Basecamp Sees Mass Employee Exodus After CEO Bans Political Discussions (techcrunch.com) 251
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Following a controversial ban on political discussions earlier this week, Basecamp employees are heading for the exits. The company employs around 60 people, and roughly a third of the company appears to have accepted buyouts to leave, many citing new company policies. On Monday, Basecamp CEO Jason Fried announced in a blog post that employees would no longer be allowed to openly share their "societal and political discussions" at work. "Every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant," Fried wrote. "You shouldn't have to wonder if staying out of it means you're complicit, or wading into it means you're a target."
Basecamp's departures are significant. According to Twitter posts, Basecamp's head of design, head of marketing and head of customer support will all depart. The company's iOS team also appears to have quit en masse and many departing employees have been with the company for years. [...] According to Platformer, Fried's missive didn't tell the whole story. Basecamp employees instead said the tension arose from internal conversations about the company itself and its commitment to DEI work, not free-floating arguments about political candidates. Fried's blog post does mention one particular source of tension in a roundabout way, referencing an employee-led DEI initiative that would be disbanded. "We make project management, team communication, and email software," Fried wrote. "We are not a social impact company."
Basecamp's departures are significant. According to Twitter posts, Basecamp's head of design, head of marketing and head of customer support will all depart. The company's iOS team also appears to have quit en masse and many departing employees have been with the company for years. [...] According to Platformer, Fried's missive didn't tell the whole story. Basecamp employees instead said the tension arose from internal conversations about the company itself and its commitment to DEI work, not free-floating arguments about political candidates. Fried's blog post does mention one particular source of tension in a roundabout way, referencing an employee-led DEI initiative that would be disbanded. "We make project management, team communication, and email software," Fried wrote. "We are not a social impact company."
DEI? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
DEI? I don't even know what Basecamp is, and I didn't learn it from this summary, or even from the original linked-to article.
Re:DEI? (Score:4, Informative)
Google it? (Score:3)
It stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DIE: Diversity, Inclusion and Equity.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! Unfortunately I've come to expect this from Slashdot articles, posts with unfamiliar acronyms in them without adding an explanation or at least an expansion with the first mention of it. I hope one day, Slashdot fixes this.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to use an acronym, you should write out what it is in this context.
On first use, you should spell out the full phrase, with the acronym in parenthesis. Then use the acronym on subsequent uses. This is standard operating procedure (SOP).
Let the trolls leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
All they want, is to make people hate each other. Aka "politics". Aka the opposite of productive.
Let then poison another organization with their toxic behavior, regular ot SJW.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who quits over something so trivial is not someone you want working at your company. Good riddance, you are better off without them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most likely a win for the company. I always wonder why companies cave to SJWs so easily. Those aren't your productive workers or your paying customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like some companies are starting to understand this. Hopefully, more do soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect this may turn into a case study wherein 1/3 of the employees quit and productivity overall goes up without replacing a single one.
In other words, these are employees with a negative value to the company. Their presence damages other employees' ability to work.
parasite /perst/
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites
1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fi
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder why companies cave to SJWs so easily.
You're concerned about what they think when your marketing department is kids on Instagram.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically they didn't quit. The company paid them to leave with a sovereigns package. Sounds a lot like house cleaning to me, but I completely agree with you.
Banning political discussion seems perfectly fine to me, especially when it's usually just a lot of complaining and trashing the opposing political view. Rarely is it productive. Trash talking at work has never been acceptable in my field.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The company paid them to leave with a sovereigns package.
A sovereign package? Damn, that's way better then getting the severance kind!
This is an example (Score:5, Insightful)
From an open letter [janeyang.org] to basecamp:
As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company. I really did not expect to be thinking about Basecamp while on leave; that is, after all, the whole point of taking a break. But alas, your statements yesterday have forced my hand because they showed up in the Protocol newsletter in my Feed. Whether I will remain on medical leave after publishing this letter is entirely up to you: either up to your benevolence as the dictators of Basecamp, or to your strategic savvy. Probably some combination thereof. Either way, once again, I am in the position of speaking up and using my voice with fear of being fired.
