instead they can now weasel their way out of this kind of stuff, and basically shield themselves from criticism on this front, even if people internally might want to change [0]
Lots of conservative ideology is around this, trying to turn some subjective defense of beliefs into like... some objective rules about not doing X/Y/Z (basically maintaining the status quo). I'm not saying the decision makers are conservative, but that's what the result is going to be here.
(tbh I think there are good reasons to minimize discussions about current events into places where people aren't forced to be exposed to them at work. I know I don't want to, just cuz I'm already exposed to it a lot. But there's a difference between banning politics talk and just asking people to keep it in certain areas IMO)
[0] https://basecamp.com/about/team they don't have the engineering/non-engineering split here, but 50-odd people and they have 3 Dans + 3 Jasons. There are definitely companies with more absurd balances and the people at Basecamp probably would like to see improvements! But this kinda stuff makes it harder.
> "Can we sponsor Django Girls?"
Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money
Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money
Should I pay for recruiter fees out of my own pocket if I want to send a recruiter to an HBCU while I'm at it?
I'm not going to do a diversity spiel, but I have had the "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" discussion before, and part of solving that can involve more focused recruiting efforts (including stuff like sponsoring those kinds of events). It's totally a work-related thing. Why would I pay out of pocket to help my company hire?
I'm not going to do a diversity spiel, but I have had the "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people" discussion before, and part of solving that can involve more focused recruiting efforts (including stuff like sponsoring those kinds of events). It's totally a work-related thing. Why would I pay out of pocket to help my company hire?
Recruiting is different than public outreach. I think the strategy in recruiting is to hire the best people you can regardless of identity. “Best” is qualified by the tasks of the particular role
> "would be nice for our team to have different kinds of people"
so if you have a business case for recruiting different kinds of people (who currently don't get recruited), then that's not a political agenda. If you can point to evidence that the recruitment team is missing out on great candidates because of some systemic mis-identification.
But if you are suggesting that it would make the world a more equal place to hire those different people, even though they currently would not be hired, then that's not a great business case, and thus, becomes a political agenda.
so if you have a business case for recruiting different kinds of people (who currently don't get recruited), then that's not a political agenda. If you can point to evidence that the recruitment team is missing out on great candidates because of some systemic mis-identification.
But if you are suggesting that it would make the world a more equal place to hire those different people, even though they currently would not be hired, then that's not a great business case, and thus, becomes a political agenda.
> Django Girls is an international non-profit organization started to inspire women from all backgrounds to get interested in technology and to become programmers, offering a safe and friendly environment.
It's something that most tech companies would be willing to sponsor, not political at all.
It's something that most tech companies would be willing to sponsor, not political at all.
It is political to sponsor an organisation attempting to correct for the disincentives women face in technical fields. Some people would prefer not to sponsor that, as they believe women are represented at their natural and correct ratios in tech.
Basically some people see affirmative action of any kind as anathema, and they get angry and insecure when these things are suggested, and people respond in turn. So I see how this could become a source of conflict.
Basically some people see affirmative action of any kind as anathema, and they get angry and insecure when these things are suggested, and people respond in turn. So I see how this could become a source of conflict.
Strong disagree here. By only including women they have made it highly political.
To be clear: are you saying that corporations shouldn’t sponsor anything, or are you singling out Django Girls as a “political” sponsorship?
If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.
If the latter, you’re kinda proving GP’s point. Django Girls is an ostensibly non-political organization, politicized solely because it acknowledges an aspect of people’s identity.
Idk anything about django girls (or the org behind django) I was assuming it’s an example of a politically motivated public outreach. Seems to me company time is better spent making good products than doing outreach. Like I have my own politically-motivated community involvements, but they have nothing to do with whatever company I work for, and I’ll continue doing them when I change companies anyway.
Companies sponsor things all the time — as marketing, to help with recruitment, etc. So my question is, do you think all corporate sponsorships are inappropriate? Or just “political” ones?
I think /individuals/ should be political actors, not companies. Companies should focus on market operations: build product, provide service. Maybe that doesn’t directly answer the question but I’m not sure it’s a great question tbh.
> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept
The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level
The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level
My point is that some people consider my equal participation in that conversation to be inherently political. My point is essentially that anti-lgbt folk will dehumanize the conversation under the guise of “no politics”. Or at least that they could, and that it sure used to happen an awful lot, and it wasn’t that long ago.
I think it’s more dehumanizing to be reduced to a label than it is to be approached face-to-face
It sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work).
I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”
I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”
> But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies
I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized
I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized
That’s not what they’re doing though - they’re not saying “we cannot say the word ‘gay’ any more because that makes the sentence a political sentence.” They’re saying you can’t talk about politics, and honestly specific words don’t even have to come into play. You can weaponize the policy easily without using specific words at all.
[deleted]
I worked in tech over twenty years ago and I knew multiple same sex couples back then. It wasn’t an issue at all. This was the Bay Area. May have been different elsewhere. It is still not an issue in the Bay Area.
The Bay Area has always been a bit ahead of the curve there - but my point isn’t just an LGBT thing... that’s the example most relevant to me personally. People of color could probably talk about similar issues related to this kind of policy.
Of note: Basecamp was at least until recently based primarily in the Midwest, in Chicago. Bay Area culture influences them in the same way it influences all tech culture, but they are certainly situated in a different culture than that of the Bay.
(Also of note is that while SF specifically was friendlier to LGBT people historically, this is a difference of degrees: LGBT folks in SF experienced plenty of discrimination over the years. And personally, it’s the only place I’ve been called a “faggot” while walking on the sidewalk - multiple times. Anecdote, but still.)
Of note: Basecamp was at least until recently based primarily in the Midwest, in Chicago. Bay Area culture influences them in the same way it influences all tech culture, but they are certainly situated in a different culture than that of the Bay.
(Also of note is that while SF specifically was friendlier to LGBT people historically, this is a difference of degrees: LGBT folks in SF experienced plenty of discrimination over the years. And personally, it’s the only place I’ve been called a “faggot” while walking on the sidewalk - multiple times. Anecdote, but still.)
This^^ It's one of the gayest places on earth, of _course_ it's going to be more accepting.
Chicago is pretty LGBTQ friendly. It's culturally more midwestern than say, NYC, but it's not like we're talking about St. Louis here.
I mean we’re really getting lost in the weeds here, I think. Like it’s not just about LGBT issues, it’s just an easy, personally relevant example for me to use.
To your point though: Chicago is decent, but arguably less so than SF.
To your point though: Chicago is decent, but arguably less so than SF.
[deleted]
If you can't talk about the way your life is impacted by systemic racism or the way your healthcare is threatened due to your gender identity then you are being told you can't be yourself or talk about parts of your life at work. This is going to land much heavier on certain populations and therefore is giving preference to the people who benefit from the current economic and political structure.
