Changes at Basecamp - No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account


At Basecamp, we treat our company as a product. It's not a rigid thing that exists, it's a flexible, malleable idea that evolves. We aren't stuck with what we have, we can create what we want. Just as we improve products through iteration, we iterate on our company too.

Recently, we've made some internal company changes, which, taken in total, collectively feel like a full version change. It deserves an announcement.

In the product world, not all changes are enjoyed by all customers. Some changes are immediately appreciated. Some changes take time to steep, settle in, and get acquainted with. And to some, some changes never feel quite right — they may even be deal breakers.

The same is true when changing your company, except that the customers are the employees. And when you get to a certain count — customers or employees or both — there's no pleasing everyone. You can't — there are too many unique perspectives, experiences, and individuals.

As Huxley offers in The Doors of Perception, "We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude."

Heavy, yes, but insightful, absolutely. A relevant reminder. We make individual choices.

We all want different somethings. Some slightly different, some substantially. Companies, however, must settle the collective difference, pick a point, and navigate towards somewhere, lest they get stuck circling nowhere.

With that, we wanted to put these directional changes on the public record. Historically we've tried to share as much as we can — for us, and for you — so this transmission continues the tradition.

1. No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account. 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 on our company Basecamp account where the work happens. 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. Update: David has shared some more details and more of the internal announcement on his HEY World blog.

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. So we've ended these benefits, and, as compensation, paid every employee the full cash value of the benefits for this year. In addition, we recently introduced a 10% profit sharing plan to provide direct compensation that people can spend on whatever they'd like, privately, without company involvement or judgement.

3. No more committees. For nearly all of our 21 year existence, we were proudly committee-free. No big working groups making big decisions, or putting forward formalized, groupthink recommendations. No bureaucracy. But recently, a few sprung up. No longer. We're turning things back over to the person (or people) who were distinctly hired to make those decisions. The responsibility for DEI work returns to Andrea, our head of People Ops. The responsibility for negotiating use restrictions and moral quandaries returns to me and David. A long-standing group of managers called "Small Council" will disband — when we need advice or counsel we'll ask individuals with direct relevant experience rather than a pre-defined group at large. Back to basics, back to individual responsibility, back to work.

4. No more lingering or dwelling on past decisions. We've become a bit too precious with decision making over the last few years. Either by wallowing in indecisiveness, worrying ourselves into overthinking things, taking on a defensive posture and assuming the worst outcome is the likely outcome, putting too much energy into something that only needed a quick fix, inadvertently derailing projects when casual suggestions are taken as essential imperatives, or rehashing decisions in different forums or mediums. It's time to get back to making calls, explaining why once, and moving on.

5. No more 360 reviews. Employee performance reviews used to be straightforward. A meeting with your manager or team lead, direct feedback, and recommendations for improvement. Then a few years ago we made it hard. Worse, really. 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. Assigning peer surveys started to feel like assigning busy work. Manager/employee feedback should be flowing pretty freely back and forth throughout the year. No need to add performative paperwork on top of that natural interaction. So we're done with 360s, too.

6. No forgetting what we do here. We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company. Our impact is contained to what we do and how we do it. We write business books, blog a ton, speak regularly, we open source software, we give back an inordinate amount to our industry given our size. And we're damn proud of it. Our work, plus that kind of giving, should occupy our full attention. We don't have to solve deep social problems, chime in publicly whenever the world requests our opinion on the major issues of the day, or get behind one movement or another with time or treasure. These are all important topics, but they're not our topics at work — they're not what we collectively do here. Employees are free to take up whatever cause they want, support whatever movements they'd like, and speak out on whatever horrible injustices are being perpetrated on this group or that (and, unfortunately, there are far too many to choose from). But that's their business, not ours. We're in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge. We're responsible for ourselves. That's more than enough for us.

This may look like compression. A reduction, an elimination. And it is. It's precisely that. We're compressing X to allow for expansion in Y. A return to whole minds that can focus fully on the work we choose to do. A return to a low-ceremony steady state where we can make decisions and move on. A return to personal responsibility and good faith trust in one another to do our own individual jobs well. A return to why we started the company. A return to what we do best.