Off on medical leave due to emotional distress, and it's all [Jason and David's] fault, and whether she stays on medical leave is their fault.
That is some high octane whining.
Re:This is an example (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, once again, I am in the position of speaking up and using my voice with fear of being fired.
Another option she apparently hasn't considered is to do the job she was hired to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Also you: Gets upset enough to complain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the company fester without qualified employees. Let the CEO piss away all institutional knowledge within in order to pursue his "anti-woke" agenda. Let the company go broke and declare bankruptcy. The "anti-politics" policy here isn't about suppressing political speech, it's about suppressing discontent over terrible management. May you one day never live in the "anti-woke" dystopia you promote. For it is tyranny.
Re:Let the trolls leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, even a Sensitive Man of the Hanky such as yourself must understand that politics is not what you're getting paid for at work, and it's management's prerogative to restrict behavior that's directly disrupting the work environment. If you can't go to work without bringing your politics with you, you aren't an asset anywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently 1/3 of the company, including those in Sr. Leadership positions disagree with your assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
If that story happens to be true, then I'm doubly sure they did the right thing! I wish all employers would!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let the trolls leave. (Score:4, Insightful)
Another possible scenario could be that the reason the CEO wanted to prevent employees from talking about politics was so that only he can talk about it alone and preach to everybody else. I've seen this dynamic plenty of times, the big boss says "no politics" and then hangs a big flag at the entrance to the office because "that's not politics but just basic decency".
Maybe, but he'd be violating the rule himself.
I'm willing to bet he's sick of it, much like I am, and wanted to end the political nonsense.
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
So a third of the company was critical theorists to the point where when prevented from enacting critical theory within the company, they quit. Ouch. That's a horrible time bomb to have in your company.
I guess we'll see if this way of removing the gangrenous sores that are critical theorists from your corporation is sufficient to maintain health of your company, or if critical theorist penetration in the corporate world in anglosphere is already so utterly pervasive that they can no longer be removed by such means.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"critical theorists" LMFAO, WTF even is that, GTFO.
I guess Basecamp must be so successful that they can afford to hire 1/3rd of their workforce, and not expect them to do anything more productive than fulfill the blanket labeling of a right-wing stereotype.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're successful enough in that they can afford to pay 1/3rd of their workforce to leave.
These people didn't just quit. The company gave them a sovereigns package. I doubt people would have just quit if the company didn't literally pay them to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps where he lives severance is payed in sovereigns, so colloquially it became known as a "sovereigns package".
jk
Re: (Score:2)
> "critical theorists" LMFAO, WTF even is that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Critical race theorists believe everything is about race, and that every bad result is the result of "white supremacy". The entire rest of the world is either victims of "white supremacy", or is ignored when it provides copious and numerous examples disproving all of their tenets.
So that's what a critical race theorist is, and that's probably who is quitting this company en masse- or at least, we should ASSUME that is what is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
- Removed "paternalistic benefits" like fitness benefit, wellness allowance, etc.. in exchange for a profit sharing program
- Disbanded all internal committees, changed to making top down policy decisions
- Banned rehashing old decisions "It's time to get back to making calls, explaining why once, and moving on."
- Removed peer reviews from the performance review process, perf scores come from manager/team lead now.
I think that contributed more to people leaving than whether or not they could discuss politics, but the article seems to leave that out.
Opportunity knocks! (Score:4, Funny)
Excellent news (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
For most people, being harangued in the workplace about something not very work-related is a major drawback and annoyance. Inflicting that kind of drawback and annoyance on your coworkers does not "help fix" anything, it only serves to harass others. It is good for the company and the other workers for the drawback- and annoyance-inflicters to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people need to be harassed.
They are those who are harming others.
Acceptance of abuse leads to more abuse.