> But what's an example of a political issue that would affect someone's work at Basecamp?
Let's say I work at Basecamp and believe that workers should be entitled to seats on Basecamp's board, just as they are in all large companies in Germany. Should I be punished for raising this?
Let's say I work at Basecamp and believe that workers should be entitled to seats on Basecamp's board, just as they are in all large companies in Germany. Should I be punished for raising this?
This seems like something you would want to bring up with your boss / HR / higher-ups, instead of starting an open discussion/debate with the whole company, right?
“That seems like [a worker rights issue] that you would want to bring up with [the folks who usually don’t like the workers exercising their rights]” is how that sounds to me, when I read it.
Sure, yeah, you should bring it up with management, but bringing it up with your coworkers is essential to actually making a change happen.
Sure, yeah, you should bring it up with management, but bringing it up with your coworkers is essential to actually making a change happen.
No reason it couldn’t be both.
I found this Twitter thread by a Basecamp employee quite revealing about what did and did not happen in the lead up to this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/138689059590...
https://mobile.twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/138689059590...
archived link: https://archive.is/ekqAy
Without seeing the actual discussions themselves, I don't believe anyone's personal account of what happened. Every single person I've ever encountered that fit the bill of being politically obsessive/extreme seemed completely incapable of recognizing that fact, and always framed their conduct as completely unremarkable.
Interesting; working at a company with a fairly high degree of psychological safety there is almost no heavy political fighting on Slack or other communication channels (except for the odd comment here or there). There is a high degree of focus on completing actual work and a level of professional behaviour that arguments like these would be very out of place. This is probably due to the size of the org; maybe with more people there would be higher levels of discussion overall and therefore more political chitchat; but I couldn't see it devolving into the bowels of Twitter...
I feel like a productive and healthy work culture basically eliminates the toxic discourse that can run rampant on Slack (I've seen it before; it led to the organisation banning Slack entirely!) and by having a safe workplace you wouldn't even need to mandate the removal of political or societal discussion.
To me this signals that there is a wider problem within the organisation and I'm not sure banning anything will change it.
I feel like a productive and healthy work culture basically eliminates the toxic discourse that can run rampant on Slack (I've seen it before; it led to the organisation banning Slack entirely!) and by having a safe workplace you wouldn't even need to mandate the removal of political or societal discussion.
To me this signals that there is a wider problem within the organisation and I'm not sure banning anything will change it.
Is your company remote or in-person? Because I think the problems that Basecamp might have been having (reading between the lines on twitter) is more likely to occur when people do not have to face each other on a daily basis.
It’s in-person but now a mix. That’s interesting because I think after a few months into the pandemic while being totally remote, I noticed an increase in confrontational behaviour... I wonder if that disconnect means it’s easier to forget you’re talking to a real person.
I think what is important to recognize is that a company saying that some discussions are off limits is not commenting on the value of the discussions. It is saying that they do not want to be a battle ground in the cultural war.
In the Middle Ages, there was the concept of the Truce of God. That meant on certain feast days or on Sundays, you were not allowed to fight. It didn't mean that your fight wasn't legitimate. Maybe Lord Ronald over there killed your family and stole your castle and you had a legitimate reason to fight him. But, it did mean that when you were in Mass on Christmas, you did not pull out your sword and start fighting Lord Ronald, even though you both might be in the same cathedral.
In the same way, we are in the midst of a cultural war. And there are very legitimate issues and deep hurts. However, that does not mean that warfare has to take place in every venue. There should be some venues where cultural warfare is banned. Kind of like the equivalent of the old Medieval Truce of God.
In the Middle Ages, there was the concept of the Truce of God. That meant on certain feast days or on Sundays, you were not allowed to fight. It didn't mean that your fight wasn't legitimate. Maybe Lord Ronald over there killed your family and stole your castle and you had a legitimate reason to fight him. But, it did mean that when you were in Mass on Christmas, you did not pull out your sword and start fighting Lord Ronald, even though you both might be in the same cathedral.
In the same way, we are in the midst of a cultural war. And there are very legitimate issues and deep hurts. However, that does not mean that warfare has to take place in every venue. There should be some venues where cultural warfare is banned. Kind of like the equivalent of the old Medieval Truce of God.
Hopefully the obnoxiously loud people will learn that no one wants to hear their crap at work (or anywhere else).
Your take on race? I don't care
Your take on gender? I also don't care
Your take on politics? Nope, don't care.
Insert cause here, still don't care
I go to work to do my job and get money. When some person starts carrying on about politics, I walk away.
If I wanted to engage with this stuff, I would on my own time. I shouldn't be dodging it at work.
Your take on race? I don't care
Your take on gender? I also don't care
Your take on politics? Nope, don't care.
Insert cause here, still don't care
I go to work to do my job and get money. When some person starts carrying on about politics, I walk away.
If I wanted to engage with this stuff, I would on my own time. I shouldn't be dodging it at work.
Most discussions here at HN are about the changes about "Politics".
Honestly, I don't really care what political views have my colleagues and I don't care to share my thoughts about this at my workplace. Talking about politics makes place a lot more toxic. Politics are toxic (because of the politicians, most of the time).
What really makes me smile is #2. Like really, most of the IT companies has their lucrative offers with TONS of benefits, e.g. that they're sponsoring you gym, fresh food etc.
I REALLY DON'T CARE - I'm an adult person, give me more money instead, let me decide by myself how I spend it.
Honestly, I don't really care what political views have my colleagues and I don't care to share my thoughts about this at my workplace. Talking about politics makes place a lot more toxic. Politics are toxic (because of the politicians, most of the time).
What really makes me smile is #2. Like really, most of the IT companies has their lucrative offers with TONS of benefits, e.g. that they're sponsoring you gym, fresh food etc.
I REALLY DON'T CARE - I'm an adult person, give me more money instead, let me decide by myself how I spend it.
So this is exactly the same move Coinbase did, pretty weird from Basecamp tbh https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...
This is why I have been self employed for over a decade and there is no going back. I have no interest in dealing with any of this. I just want to work on solving problems.
> No more paternalistic benefits. For years we've offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances
I have had a gripe with this sort of 'benefits' in previous companies. For example, paying for membership at the local gym. Reply to criticism tended to be "Oh well, use it or lose it".
Glad Basecamp saw the light on this. Just pay employees well or set up a benefits self-service like some companies do: Employees have a benefits budget that they can choose to assign to a list of individual benefits or to pocket in cash.
Obviously political discussions on company channels are always a bad idea.
I have had a gripe with this sort of 'benefits' in previous companies. For example, paying for membership at the local gym. Reply to criticism tended to be "Oh well, use it or lose it".
Glad Basecamp saw the light on this. Just pay employees well or set up a benefits self-service like some companies do: Employees have a benefits budget that they can choose to assign to a list of individual benefits or to pocket in cash.