Who's responsible for these changes? David and I are. Who made the changes? David and I did. These are our calls, and the outcomes and impacts land at our doorstep. Input came from many sources, disagreements were heard, deliberations were had. In the end, we feel like this is the long-term healthy way forward for Basecamp as a whole — the company and our products.

When you've been around 20 years, you've been through change. You're used to it, and comfortable with it. These changes are part of a continuum in the experiment of independence that is Basecamp (and 37signals before that). We'll eventually run headlong into big change again. This is what we've done, and this is what we'll do — time guarantees it.

We're very much looking forward to this new version of the company. Once the construction site is cleaned up, and the dust settles, we believe we'll see a refocused, refreshed, and revitalized Basecamp. Here we go, again.

---


basedcamp.png
 
I agree, sounds like too much work time was spent virtue signaling over perqs (purity tests over providers, woke whining over things like gym memberships being microaggressions against land whales, etc) so fuck it, cash value only.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JosephStalin
The benefits removal reminds me of a story from my mom at a company she worked at in the 70’s.

At the time they got Good Friday off as a Holiday, didn’t count against you in vacation. Well, one atheist in the company got a bug up their ass screeching that this free day off was oppressing them and forcing christianity down their throat, yada yada yada.

Note: the company just gave a day off, there was no requirement to attend services or anything else. Most people just liked having a three day weekend in between New Years and Memorial Day.

Well, due to the one person bitching, they got rid of that Holiday. They did give a “personal” day you could use in the year, but wouldn’t carry over, but a lot of people were pissed about losing a scheduled Holiday.

My company a long time ago got smart about Good Friday and just called it "Spring Holiday" that they gave every one off that just happened to always land on Good Friday.
 
Are...are things getting better?
No, don't get your hopes up. It will regress back
This reads like they just fought off an attempted mutiny.
Not sure. It's not hard to see these types of people in other companies and how they just undermine their workplaces and subvert them to their goals. Why not head it off if you can learn from others' experience?
 
The plot thickens
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.
They had a particular trouble maker on their hands
In December, a new hire at Basecamp volunteered to help the company work on diversity issues. Posting on a long-dormant thread in the Basecamp software, which resembles a message board, the employee sought other volunteers to begin working on DE&I issues.
They nipped it in the bud.
Good
 
Lmao so the story is:
  1. In December they hired someone I strongly suspect is a troon (because the only more volatile landmine to hire would be a black woman and this is a tech corp and they don’t sound like they were in HR so probs a troon)
  2. This individual “volunteered” to stand up a Ministry of SocJus with themselves as chief political officer and was allowed to do so but still complained the owners seemed insufficiently enthusiastic
  3. By February, 30% of the workforce got sucked into it and productivity tanked
  4. Next they started various internal witch-hunts calling out employees both past and current for crimes committed over 15 years ago and leading struggle sessions on company time using company assets
  5. Bosses pull out some juicy examples of the Inquisitors committing cancellable offenses as well and suggest everyone sit their asses down and get back to work.
  6. Shocked Pikachus complain to HR, quickly discover that this is a privately owned company
  7. Owners make it official!
  8. And...some deaf white guy has decided this affects him?
 