Re:Excellent news (Score:5, Informative)
Right, which is why it's good for these harassing abusers to leave. It at least gives them a chance to seek a new job without the blemish on their resumes of being fired for cause.
Re: (Score:2)
If you decide that your workplace is a good place for "direct action", the predictable consequences reflect only on your choice, not on your employer or the rest of society.
This employer drew a line about what they would accept in the workplace. It's clear, it's neutral as to political stances, and it doesn't keep anyone from pursuing direct action on their own time and away from the workplace. It has essentially zero to do with MLK or the letter you keep pointing to.
Re: Excellent news (Score:2)
Quite the Jonestown feel (Score:2)
The personal is political. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hey now at least credit Clerks with the argument, that was basically verbatim!
I'll bite (Score:2)
What's DEI?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/... [acronymfinder.com]
It probably means Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion given context.
It's tempting to make a joke about employees objecting to Developing Emotional Intelligence.
A friend set up a no-politics rule for visitors to his house. It made parties there more enjoyable and a welcome refuge.
Re:I'll bite (Score:5)
Sounds serious. Here's a non-political question (Score:3)
What's "Basecamp"?
What is Basecamp? (Score:2)
So....before I answer - I have to ask....do you know what Ruby is? What about Ruby on Rails?
Short Answer - https://basecamp.com/about [basecamp.com]
Sounds like they didn't lose anything (Score:5, Insightful)
If this sort of whining [janeyang.org] is any indication of the sort of people who are leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, bullshit. Sounds more like code for "got a better job" and now they're throwing up smoke to look like their leaving was virtuous.
Re: (Score:2)
> intentionally chooses to omit hate speech
"hate speech" is code for "speech I don't like". Many countries have implemented laws against speech they don't like, but not the USA, where it is against the first amendment.
If it is ever passed and then interpreted as not being against the first amendment, that will be a dark day.
Re:Sounds like they didn't lose anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything you'd like to add to that now, or will you tell us later?
That whole blog was nothing but someone whining about not getting their way. Nothing to show there were issues calling for change, but she (? didn't indicate preferred pronouns) finally got something in based on her personal experience (which notably didn't say it happened at Basecamp). And then, just WOW, there's this:
So, the company is already "DEI". The rest sounds like she wants to censor content between customers/users. The rest is hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
So the people complaining about football players kneeling where SJW's the whole time? Who knew?
Or is someone only a SJW if you disagree with them?
Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
No way did they made that rule unless it was a problem. The fact that people left over just confirms this. Here's a hint: go to work and do your job. Then, go out for beers and argue politics to your hearts content with people who want to. I (and I assume many people) don't want to be subjected to political ranting and ravings at work. It's soul sucking. Even when I agree with you, I don't want to hear it. If I disagree, which is probably the case if you think it's your mission to convert the unbelievers, then I definitely don't want to have to.
Re:Problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a problem for SOMEONE but not necessarily actually affecting work.
It is entirely possible that the restriction was placed in an attempt to prevent talk of unionization. Or simply that someone in upper management was unhappy with how the political talk around the office was disagreeable to them.
Adults can handle political discussions with people with whom they disagree.
Many managers are basically big children. Over-entitled, self-centered, and in denial. Assuming that what they do makes good sense doe
Re:Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes they can. Unfortunately, the people insisting on talking about politics at work where it does not belong are very rarely adults.
Re: (Score:2)
>Even when I agree with you, I don't want to hear it.
You have company in that position. I feel the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it was a problem. DHH got called out for his performative liberalness, and he (and his co-founder) did what he always does: throw a tantrum.
Good for Basecamp (Score:4, Insightful)
More companies should clamp down on employee misuse of company time. You're there to create a product/service that people want, not be an activist at the expense of the company. It might cause Basecamp some trouble in the short term but if they can weather the storm in the long term they probably saved their company from a terminal contagion.
Good policy (Score:2)
It's a job, not a public debate forum. Now, STFU and get back to work.