Obviously political discussions on company channels are always a bad idea.
100% in agreement that all "gift card" benefits are ridiculous.
There are some benefits where getting something as part of the organization benefits individual employees in a way that individual employee couldn't access on their own. For example health insurance rates and coverage are exponentially better as part of a group/corporate plan.
Giving someone a farmer's market allowance is not that. That's just prescriptive + locked money.
There are some benefits where getting something as part of the organization benefits individual employees in a way that individual employee couldn't access on their own. For example health insurance rates and coverage are exponentially better as part of a group/corporate plan.
Giving someone a farmer's market allowance is not that. That's just prescriptive + locked money.
What's wrong with a benefit that some employees cannot or choose not to use? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thinking is.
If my company provides free coffee and I don't drink coffee, is that also a problem, for instance?
If my company provides free coffee and I don't drink coffee, is that also a problem, for instance?
If you don't use the benefit, it's effectively compensation that you don't get. I'd much rather a company just pay everyone an extra $30 a month than include a free gym membership that most people won't use. Stuff like coffee is used by enough people and is so cheap that it's a negligible cost, but I've had jobs that included gym memberships, personal financial counseling, unlimited re-imbursement for new certifications, etc. Making those "benefits" instead of just paying people more to spend how they want is employers trying to lock you into staying at the company.
> it's effectively compensation that you don't get.
Agreed. I'm not sure why that's a big deal though?
If you don't drink coffee, are the other employees getting compensation via their free coffee? Coffee can really add up.
Agreed. I'm not sure why that's a big deal though?
If you don't drink coffee, are the other employees getting compensation via their free coffee? Coffee can really add up.
There are two aspects. One is the purpose of offering benefits, the other is fairness and inclusivity.
Companies offer benefits because they want to make employees happy enough to stick around. It thus makes sense that all employees can take advantage and feel good about it.
For the same reason, benefits should be designed so that no employee feels excluded or that they fell they are told how they should live their lives.
At then end of the day, for the company it's only a matter of budget. So, to me, it makes sense to let each employee decide. This is the best way to address the two points above. That's exactly how it works at some companies (as hinted in my previous comment): The company tells you that you have a budget of x per year that you can allocate to a range of benefits with any cash left added to your cash pay. It's flexible, empowering, and employees tend to be quite happy about the system.
Or, as I mentioned, decide to pay well enough that you can tell employees that you don't offer additional benefits but compensate through the pay cheque, which they can obviously spend however they please.
Regarding your example, I would think that a good company would provide a range of free drinks, not just coffee or even one type of coffee (again the point it to make employees feel valued).
Companies offer benefits because they want to make employees happy enough to stick around. It thus makes sense that all employees can take advantage and feel good about it.
For the same reason, benefits should be designed so that no employee feels excluded or that they fell they are told how they should live their lives.
At then end of the day, for the company it's only a matter of budget. So, to me, it makes sense to let each employee decide. This is the best way to address the two points above. That's exactly how it works at some companies (as hinted in my previous comment): The company tells you that you have a budget of x per year that you can allocate to a range of benefits with any cash left added to your cash pay. It's flexible, empowering, and employees tend to be quite happy about the system.
Or, as I mentioned, decide to pay well enough that you can tell employees that you don't offer additional benefits but compensate through the pay cheque, which they can obviously spend however they please.
Regarding your example, I would think that a good company would provide a range of free drinks, not just coffee or even one type of coffee (again the point it to make employees feel valued).
I think a lot of people have trouble empathizing with owner's perspective.
What if a tree fell and knocked out power to your house. And the power company showed up to fix the power lines.
Would it be OK for the workers to take a break from their work and discuss gender equality if they found out that a female executive was just hired at their company and she was paid 8% less than the man she replaced. If so, how long could they discuss the issue? 10 minutes? 1 week? At what point would you ask them to fix the power and then discuss the gender equality issue after?
And if you do set a time limit does that mean that you don't care about gender equality?
What if a tree fell and knocked out power to your house. And the power company showed up to fix the power lines.
Would it be OK for the workers to take a break from their work and discuss gender equality if they found out that a female executive was just hired at their company and she was paid 8% less than the man she replaced. If so, how long could they discuss the issue? 10 minutes? 1 week? At what point would you ask them to fix the power and then discuss the gender equality issue after?
And if you do set a time limit does that mean that you don't care about gender equality?
The type of people who continue to discuss politics and say "X IS political" even when it clearly isn't, are the most toxic people to be around particularly in the workplace. I really wish my current workplace implements such rules. Since we hired more of the activist variety of techies, the company culture went to shit, and became like a parody of an SF startup.
So is the DEI officer currently on staff going to cease being a DEI officer and just 'stick to HR' stuff, if politics and topics adjacent are out the window?
DEI is mentioned in this announcement:
> The responsibility for DEI work returns to Andrea, our head of People Ops.
The implication is that (prior to this announcement) they had one or more committees responsible for DEI.
> The responsibility for DEI work returns to Andrea, our head of People Ops.
The implication is that (prior to this announcement) they had one or more committees responsible for DEI.
Yes. I read that. And what I am flatly pondering is what that "responsibility" could possibly consist of, if the topics inherent to DEI are now not to be had at basecamp.
My interpretation was that discussions directly related to each job would obviously be allowed. I'm sure people still need to discuss employment law, immigration law, IP law, etc. for certain roles. I gathered that this announcement is about casual at-work discussions e.g. in the company Slack.
I think we may have differing ideas as to what "DEI" work consists of; because to your response, that work sounds like the typical duties of an HR officer in collaboration with corporate counel, not necessarily, and not specifically DEI.
Maybe my bias as a DEI officer in current and past roles is on the table here-making things a bit cloudy, and I'm just without an immediate means of resolving that.
Maybe my bias as a DEI officer in current and past roles is on the table here-making things a bit cloudy, and I'm just without an immediate means of resolving that.
Hard for me to take it seriously when providing a gym stipend is “paternalistic” but not trusting your employees to discuss certain topics is supposed to be smart business.
I am totally on board with this. I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year.
I was already walking over 10k steps daily for years. But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?
That to me is paternalistic behavior. If you want subsidize my health insurance, just do it. But I don't need my employer to be my mommy, no matter the intentions.
I was already walking over 10k steps daily for years. But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?
That to me is paternalistic behavior. If you want subsidize my health insurance, just do it. But I don't need my employer to be my mommy, no matter the intentions.
I don't know if it is good or not to have gym benefits so I cannot comment if removing it is a good or bad decision.
With regards to "But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?"
This is very simple to fix: thing about this in terms of equity not equality. Do not eliminate a benefit but think how can include more people by changing the metric.
If someone has bad knees or don't like walking but still want to participate in this subsidy then the fix is not to eliminate the subsidy for everyone, but to have different metrics for people to opt in.
With regards to "But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?"