Last edited:
The plot thickens
They had a particular trouble maker on their hands
They nipped it in the bud.
Good
Thanks for the link dude, super informative even if the writer is obviously biased against Basecamp CEO. There are some great tidbits in here, and what kind of amazes me is that the seed crystal for this was apparently a list of 'amusing' or odd names that the employees put together and passed around.
One invoked the sorts of names Bart Simpson used to use when prank calling Moe the Bartender: Amanda Hugginkiss, Seymour Butz, Mike Rotch. Many of the names were of American or European origin. But others were Asian, or African, and eventually the list — titled “Best Names Ever” — began to make people uncomfortable. What once had felt like an innocent way to blow off steam, amid the ongoing cultural reckoning over speech and corporate responsibility, increasingly looked inappropriate, and often racist.
Now the reasonable, logical response would be to say 'We shouldn't be mocking our customers guys, shut it down.' There isn't any need to go further than that, its a full stop, universal rule of business to not shit on the people giving you money. This kind of reasonable, business-focused viewpoint of the issue and how to deal with it doesn't give certain people leverage to attain more money and power so:
The employees noted that there had never been an internal reckoning over the list, and said it was important to discuss why making fun of customers’ names had been wrong. The apology included an image of “the pyramid of hate,” an illustration created by the Anti-Defamation League to show how the most extreme acts of extremist violence are enabled by a foundation of biased attitudes and acts of bias, which lead inevitably to genocide.
Since the CEO is probably an autist super-fag that does wargaming, he decided to respond to the use of (((propaganda))) with an appropriate level of targeted heavy bombardment.
“There was some awareness at the time within the company that that list had existed and it wasn’t acted upon. That is squarely on Jason’s and my record.” The list, he said, “in itself is just a gross violation of the trust … It’s just wrong in all sorts of fundamental ways.”
Employees responded mostly positively to the first part of this note. But Hansson went further, taking exception to the use of the pyramid of hate in a workplace discussion. He told me today that attempting to link the list of customer names to potential genocide represented a case of “catastrophizing” — one that made it impossible for any good-faith discussions to follow. Presumably, any employees who are found contributing to genocidal attitudes should be fired on the spot — and yet nobody involved seemed to think that contributing to or viewing the list was a fireable offense. If that’s the case, Hansson said, then the pyramid of hate had no place in the discussion. To him, it escalated employees’ emotions past the point of being productive.
Was it a happy accident or shrewd tactics that allowed him to spot and cut off the end-goal of having impossible standards that would be selectively enforced to secure political power. Their scheme revealed, the screeching was intense. His spine stiffened by the fear of losing his own company to a massive Woke cancer, the CEO took decisive action.
Hansson wanted to acknowledge the situation as a failure and move on. But when employees who had been involved in the list wanted to continue talking about it, he grew exasperated. “You are the person you are complaining about,” he thought.
Hansson’s response to this employee took aback many of the workers I spoke with. He dug through old chat logs to find a time when the employee in question participated in a discussion about a customer with a funny-sounding name. Hansson posted the message — visible to the entire company — and dismissed the substance of the employee’s complaint.

Of course, it wasn't just going to be about hiring and firing, these grifters wanted to steal money from the more experienced workers but never got the chance. They revealed their hand in this candid comment.
Jane Yang, a data analyst at the company, told me that restricting internal conversations would negatively affect diversity and inclusion efforts. For example, she said, the company’s profit-sharing plan gave more profits to people who have longer tenure — a group that is majority white and male. Making that discussion off-limits internally could ensure that inequality in profit sharing becomes a structural feature of the company.
Why does 'diversity and inclusion' mean that pay must be determined by the color of skin and the attitudes of political commissars? Sounds pretty fuckin' racist to me.

While we are cheering the founder's ability to seemingly avoid a complete SJW takeover of their company, we should remember that they are not blameless for the situation. In fact, they planted the seeds of their own destruction:
Last year, in the wake of the racial justice protest that swept the country, Hansson had encouraged employees to read Between the World and Me, a memoir by Ta-Nahesi Coates, and The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander’s exploration of the racist nature of mass incarceration. Both founders are also active — and occasionally hyperactive — on Twitter, where they regularly advocate for mainstream liberal and progressive views on social issues.
This situation is almost bizarre, where the activists and the capitalists meet in the middle and both come to horrible realizations. The CEO must face that they have lost control of the golem, the containment is breeched, and the genie they unleashed might not be under their control. The activists must sip a bitter cup, realizing that the gilded Twitter lies and posturing of the corporation lords is all just a facade to try and control them. Will either of them learn anything from this, will any lesson force its way through their self-righteous delusion? Doubtful.

