It was a badass move because the CEO was asserting his power and right to say stop.
That channel probably spiralled out of control and spawned social justice warriors and all kinds of "identity based" discussions which completely derail everything. A company does not necessarily have the capability to make everyone politically happy, and to not have feelings hurt or to keep people unoffended. It is a company with a value chain. I mean that a company discussion board is not the right arena. You don't want it to turn into a 4chan cesspool.
Having a CEO to say enough and use his role to park the whole discussion and reframe.
Well, at least he's not pretending I suppose. I don't really care for the slimy HR rhetoric most companies employ. The way you make employees feel valued has to be through pay and perks and actual good management, not through empty platitudes.
It seems to have worked for coinbase! People at basecamp didn’t have any equity / incentive to stay long term. I don’t think DHH/Fried handled it well either.
We don't yet know how the Basecamp situation worked out for management. Have they backtracked on their decision? I haven't seen anything yet.
We'll see in about 12 months if Basecamp loses a ton of customers because the quality of their products and services suffered too severely. And that's assuming quality will suffer at all.
When I ran my company, I tried to make the attitude be about doing our best to focus on career development for our people. I did my best to communicate to employees that the best I could do for them while they worked for me was to pay them as much as I could, which certainly not the best they could get elsewhere, and to help prepare them for their next position so that they weren’t completely screwed if things didn’t work out at the company for any reason. To me, the most honest things one can do is make making money the nicest possible experience. We all go to work to make money, and pretending we’re at work for any other reason is dishonest.
> internal debate had erupted over the discovery of a noose emoji
I think I wouldn't survive 5 minutes in (big) corporate world. Perhaps it's because I'm entering the forties, but I imagine the amount of straight-face, holding-my-thoughts and tiptoeing required in order to not getting fired would wear me out in an instant.
This is absolutely up for debate and I refuse to allow somebody to dictate me what kind of sarcasm I am allowed to use in private conversations with close work buddies.
I recommend a private Slack team (or similar, a Signal group works too) for out of band communications with colleagues you trust. Keep corporate communications to only what’s necessary to get work done.
It was not long ago when on a meeting you could use a finger to shoot yourself in the head or act as if you were hanging on a noose to visualize how bored you are with the meeting.
There never was any harmful thoughts attached to it.
Can you, just for the sake of curiosity, state your age?
> In the wake of the internal debates, Lütke changed the settings on Shopify's diversity-focused Slack channel, called #belonging, to be read-only, further upsetting some employees who told Insider they felt silenced.
I am continually surprised that “let’s shut down difficult conversations” seems to be the default reaction here. As if that makes the conversations go away, or solves the problem. All it does is remind marginalized people that you don’t really care about them.
It’s a very “shut up and work, peon” kind of move. I think it highlights exactly what the C-level thinks of their workers: they aren’t worthy of engaging with as full people; just cogs in the machine.
I think in exchange for giving an employer the best hours of my day and the best years of my life, I deserve to be more than just a cog in the machine.
>I am continually surprised that “let’s shut down difficult conversations” seems to be the default reaction here. As if that makes the conversations go away, or solves the problem.
Isn't that exactly what leftist activist have been calling for though? "Shut down toxic, 'hatespeech'/'difficultspeech' infested subreddits/forums, it makes the problems go away!" Then they link studies that show it does remove "hatespeech" from these places. You can't have your cake and eat it
>All it does is remind marginalized people that you don’t really care about them.
Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast. Is it OK for conservative activist employees to spam Slack all day about how gun control is anti-woman because it removes their right to self-defence? Women are a marginalized people, they need to have the same access to self-defence that they get in other conservative states. Is shutting down this speech anti-women? Do you not care about women because you won't allow this?
>It’s a very “shut up and work, peon” kind of move. I think it highlights exactly what the C-level thinks of their workers: they aren’t worthy of engaging with as full people; just cogs in the machine.
I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone. This is reality, anything else is just fantasy land. You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
>I think in exchange for giving an employer the best hours of my day and the best years of my life, I deserve to be more than just a cog in the machine.
Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
I played the Devil's advocate here but I think most here will understand what I'm getting at. Everyone has a different idea/reality on what the "status quo" is, what "workplace activism" is, etc. Due to this, it's extremely hard to work on teams when everyone is demonizing everyone else. The greater US culture has devolved to this, and it's starting to reflect in the workplace.
> Isn't that exactly what leftist activist have been calling for though? "Shut down toxic, 'hatespeech'/'difficultspeech' infested subreddits/forums, it makes the problems go away!"
This is, I think, the mother of all false equivalencies. I don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
> Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast.
For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps. Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
> I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone.
> You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment. You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal? The company is nothing without your labor.
> Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
>This is, I think, the mother of all false equivalencies.
I kind of set you up for this one.
> don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
The point I was trying to make is, one person's "hateful discourse" is another person's relatively benign politics. When "hatespeech" is anything right of Trotsky, math[1], acronyms[2], getting to work on time[3], objectiveness[3], etc., it's no longer just the nasty stuff that every agrees is disgusting and has no place at work. Now "hatespeech" and "white supremacy" can be practically anything.
>For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps.
It's not a "stretched definition", it's literally the definition [4].
>Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
I was under the assumption that the majority of the developers and such are out of the Bay Area, even though it's HQ is elsewhere. If most of the workers are in left-wing areas, then this holds.
>I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment.