This is very simple to fix: thing about this in terms of equity not equality. Do not eliminate a benefit but think how can include more people by changing the metric.
If someone has bad knees or don't like walking but still want to participate in this subsidy then the fix is not to eliminate the subsidy for everyone, but to have different metrics for people to opt in.
> But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?
Then your health insurance billings will likely be higher, and you’ll be more expensive to insure, which pushes up the company group rate. Measures like getting employees to exercise more fall under the umbrella of “preventative care”
Then your health insurance billings will likely be higher, and you’ll be more expensive to insure, which pushes up the company group rate. Measures like getting employees to exercise more fall under the umbrella of “preventative care”
What about swimming? Or weight lifting? There are other ways to get that exercise than walking that don't qualify for that 10k steps reward.
> I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year.
Really? How does this work? Your company tracks how many steps you take?
Really? How does this work? Your company tracks how many steps you take?
Yes, through an app called Virgin Pulse. It hooks into Apple Health and syncs steps with it when you start it up.
There is also a portion that tracks your sleep habits, but it requires you to enable the Bedtime feature on the iPhone, which I don't want to do.
There is also a portion that tracks your sleep habits, but it requires you to enable the Bedtime feature on the iPhone, which I don't want to do.
"My employer tracks my biometrics as a condition of my compensation sounds like dystopian scifi. Welcome to the future?
Not even as a condition! Willing opt-in
> But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking?
Don't walk 7000 steps and don't get $750?
Don't walk 7000 steps and don't get $750?
expect to see more of these policies. Otherwise you'll have separate cohorts of politically active companies and productive companies
People close to [Steve Jobs] over the years say he sees himself as a "progressive industrialist" who eschews moral gestures and views succeeding in the marketplace with innovative products as his central mission in life.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/in-the-politics...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/in-the-politics...
> We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company.
Someone should remind Github.
Someone should remind Github.
I'm super late to this thread and not that anyone cares what my opinion is, but why are so many folks against this new policy and are quitting Basecamp (as employees) over this?
From the looks of it you can still openly talk about whatever you want on your personal Twitter and other social media accounts.
It seems reasonable IMO to not talk country politics at work on a work account with other employees, especially on a medium where it's posted online, persisted and mixed in with other work related things as opposed to a private casual conversation in the parking lot or in a break room with no one else there.
I didn't look into this beyond Jason and DHH's blog posts but I saw Sam Stephenson quit Basecamp[0] a few hours ago over this change. He mentioned working there for 15 years and it's his life work. I don't get it, why would someone quit over this alone?
[0]: https://twitter.com/sstephenson/status/1388146129284603906
From the looks of it you can still openly talk about whatever you want on your personal Twitter and other social media accounts.
It seems reasonable IMO to not talk country politics at work on a work account with other employees, especially on a medium where it's posted online, persisted and mixed in with other work related things as opposed to a private casual conversation in the parking lot or in a break room with no one else there.
I didn't look into this beyond Jason and DHH's blog posts but I saw Sam Stephenson quit Basecamp[0] a few hours ago over this change. He mentioned working there for 15 years and it's his life work. I don't get it, why would someone quit over this alone?
[0]: https://twitter.com/sstephenson/status/1388146129284603906
"No politics at work" to me is a crazy rule. It will almost always boil down to "Don't discuss what makes management unhappy". There are no clear rules at all. For example - let's say I don't like how Amazon treats open source and I say we should use more AGPL. Is that political? I would think so - copyright law and the DMCA have been political issues for years for many creators. Obviously I would think most people on this forum wouldn't consider AGPL vs MIT "political" even though the very subject of the matter is how the government should respect copyright law. So for most, AGPL vs MIT would fly under the political radar. What is really being said is "don't discuss the issues pertaining to minorities" and how people don't view that as insane is worrisome. There was an uproar last year about how Zoom would shutdown your stream if you talked about uyghur muslims. Can you imagine how different the reaction to this news would be if DHH implemented a no politics rule after some employees were discussing uyghur muslims?
I hope it works out for Basecamp. It is simply not ok to allow anxious or bitter people to be wearing each other out with political beliefs when they are being paid well to do a job. The twitter parade of martyr complexes is predictable but it is disappointing that so much talent has lost perspective on what professional conduct looks like in a workplace.
So like if I think not using master/slave is not only important morally, but also important for recruiting, is suggesting we remove it for business reasons a political discussion? Hmm.
I'd say it's definitely political.
I don't believe it's not allowed to be discussion though, just not permitted on the official company basecamp account. Perhaps the implication is that listening to your politics should be optional for other people working at basecamp.
I don't believe it's not allowed to be discussion though, just not permitted on the official company basecamp account. Perhaps the implication is that listening to your politics should be optional for other people working at basecamp.
Master/slave in the context of IT has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, black people, etc. So yes, it is political.
Actually there are legitimate arguments that master/slave in this context (IT) are precisely tied to slavery.
> Master/slave in the context of IT has absolutely nothing to do with slavery
This can't possibly be true as stated. Even if it's a metaphor, it doesn't add anything over leader/follower or, say, playwright/actor.
Plus it sounds like a sex thing.
This can't possibly be true as stated. Even if it's a metaphor, it doesn't add anything over leader/follower or, say, playwright/actor.
Plus it sounds like a sex thing.
[deleted]
Whether this change is good or bad is still to be seen, however, what is great is that the elephant in the room is finally being addressed - how are all these social issues REALLY affecting (tech) companies today? So far we have just accepted that it's all good and the way we have been dealing with it is fine and we are better off this way. But are we really?
Let's stop fighting and start figuring out how to properly handle deep social issues troubling the workplace today.
Let's stop fighting and start figuring out how to properly handle deep social issues troubling the workplace today.
I'm very much opposed to this. Society has everything to do with companies, and most of our current societal and environmental problems are a direct result of the way we do business. Externalising environmental and societal consequences for example. Wasting the environment by not taking pollution into account. Having drivers pee in bottles because it's not the company's problem if they can't meet their targets. Bullying of people who are different and HR turning a blind eye.
As an employee I want to make sure the company aligns with my ideas about equality and environmental protection. As a customer I don't want to do business with a company that doesn't. This is why it's important that a company takes a stand on these issues.
Also, it seems to me these things will not be applied equally. Will someone be told off for wearing a cross or a church group badge as much as someone wearing a gay rights ribbon?
Companies are the cause of many if not most of the world's problems and this feels like they're getting back to closing their eyes to them. I'm glad I don't work for Basecamp nor do business with them.
As an employee I want to make sure the company aligns with my ideas about equality and environmental protection. As a customer I don't want to do business with a company that doesn't. This is why it's important that a company takes a stand on these issues.
Also, it seems to me these things will not be applied equally. Will someone be told off for wearing a cross or a church group badge as much as someone wearing a gay rights ribbon?