One last quote:
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
 
Last edited:
Lmao so the story is:
  1. In December they hired someone I strongly suspect is a troon (because the only more volatile landmine to hire would be a black woman and this is a tech coach and they don’t sound like they were in HR so probs a troon)
  2. This individual “volunteered” to stand up a Ministry of SocJus with themselves as chief political officer and was allowed to do so but still complained the owners seemed insufficiently enthusiastic
  3. By February, 30% of the workforce got sucked into it and productivity tanked
  4. Next they started various internal witch-hunts calling out employees both past and current for crimes committed over 15 years ago and leading struggle sessions on company time using company assets
  5. Bosses pull out some juicy examples of the Inquisitors committing cancellable offenses as well and suggest everyone sit their asses down and get back to work.
  6. Shocked Pikachus complain to HR, quickly discover that this is a privately owned company
  7. Owners make it official!
  8. And...some deaf white guy has decided this affects him?

Thanks for the link dude, super informative even if the writer is obviously biased against Basecamp CEO. There are some great tidbits in here, and what kind of amazes me is that the seed crystal for this was apparently a list of 'amusing' or odd names that the employees put together and passed around.
DHH has had enough and decided if they're going to air out the dirty laundry he'll do it himself, better, with hookers and blow. You guys pretty much read what happened correctly

Edit re DHH's final point on diversity: If we want ideological diversity, we should realistically conduct a value free analysis of the dominant ideology in society. Which ideology is vocal and is able to tear companies apart, and which has members forced into silence and sending private complaints.
A dominant ideology can be held by a minority, so long as they have the power, organization and will to force it on others.
 
Last edited:
God damn I love it when a CEO actually sacks up and puts his dick on the table

Yesterday, we offered everyone at Basecamp an option of a severance package worth up to six months salary for those who've been with the company over three years, and three months salary for those at the company less than that. No hard feelings, no questions asked. For those who cannot see a future at Basecamp under this new direction, we'll help them in every which way we can to land somewhere else.

Basically telling any one if they want to leave after this, just leave. I wonder how many resume HR has been flooded with now.
 
The plot thickens

They had a particular trouble maker on their hands

They nipped it in the bud.
Good

BaseCamp owners don't sound very based to me. For years, they crowed about social justice issues to media, who lapped it up and published puff pieces about them. Then, when their pseudo-commie workers got the idea these things should apply to BaseCamp itself, the previously SJW owners cold shouldered them and shut it down.

I mean, it looks like a textbook "Rules for thee, not for me".
 
BaseCamp owners don't sound very based to me. For years, they crowed about social justice issues to media, who lapped it up and published puff pieces about them. Then, when their pseudo-commie workers got the idea these things should apply to BaseCamp itself, the previously SJW owners cold shouldered them and shut it down.

I mean, it looks like a textbook "Rules for thee, not for me".
On one hand, yeah, on the other, this is a precedent others will follow and they'll have a hard time pulling the ladder up after them.
 
On one hand, yeah, on the other, this is a precedent others will follow and they'll have a hard time pulling the ladder up after them.

To be clear, I agree with their conclusion and think they did the right thing in the end. I also fucking despise SJWism from companies or as an encouraged workplace activity.

I just think the Basecamp founders are hypocritical faggots who loved them some social justice when it was easy and targeted other people, then suddenly saw the light when it was spreading like cancer through their workforce.
 
I'm just impressed that the CEO actually tried to fix his company instead of just giving himself a bonus and then resigning from the board.

I don’t really expect many other companies to be wise enough to realize what's going on. The capitalist is stupid by his nature and will accept any plan if he believes it will make him money.
 

I keep repeating myself here, because maybe it will sink in eventually.

You. Do. Not. Get. To. Decide. That.

It is not our place as white men to decide if our behavior is harmful or connected to a broader system of harm. We have more power than anyone else in this society, so it is incumbent upon us to listen to the people saying we are harming them. As so many folks say to us, “shutting up is free.” I get the irony in me not shutting up right now, but I really need you to know that you're further entrenching white supremacy every time you keep opening your mouth.


high-maintenance-faggot.png
 
Back