If you read this news as "employees (who yosito disagrees with) should shut the fuck up", perhaps you think this is good. If you read this as, "I joined this company as a place where my voice mattered and now I'm being told to STFU by a founder on a rage bender", it makes more sense why people are leaving.
They asked the political conversions be kept out of work channels, but continued to encourage people to be active politically, active on social media and even active at work using other platforms.
Framing the entire thing as some extremist plot to silence dissent is absurd.
If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion, why they should convert and why other religions were wrong would you think it’s okay to for the business to ask to keep those conversations outside of the main work channels?
I don't know, maybe you missed the part where he posted on Twitter about cancel culture and then started blocking everyone who disagreed with him. Rage benders don't need to be limited to the office. =)
This one?
I guess if we're just going to go in a circle confirming that we've both observed the same thing vs. discussing, I'm happy to bounce! =) Have an awesome one!
If you saw a link posted and see that as rage, it kinda proves the point.
Did you read the NYT article or listen to the podcast? It was very reasonable.
https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec...
When I read that, I see business leaders who engaged for months then asked people to move on when they realized it was never going to go away.
Searching the chat logs and posting in front of everybody was a jerk move for an executive, absolutely.
Everything else seems entirely reasonable.
Just from the open letter (https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-...) take a look at the kind of attitudes they have; these are some serious snowflakes:
"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."We don't care what you think about the impact of our poor decisions.
We don't care what you think about diversity and inclusion.
We don't want to be a workplace that cares about your health or wellbeing.
And we are going to escalate any disagreement until you shut the fuck up.
A third of the company (and counting) has decided that this sucks and is leaving.
I'm not calling this an extremist plot. In fact, I think it's the exact opposite of a plot, hence "on a bender". I think this is someone who got angry at work, had the power to win a debate by fiat, and exercised that power, and is now learning the cost of that Pyrrhic victory.
> If someone wanted to come into work channels and constantly tell people about their religion
The conversations inside Basecamp weren't about that at all, so I'm not sure why you raise this example. They were about the way the workplace had been run and citing the shortcomings of those decisions.
Well, this might be contrarian but if I worked for DHH I might very well prefer this situation.
In fact I feel like I've been in and out of situations and I tend to prefer clear command chains: I do what I am told and those under me do what they are told.
The military is a perfect good example as is certain companies.
Maybe twice (including a decade ago and now) have I experienced self organizing teams that worked.
For example, they could have structured the incentive such that it only applied to employees below a certain level. They didn't do that though because they wanted to make sure every employee who disagreed with the policy left.
Perhaps they’ve kept the employees who accepted management’s statement about the event and wanted to move past the issue.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.