Companies are the cause of many if not most of the world's problems and this feels like they're getting back to closing their eyes to them. I'm glad I don't work for Basecamp nor do business with them.
Saying that companies are the cause of most or all of the world’s problems with is just saying that people are the cause. Which they are. People are the problem. All have been, always will be. In all their institutions that they occupy or by themselves.
So what? It’s not a very useful observation. If we are going to live together in peace we have to accept each other and move on with life. We have to move past seeing others who have different views, culture, and beliefs as an existential threat. Continually pointing at people and calling them an existential threat is terrifying and wrong. Stop doing it.
So what? It’s not a very useful observation. If we are going to live together in peace we have to accept each other and move on with life. We have to move past seeing others who have different views, culture, and beliefs as an existential threat. Continually pointing at people and calling them an existential threat is terrifying and wrong. Stop doing it.
Companies are led by people, but in the neoliberal society we have elevated companies as an entity above people. Companies have more rights and less responsibilities than people, and more influence due to lobbying.
As well as being bound by certain rules (making profit for shareholders, due diligence) that binds them to certain decisions even if the people leading them want to do differently. It binds them to prioritise profit over any other concern.
So I do think companies are a different force than people yes. This is why I thought it was a great thing that companies were developing an identity and a conscience. Due to the power I have I want to target my buying decisions to companies which are aligned with my ideals.
This new direction takes them back to being just money makers which IMO is a bad thing. It's not all about money, considerations like environmental impact are more important right now, on the verge of a climate crisis. I want companies to have a stance on this so I can stimulate the ones that do well on this front. That in itself makes their social/environmental identity an influence on their profits.
As well as being bound by certain rules (making profit for shareholders, due diligence) that binds them to certain decisions even if the people leading them want to do differently. It binds them to prioritise profit over any other concern.
So I do think companies are a different force than people yes. This is why I thought it was a great thing that companies were developing an identity and a conscience. Due to the power I have I want to target my buying decisions to companies which are aligned with my ideals.
This new direction takes them back to being just money makers which IMO is a bad thing. It's not all about money, considerations like environmental impact are more important right now, on the verge of a climate crisis. I want companies to have a stance on this so I can stimulate the ones that do well on this front. That in itself makes their social/environmental identity an influence on their profits.
> We introduced 360s, which required peers to provide feedback on peers. The problem is, peer feedback is often positive and reassuring, which is fun to read but not very useful.
The whole point of 360 reviews is to collectively confront management when doing so 1-1 would be too awkward and risky. This list of changes here is honestly pretty suspect, and seems like the owners are trying to recentralize their power.
The whole point of 360 reviews is to collectively confront management when doing so 1-1 would be too awkward and risky. This list of changes here is honestly pretty suspect, and seems like the owners are trying to recentralize their power.
How has 360 reviews confronted management in your experience?
How is this any different from the rules at any company, say Google or Facebook. Can you start a public political debate on the Facebook company chat? This just sounds like 37signals is all grown up and has decided to take the inherent risks in political discussion in the workplace seriously.
At least when I worked at Google a couple years ago, you could indeed start political discussions. Communications are very open at Google, and employee activism is quite visible. Political questions also come up in Q&A's, and some employees expect leadership to comment on societal issues/events. There has been some tightening in the past couple years, due to how loud it got in the last few years. But still quite open from my understanding.
One sample consequence was that open derision of Republicans was fairly common at Google, from both individual contributors and managers.
One sample consequence was that open derision of Republicans was fairly common at Google, from both individual contributors and managers.
Are they trying to head off unionization?
Basecamp is known to have one of the most generous pay/benefits packages in the industry. Generous to the point where I would have no idea what a union would even bargain for. I would highly doubt that this was in response to any effort to unionize.
for pay, i don't think so?
Without RSUs/stock options, it's misleading.
They might be paying a competitive _base_ salary but stock is frequently > 50% of Senior employees compensation package
They might be paying a competitive _base_ salary but stock is frequently > 50% of Senior employees compensation package
Stock wouldn't make a lot of sense for Basecamp though, unless they started paying dividends or something. They aren't public and have no indication that they ever have any desire to be public, and the ownership of the company is small enough that I'd be very surprised if any ownership stake didn't come with a lot of conditions on how that ownership could be transfered. As a liquid asset, Basecamp stock probably isn't particularly valuable.
They said they'd split part of the sale proceeds, should it ever happen, with all the employees. There's no way the expected value from that would measure up to years of Amazon RSUs. But then, that's the case for almost every other company attempting to pay top of market.
"There are no plans to sell Basecamp or take the company public! But, in the slight chance of that happening, employees may be eligible to receive a portion of 10% of the value of the company if Basecamp is sold or made public. That 10% would be divided into shares, and shares distributed amongst employees based on their tenure at the time of the sale/offering."
"There are no plans to sell Basecamp or take the company public! But, in the slight chance of that happening, employees may be eligible to receive a portion of 10% of the value of the company if Basecamp is sold or made public. That 10% would be divided into shares, and shares distributed amongst employees based on their tenure at the time of the sale/offering."
Looks like the answer is "yes": a full one-third of Basecamp employees wanted to join the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion council. DEI appears to be precisely the politics DHH and Jason don't want Basecamp to think about.
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Rahsfan/status/1387042197321633792
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Rahsfan/status/1387042197321633792
That’s usually a nice side-effect. This is a bigger trend developing in tech, I think ... the exact contours of why various C-levels are pushing this now is yet to be seen (not every company policy change to this effect was announced on a blog post, it’s happening elsewhere too).
I honestly think people are reading too much into this. They straight out say that discussions were turning toxic. That presumably impacted the ability of teams to be productive in the jobs they were paid to do. That's the why.
From what I see, lots of people who object to this policy change raised a (legitimate) concern: where is the evidence supporting the claim? It’s not like corporations have ever had any problem firing people over productivity issues. If people argue over political topics all day at work and that turns out to affect their productivity negatively, it’s much less controversial for the company to act upon it from a performance angle.
[deleted]
I'm curious to see how many of these people who make SF level salaries while living in the Midwest stand up for their beliefs and refuse the 6 months severance
Not that most of them wouldn't be able to afford to
"Read all about how I refused Basecamp's buyout and spend a year snorkeling in Belize to make myself feel better"
Not that most of them wouldn't be able to afford to
"Read all about how I refused Basecamp's buyout and spend a year snorkeling in Belize to make myself feel better"
I wish I could write like that guy.
[deleted]
How does the 10% profit share work?
Do they take 10% of profits and divide them equally among all employees? Contractors? Full time? Part time? Interns?
Does someone know how the profit share works?
Do they take 10% of profits and divide them equally among all employees? Contractors? Full time? Part time? Interns?
Does someone know how the profit share works?
Typically you can either give everyone the same percent or say you set aside 10% of your profit and divvy it up proportional to people's salaries
Yes but how is it being done in this case?