Who woke? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So did they embrace "woke" culture, or did they tell the "woke" to shut up?
Given that there is now a "ban on political discussions", it had to be the latter.
Re:Who woke? (Score:4, Informative)
It actually looks like 1/3rd were ultimatuuming out the 2/3rds, and management took the only path they had. They chose the majority, it seems like, to side with.
Re:Who woke? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only things being cancelled were off-topic distractions and attempts to turn one's employer into a weapon for one's political agenda. You will have to draw your own conclusions about which people thought they could not (or should not) comply with the company's policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The only things being cancelled were off-topic distractions and attempts to turn one's employer into a weapon for one's political agenda. You will have to draw your own conclusions about which people thought they could not (or should not) comply with the company's policy.
Good. I wish both sides of it would just shut up. If someone wants to have some political conversation, fine. If they're doing it to piss other people off, not good. If they're trying to weaponize their employer, that's a liability for the employer, so good bye.
Method Matters; This is Bad Method (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer-- I'm brown man from an impoverished background working in the US. I'm very liberal.
Chances are that the people who quit and I have a LOT of similar social, political, and economic goals. The primary difference is that I recognize the difference between tactics that promote the cause and those that are destructive to the cause.
Activism has been strongly romanticized again. To a certain extent, that's good because it brings conversations to the fence line, bar, and dinner table. Similarly, it can make you and your entire ideal structure look fucking loony. These people don't seem to understand that long-term, generational change doesn't come from foot-stomping and lecturing. It comes from advocacy. You have to be PART OF THE SYSTEM if you want to CHANGE the system. These people have ensured that they're no longer part of the system.
And while they'll receive snaps from their fellow activists for their martyrdom, when asked how their actions have helped steer Basecamp toward more liberal ideals, they won't be able to say anything. Instead, they've actually allowed Basecamp to concentrate more toward the conservative.
You can institute change. You can make progress. But if you "want it all now", then you're just going to hurt the movement.
- The abolitionist movement began 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.
- - The Civil Rights Act didn't come to fruition until 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
- Women have had the vote for only 100 years in the US and there are STILL low numbers of women in politics.
- Gay people didn't suddenly get marriage equality because Will and Grace won an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy.
It's a long, hard slog to make change. If you keep making people who support beneficial changes look like petulant nutters, you're just giving the other side ammunition in the fight.
Re:Method Matters; This is Bad Method (Score:4, Informative)
The abolitionist movement began 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.
No, it didn't. It began hundreds of years earlier than that.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also, I think your statement implies that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States, which it did not. It ended slavery only in the states which had seceded. The slave states that remained in the Union kept their slaves. Slavery was ended in the US with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Bonus fact: The Proclamation was intended partially as a political move. Britain, still a wary adversary of the United States at this time, was considering helping the Confederacy. With the Proclamation, Lincoln turned the war from a mere Civil War between North and South into a war about ending slavery. Slavery was illegal and deeply unpopular in Britain and the Proclamation made the prospect of helping the Confederacy unpalatable.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
With the Proclamation, Lincoln turned the war from a mere Civil War between North and South into a war about ending slavery.
This is racist, confederate tripe. Fuck you, anti-American asshole.
The main issue was "State's rights," which actually meant the right of southern slave owners to take their slaves outside their state, to places where slavery was illegal, and still have the force of law from their home state regulate their conduct. That is, they wanted to be able to whip their slaves in public, or force the police capture and return them if they escaped, even in places that didn't want to allow those things.
So fuck you, you
remember the good old days (Score:3)
Remember when no one talked about religion or politics in the workplace? because it was gouache?
I do not see how this is a bad thing, keep your opinions to your personal time.
Re: (Score:2)
er gauche, damn autocorrect
Responsibility (Score:3)
"We make project management, team communication, and email software," Fried wrote. "We are not a social impact company."
Uncle Ben would say...
"With great power comes great responsibility."