It is entirely based on time employed, up to a cap:
"You’re eligible to participate in profit sharing after two years of working at Basecamp. You’ll accrue one share per month starting on your second anniversary at Basecamp, and you’ll max out your shares at 10 years. We calculate shares based on months of tenure so there’s no unfair cliff between being hired in December vs January."
"You’re eligible to participate in profit sharing after two years of working at Basecamp. You’ll accrue one share per month starting on your second anniversary at Basecamp, and you’ll max out your shares at 10 years. We calculate shares based on months of tenure so there’s no unfair cliff between being hired in December vs January."
So they just add up all the employee months and split the profit equally per employee month?
"Staying out of politics" is a bold move from a company that just launched a blogging platform.
Setting aside arguments whether "Politics at work" is good or bad, this looks like an avoidable HR and PR disaster.
1. This was announced on social media, apparently catching Basecamp employees by surprise.
2. Several employees (going by Twitter accounts) are looking to lawyer up or even exit the company.
3. This appears to be result of some long-running debate over a list of "funny" customer names. If so, the over-reaction shows a lack of maturity among the founders.
While Basecamp-the-company might be just an "apolitical" project/email set of apps, the founders - particularly DHH - are leaders in the Rails community and they also publish a number of bestselling books on management. These actions - whether well-intentioned or not - are both a middle finger to many, many people in the Rails community, particularly those in marginalized groups, and make one question their wisdom as management thought-leaders. Rails and ShapeUp are priceless marketing that have given their company exposure and goodwill other small companies would have loved to have, and this whole event has single-handedly killed that goodwill. It may result in the loss of key employees a company their size cannot afford to lose.
Furthermore, it comes across as hypocritical given DHH's frequent public tirades against Apple, monopolies, government lobbying, and support of controversial figures such as Glenn Greenwald. One rule for me, another for thee?
This is the kind of PR/HR disaster even an average newbie junior manager in a mid-size company would have avoided, and shows the danger of getting high on your own supply.
1. This was announced on social media, apparently catching Basecamp employees by surprise.
2. Several employees (going by Twitter accounts) are looking to lawyer up or even exit the company.
3. This appears to be result of some long-running debate over a list of "funny" customer names. If so, the over-reaction shows a lack of maturity among the founders.
While Basecamp-the-company might be just an "apolitical" project/email set of apps, the founders - particularly DHH - are leaders in the Rails community and they also publish a number of bestselling books on management. These actions - whether well-intentioned or not - are both a middle finger to many, many people in the Rails community, particularly those in marginalized groups, and make one question their wisdom as management thought-leaders. Rails and ShapeUp are priceless marketing that have given their company exposure and goodwill other small companies would have loved to have, and this whole event has single-handedly killed that goodwill. It may result in the loss of key employees a company their size cannot afford to lose.
Furthermore, it comes across as hypocritical given DHH's frequent public tirades against Apple, monopolies, government lobbying, and support of controversial figures such as Glenn Greenwald. One rule for me, another for thee?
This is the kind of PR/HR disaster even an average newbie junior manager in a mid-size company would have avoided, and shows the danger of getting high on your own supply.
[deleted]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26963708
There's been a lot of new information published on what lead to this change that isn't getting nearly as much discussion.
There's been a lot of new information published on what lead to this change that isn't getting nearly as much discussion.
[deleted]
They are making changes to the document: https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1386810666221150210
Does this mean that all workers and contractors will be treated the same, and given free range data access, regardless of the politics of their home country (ie China or Russia)?
This seems like one area that is usually unavoidable in tech companies.
This seems like one area that is usually unavoidable in tech companies.
What is banned is discussion of society and politics, not their existence.
I'm making a silly, unfair comparison to be sure. It's just an interesting line of thought, not necessarily a credible one ;)
I can imagine that the first time such policies came up could have come from security or legal teams discussing foreign politics around the water cooler and thinking "We should perhaps have some policy in place, just in case".
Fundamentally, that's no different than say; implementing a D&I policy or climate actions in response to employees discussing news stories on Slack, in my mind anyway.
Just going off first principles, as us HNers love to do, I can imagine if you never had political discussion in the first place, policies such as "offsetting perceived risk of foreign governments" would never be bothered with until they're actually tangibly impacting you (ie literal foreign spies or whatever)
The whole thing is kinda moot anyway since I'm sure HR and legal teams will be discussing these things in some capacity unavoidable, just not in view of other employees.
Perhaps even more importantly, what defines "politics" is extremely vague in the first place.
I can imagine that the first time such policies came up could have come from security or legal teams discussing foreign politics around the water cooler and thinking "We should perhaps have some policy in place, just in case".
Fundamentally, that's no different than say; implementing a D&I policy or climate actions in response to employees discussing news stories on Slack, in my mind anyway.
Just going off first principles, as us HNers love to do, I can imagine if you never had political discussion in the first place, policies such as "offsetting perceived risk of foreign governments" would never be bothered with until they're actually tangibly impacting you (ie literal foreign spies or whatever)
The whole thing is kinda moot anyway since I'm sure HR and legal teams will be discussing these things in some capacity unavoidable, just not in view of other employees.
Perhaps even more importantly, what defines "politics" is extremely vague in the first place.
Thanks for this reply!
[deleted]
Using your workplace to further political goals is such a white upper-middle class privilege.
fried never stops talking
So refreshing. Yes, focus on the business (because it is, after all, a business).
The job people are hired for is not politics or activism. Also glad to see the weird new-age peer review crap and "soft" stuff eliminated, too. A lot of that is accumulated trendiness from the 90s onward.
I love the new policy and attitude, as its emphasis is more about the professional than the personality.
The job people are hired for is not politics or activism. Also glad to see the weird new-age peer review crap and "soft" stuff eliminated, too. A lot of that is accumulated trendiness from the 90s onward.
I love the new policy and attitude, as its emphasis is more about the professional than the personality.
...accumulated trendiness from the 90s onward.
If these have existed for 30 years they are scarcely "trendy".
If these have existed for 30 years they are scarcely "trendy".
This trendy thing called “progress”, freaking bandwagon mentality for _centuries_.
Software is a creative act. This kills creativity and will kill any company culture. Basecamp might as well become JIRA at this point.
Atlassian's market cap is almost $60B, Basecamp will be pretty happy if this small change leads to that sort of success.
Not defending this Basecamp's policy, but their goals as a company are vastly different than Atlassian's, so it's not really a fair comparison. Which do you think indexes higher on employee happiness?
Well one of the companies had to step in and ban certain areas of discussion among employees because it was so toxic it was effecting the company. So _they_ don't sound super happy.
haha agreed, sounds like things have changed
I worked at Atlassian and it's the exact opposite of the changes described here. The internal Slack (née Stride née Hipchat) was a cesspit of time-wasting political activism bullshit.
Changes at Basecamp published on Hey.com?
You realise that Hey.com and Basecamp are the same company, right?
I certainly don't regret passing on an @hey.com email address anymore
sam's pissed.
Yup. Doesn't look like there is a way back. I wonder what this will mean for the JS-experience in Rails. Rails is so big it lives outside Basecamp, but Hotwire is so tied to the company.
this was very relevant to me and something I didn't know - the employees found out at the same time as the outside world. Jason and DHH seem to not have bothered getting internal consensus first before going ahead with this thing. (confirmed with sam)
live feed of employee reactions https://twitter.com/i/lists/1202647
live feed of employee reactions https://twitter.com/i/lists/1202647
Sam who?
Sam Stephenson, works at Basecamp, specifically on Hotwired at the moment I think
Possibly San Stephenson? Their Twitter is currently protected, so it’s hard to tell.
Did they say anything on their Twitter? It's protected now.
Since it's protected I won't publish it but: yes.
Basically shutting up DHH on Twitter from the looks of it.
[deleted]
no, he's talking https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1386773744484552715
DHH, Basecamp’s co-founder and CTO, literally testified before Congress and wrote about it on the official company blog [1].
But it’s “distracting” when the rank and file talk politics in the office. Oooookay.
[1] https://m.signalvnoise.com/testimony-before-the-house-antitr...
But it’s “distracting” when the rank and file talk politics in the office. Oooookay.
[1] https://m.signalvnoise.com/testimony-before-the-house-antitr...
They say antitrust discussions are okay.
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...
> No more paternalistic benefits.
Cutting benefits and calling it a feature. Amazing.
A lot of "work will set you free" vibes from this.
Cutting benefits and calling it a feature. Amazing.
A lot of "work will set you free" vibes from this.
They also set out how they've paid the value of these benefits to employees instead, and have started a profit sharing plan. Looks like a better deal to me?
Paid out "this year" - pretty weaselly. Are they going to pay out the value next year too or just cut it from the budget?
The job market is great, if people aren't happy with their comp they can find someone who wants to pay them more.
I don't know what Basecamp's books look like, I don't have the clairvoyance to know what they will look like in the future..
humor a speculative question for a moment: would the "better deal" have been to give employees the option of how they'd like to receive their fringe benefits versus a one-size-fits-all edict, so that those with less tolerance for the volatility of profit sharing can enjoy a bit of stability with such fringe benefits if profits decline?
Especially after, as another commenter mentioned: the tax implication of cash payout?
humor a speculative question for a moment: would the "better deal" have been to give employees the option of how they'd like to receive their fringe benefits versus a one-size-fits-all edict, so that those with less tolerance for the volatility of profit sharing can enjoy a bit of stability with such fringe benefits if profits decline?
Especially after, as another commenter mentioned: the tax implication of cash payout?
Cash value != Benefit value.
That you interpret the cash value as being identical shows you trust management over the employees, who this actually effects...
That you interpret the cash value as being identical shows you trust management over the employees, who this actually effects...
cutting benefits and paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it. i understand the objections to the other points in the post, but why do you present half the story on this one?
> paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it.
Doesn't this have tax implications? At least in my country, some types of benefits are income tax exempt.
Doesn't this have tax implications? At least in my country, some types of benefits are income tax exempt.
thats a fair point. no idea if its possible perhaps they could classify it as a lump sum tax exempt benefit rather than a categorical reimbursement based one that mostly goes unused.
still even with a 40% tax hit - i'd take a "cash benefit" over the piles of benefits i know i'm not using.
still even with a 40% tax hit - i'd take a "cash benefit" over the piles of benefits i know i'm not using.
That wouldn't work for US employees. Any benefits other than very specific allowed categories are taxable income. The wellness benefit, CSA share, etc are already taxable.
They've paid out the benefits for "this year". They could have, but did not, raise base compensation by the value of those benefits.
I wonder what the cash value is, since a large group can usually negotiate a better deal than an individual. Will employees get the amount the company spends per employee, or the amount it would take for them to get the benefit for themselves?
[deleted]
It seems quite shocking to claim that an important sociopolitical issue is not important everywhere and at every moment.
Must be such a relief for them that "project management, team communication, and email software" don’t touch at all on social or political issues, in any ways that their staff might want to discuss.
I don't get what you're saying. Is there some unique intersection between the software they develop and social/political issues?
They essentially build communications software –– social software. To try and say that you can do this without ever considering social issues is strange to me, and seems like at worst, it could damage their products.
For one thing, there is no shortage of examples of social products that have launched offerings without thinking how they could be abused (hello cross-Slack messaging) and had to recant quickly. But to go more deep: social software is about community, and communities bring political and social issues with them.
Should you have a gender field in your user form? What values should it have? Should you have vacation auto-responders? How will they operate? Do you have activity lights? With what timeout? Should you allow users to filter or block one another? What emoji do you offer? What biases do they exhibit? Will you refuse certain kinds of customer? Will you _protect_ certain kinds of customer despite public outcry? Or certain kinds of content?
How you approach these sorts of questions can touch on a wide range of social/political issues, and they appear to be saying "only David and Jason can discuss, decide or think about these things". Which seems ... limiting.
For one thing, there is no shortage of examples of social products that have launched offerings without thinking how they could be abused (hello cross-Slack messaging) and had to recant quickly. But to go more deep: social software is about community, and communities bring political and social issues with them.
Should you have a gender field in your user form? What values should it have? Should you have vacation auto-responders? How will they operate? Do you have activity lights? With what timeout? Should you allow users to filter or block one another? What emoji do you offer? What biases do they exhibit? Will you refuse certain kinds of customer? Will you _protect_ certain kinds of customer despite public outcry? Or certain kinds of content?
How you approach these sorts of questions can touch on a wide range of social/political issues, and they appear to be saying "only David and Jason can discuss, decide or think about these things". Which seems ... limiting.
Read the whole post. They will counsel specific personals, no need for everyone to get involved.
> You shouldn't have to wonder if staying out of it means you're complicit
This is a very privileged stance. Stopping dialogue because it makes people queezy just means stopping change from taking hold at their company.
One of their 10x engineers is a nazi and got mad, I will bet $10 dollars
This is a very privileged stance. Stopping dialogue because it makes people queezy just means stopping change from taking hold at their company.
One of their 10x engineers is a nazi and got mad, I will bet $10 dollars
A lot of these "keep all politics out of work" stances feel inherently reactionary and could passively ossify some pretty gnarly social issues.
I've been in software for 30 years, I can't imagine management attempting to formalize how racist & sexist it was back when I started. Pretending it's fixed now so we can all just move on is a pretty big yikes from me.
Sorry that it makes people uncomfortable or could get in the way of profits but even though I don't enjoy it either, thats what progress has to feel like.