The little things that we do in life, at work or not at work, like it or not, will in one form or another have some kind of impact on someone or something.
Consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Uncle Ben would say...
"Damn, that's some delicious rice"?
Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: Slashdot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Around when twitter showed up, but there are still a few of us left to call them morons.
This is the company that wrote Shape Up (Score:2)
In case anyone was interested about this company it is the same one that the free Shape Up: Stop Running in Circles [basecamp.com]
and Ship Work that Matters book.
Banning politics = a slick way to lose whiners (Score:2)
Moderns think everything should always be politicized. It's their religion and while they cannot change or grow perhaps banning political distractions at work is a way to select for people more interested in WORKING than mental Onanism.
Banning politics at some jobs can let them take work where they want and others work freed of their presence. People who do not get along should not be forced to work with each other. Those wanting to politicize their workplace can easily find suitable employment be it Fox Ne
Re: (Score:3)
"Useful" conversations about politics (you know the kind that isn't entirely opinion regurgitation) takes work. It's like arguing on the internet... back when you were a student with too much time. They throw a thing at you, you dismantle it, and they respond in kind. 40 exchanges and hours of research later you both bid farewell with expletives. Pointless.
Political conversations at work are similar. They're more polite - you don't want a hostile work environment right? But you can't just stop the convers
I do not understand (Score:3)
Aren't there more appropriate places to advocate your political views than the workplace?
Politics is poisionous (Score:5, Insightful)
What I learned is that the only way to "win" the game is not speaking politics at work. One never knows a sincere comment would not be taken out of context, and cause issues. Especially when copied to online forums by so called "doxxers" without any way to counter (usually) false claims.
So, given the recent years, banning politics at work is probably the right choice.
Re: Politics is poisionous (Score:3)
Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.
Oy (Score:2)
Who'd a thunk it? (Score:2)
The leaders of Basecamp being opinionated assholes? Who'd a thunk it?
Basecamp ehh? (Score:2)
Let me edit this story down a bit:
"...The company employs around 60 people, and roughly a third of the company appears to have accepted buyouts to leave" and "Basecamp's departures are significant."
No. I reject your reality and substitute my own.
A company with 60 people is not significant, therefore a third of them leaving is also not significant." There are pizza delivery joints that have more employees.
It's well worth the cost. (Score:2)
Who knew this was even an option? I think we should expect a lot of other companies following suit.
Wonderful! (Score:3)
>"Employees would no longer be allowed to openly share their "societal and political discussions" at work."
Wonderful! This is what is SUPPOSED to be the norm. It is the norm my entire life and everywhere I have worked. When you are at work, you should be focused on work. Not on antagonizing your fellow employees or customers with your personal, political views.
>"roughly a third of the company appears to have accepted buyouts to leave"
Again, wonderful! I am sure most of the remaining 60% are absolutely thrilled and looking forward to a more productive, peaceful, and pleasant work environment.
Re: Wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like an excellent reason to not have a "diversity and inclusion policy", then. Instead, have an anti-discrimination policy.
When I am hiring, I don't care anything about the "identity" of the applicant (race, color, sex, orientation, religion, age, etc). I care about their skills, abilities, attitude, and experience. This is the way it should be. But if I hire someone and they want to then spew their religion, political beliefs, or "victimhood" at work, that will become a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A severance package does not in any way guarantee that your former employees will not sue you for creating the hostile workplace behind acceptance of that package.
And there is nothing your lawyers can write into the terms that will make it so, for that would be unconscionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Silence is sickening...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have "the conversation" on your own time. When you're at work, you're supposed to work.
These sort of people are so convinced of their own righteousness that they feel an almost religious-like calling to proselytizer to to others, because their cause is just so important. Don't you know we need to save the planet / transform society / rescue your soul from eternal damnation?
Zealots, all of them. Even if I agree with their "cause", I can't stand that sort of self-assured arrogance and their quickness to pass judgement on others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Silence is sickening...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news! When you work from home, all of your time is "company time".