I've been in software for 30 years, I can't imagine management attempting to formalize how racist & sexist it was back when I started. Pretending it's fixed now so we can all just move on is a pretty big yikes from me.
Sorry that it makes people uncomfortable or could get in the way of profits but even though I don't enjoy it either, thats what progress has to feel like.
The "no committees" takes away autonomy. The "no politics" takes away purpose. All you are left with is mastery. They just killed intrinsic motivation. See Daniel Pink.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. Committees take away autonomy by introducing external influence. Politics by definition is guiding policy, not acting with purpose within the confines of policy.
For any given decision you make, you either only affect yourself or you can affect others. Similarly there are people making decisions that could affect you. In the situation where a decision could affect you, wouldn't you want to participate in that decision? That's what democracy allows you to do.
committees increase your autonomy because you can participate in decision making that could affect you.
obviously if it ONLY affects you and nobody else, then a committee should not be involved.
The alternative is someone unilaterally making decisions for many people, and where I'm from, that's called authoritarianism.
committees increase your autonomy because you can participate in decision making that could affect you.
obviously if it ONLY affects you and nobody else, then a committee should not be involved.
The alternative is someone unilaterally making decisions for many people, and where I'm from, that's called authoritarianism.
Taking away wellness benefits seems unbelievably petty and foolish. These are relatively cheap compared to payroll, but are fantastic for morale. Taking them away on top everything else feels like he’s just willfully poking his own employees in the eye with a stick for no good reason.
Also, posting this publicly feels like a very, very bad idea.
Also, posting this publicly feels like a very, very bad idea.
He said that he would be providing them with the cash equivalent. I don't see the problem here.
I missed that, my mistake.
I take it you weren't moved by what he said to address this?
> By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.
Reimbursing gym membership is not a wellness benefit. It's a cheap way to attract a certain kind of employee, who will more eagerly fulfill the cult-like startup culture that companies like WeWork were trying to foster.
I live on a farm. I don't need a gym membership, my everyday life is my gym membership. What you're doing with such a "wellness benefit" is attracting young, up-starter city-dwelling kids who are willing to be punished by the typical startup working hours.
I feel very fortunate to work for a wonderful company that does not engage in any of these
> paternalistic
practices.
> By providing funds for certain things, we're getting too deep into nudging people's personal, individual choices.
Reimbursing gym membership is not a wellness benefit. It's a cheap way to attract a certain kind of employee, who will more eagerly fulfill the cult-like startup culture that companies like WeWork were trying to foster.
I live on a farm. I don't need a gym membership, my everyday life is my gym membership. What you're doing with such a "wellness benefit" is attracting young, up-starter city-dwelling kids who are willing to be punished by the typical startup working hours.
I feel very fortunate to work for a wonderful company that does not engage in any of these
> paternalistic
practices.
Providing gym memberships is kind of problematic, if not outright insensitive. Body positivity is a thing and self-love can be expressed in more ways than just this one.
I don’t think that promoting exercise as a component of healthy living makes a statement on body image. People who exercise have all types of bodies, all of which are acceptable.
It is paternalistic to “force” people to go to the gym to receive this compensation for their work. But there’s also plenty of research showing positive benefits of exercise on overall well-being for it to make sense for businesses to incentivize it from a worker performance perspective without body image entering into the discussion.
It is paternalistic to “force” people to go to the gym to receive this compensation for their work. But there’s also plenty of research showing positive benefits of exercise on overall well-being for it to make sense for businesses to incentivize it from a worker performance perspective without body image entering into the discussion.
You don’t have to use the gym membership though
But now you get cash instead, and you can exchange that cash for goods and services, such as a gym membership.
This seems much more inclusionary to all employees
And those who didn’t essentially lost out on a bit of compensation.
Problematic how?
Seems kind of like an ableist “perk” to me. I understand that it’s one of those things that’s not intended to be, but the net result is still the same.
You really should have led with this argument because "companies shouldn't give employees gym memberships because fat people might not use them" is an awful argument but "companies shouldn't give employees gym memberships because some employees might be physically unable to go to a gym" is pretty reasonable if the alternative is just giving them money instead.
"Employees are free to...speak out on whatever horrible injustices are being perpetrated on this group or that . But that's their business, not ours."
So BaseCamp as a company has no view on any horrible injustices as long as they don't hit their bottom line.
Really surprised that a firm that is supposed to be great at marketing seems to have taken no account of how a sizeable subset of their customers would react to this.
They also seem to have really upset some key members of their team.
Strange and on the face of it not an especially smart move.
So BaseCamp as a company has no view on any horrible injustices as long as they don't hit their bottom line.
Really surprised that a firm that is supposed to be great at marketing seems to have taken no account of how a sizeable subset of their customers would react to this.
They also seem to have really upset some key members of their team.
Strange and on the face of it not an especially smart move.
I don't care if the chip maker who runs this computer thinks Global warming is real or not. I don't care if my orange juice company has spoken out about human trafficking. I don't want those companies to take part in those things, but outside that companies should be in general apathetic soulless beings who only care about things that impact them and act in a legal and ethical matter to provide goods I want or don't want. It is in my mind strange that people want Red Solo cups to fight against the big lie of a stolen election. You realize when companies do this it isn't because they CARE, it is because they see the PR benefit vs cost (look at the NBA on Hong Kong vs BLM).
If people demand companies lie to them so they can feel moral about purchasing their products... That is just bizarre.
If people demand companies lie to them so they can feel moral about purchasing their products... That is just bizarre.
Who mentioned lying? You pick out a few examples that you personally don't like - fair enough you're entitled to do that.
But Basecamp are saying that they will never have a view on anything in the environment in which they operate no matter how it affects their employees - as long as their profits are not affected - that is just bizarre and for many disappointing.
But Basecamp are saying that they will never have a view on anything in the environment in which they operate no matter how it affects their employees - as long as their profits are not affected - that is just bizarre and for many disappointing.
Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing and I'm glad to see companies starting to reel it back and get back to, well, being companies. They make products; they don't need to have opinions on unrelated things.
IMO people (even the people in charge of companies) can (and should) have political opinions! _Companies_ shouldn't.
>You shouldn't have to wonder if staying out of it means you're complicit, or wading into it means you're a target.
This line speaks to me a lot. I find 99% of political conversations at work are just pontification and/or signaling; I don't want to waste precious time at work chatting into echo chambers (or starting fights!) -- especially in a context where my opinion (or my coworkers' opinions) literally _do not matter_.
Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead. I've felt left out of benefits at companies in the past because I didn't want to use a gym, or buy certain things, etc. It's kind of the same vibe as smoke breaks at some jobs -- you're missing out if you're not a smoker. This seems more inclusive for everyone, and I really appreciate companies recognizing their place in a worker's life: they sign your checks for what you do during work hours.
All in all, these seem like really great changes in theory. With all corporate policies though, we'll see how they're implemented in practice.