Depends on if you believe it's mistreatment or not. If I view it as consensual and positive, who are you to say otherwise?
>You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal?
I'm fine with not making as much as a founder, CEO, etc., I'm not a jealous classist. I live a life that 99.999% of humanity could only dream of living, make a solid income, great benefits, etc. I don't view it as a "raw deal".
>The company is nothing without your labor.
Your labor is nothing without the company. Again, we agreed to work where we work.
>No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
Then don't apply to that company, find another company that is more inline with your ideals/morals, or contract, or start your own company. Also, vote so that you get the benefits that you think you deserve by law. Just don't complain the way you have when not everyone sees eye-to-eye with you.
28 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 71.6 ms ] threadFull email (too long to quote directly): https://pastebin.com/7hd0XKcZ
That channel probably spiralled out of control and spawned social justice warriors and all kinds of "identity based" discussions which completely derail everything. A company does not necessarily have the capability to make everyone politically happy, and to not have feelings hurt or to keep people unoffended. It is a company with a value chain. I mean that a company discussion board is not the right arena. You don't want it to turn into a 4chan cesspool.
Having a CEO to say enough and use his role to park the whole discussion and reframe.
This is my view and not an absolute truth.
That fuck your feelings attitude and money/share options will only go so far for some people that has lots of options in the marketplace.
Just ask Basecamp management how that worked out for them.
We'll see in about 12 months if Basecamp loses a ton of customers because the quality of their products and services suffered too severely. And that's assuming quality will suffer at all.
Maybe they can write a new book - how to downsize the 37 Signals way.
I think I wouldn't survive 5 minutes in (big) corporate world. Perhaps it's because I'm entering the forties, but I imagine the amount of straight-face, holding-my-thoughts and tiptoeing required in order to not getting fired would wear me out in an instant.
Whereas companies have always restricted what sort of language you use within company property.
For example, until very recently, just using emojis could have been a firing offense.
Worked for two dozen companies over past two decades, never heard of it.
I mean, watching porn in the office was firing offense but I have seen people getting away with just a reprimand.
There never was any harmful thoughts attached to it.
Can you, just for the sake of curiosity, state your age?
I am continually surprised that “let’s shut down difficult conversations” seems to be the default reaction here. As if that makes the conversations go away, or solves the problem. All it does is remind marginalized people that you don’t really care about them.
It’s a very “shut up and work, peon” kind of move. I think it highlights exactly what the C-level thinks of their workers: they aren’t worthy of engaging with as full people; just cogs in the machine.
I think in exchange for giving an employer the best hours of my day and the best years of my life, I deserve to be more than just a cog in the machine.
>I am continually surprised that “let’s shut down difficult conversations” seems to be the default reaction here. As if that makes the conversations go away, or solves the problem.
Isn't that exactly what leftist activist have been calling for though? "Shut down toxic, 'hatespeech'/'difficultspeech' infested subreddits/forums, it makes the problems go away!" Then they link studies that show it does remove "hatespeech" from these places. You can't have your cake and eat it
>All it does is remind marginalized people that you don’t really care about them.
Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast. Is it OK for conservative activist employees to spam Slack all day about how gun control is anti-woman because it removes their right to self-defence? Women are a marginalized people, they need to have the same access to self-defence that they get in other conservative states. Is shutting down this speech anti-women? Do you not care about women because you won't allow this?
>It’s a very “shut up and work, peon” kind of move. I think it highlights exactly what the C-level thinks of their workers: they aren’t worthy of engaging with as full people; just cogs in the machine.
I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone. This is reality, anything else is just fantasy land. You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
>I think in exchange for giving an employer the best hours of my day and the best years of my life, I deserve to be more than just a cog in the machine.
Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
I played the Devil's advocate here but I think most here will understand what I'm getting at. Everyone has a different idea/reality on what the "status quo" is, what "workplace activism" is, etc. Due to this, it's extremely hard to work on teams when everyone is demonizing everyone else. The greater US culture has devolved to this, and it's starting to reflect in the workplace.
This is, I think, the mother of all false equivalencies. I don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
> Conservatives are one of the largest marginalized people in SV/West coast.
For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps. Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
> I'd say the sooner workers understand this, the better it is for everyone.
> You're replaceable, and if the company could save a dollar a quarter by laying you off, they would.
I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment. You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal? The company is nothing without your labor.
> Negotiate that in your contract at your next job. Else, you're only going to get what you and your employer agreed to.
No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
I kind of set you up for this one.
> don’t think it’s right or proper to equate discussions in a diversity channel with the monstrously hateful discourse that often occurs on nastier subreddits or 4chan and the like.
The point I was trying to make is, one person's "hateful discourse" is another person's relatively benign politics. When "hatespeech" is anything right of Trotsky, math[1], acronyms[2], getting to work on time[3], objectiveness[3], etc., it's no longer just the nasty stuff that every agrees is disgusting and has no place at work. Now "hatespeech" and "white supremacy" can be practically anything.
>For a very stretched definition of “marginalized,” perhaps.
It's not a "stretched definition", it's literally the definition [4].
>Shopify is a Canadian company based (I believe) in Ottawa, so I don’t think this is really a useful thing to discuss. Shutting down these conversations is happening far outside the place where you allege conservatives to be marginalized.
I was under the assumption that the majority of the developers and such are out of the Bay Area, even though it's HQ is elsewhere. If most of the workers are in left-wing areas, then this holds.
>I think it’s dystopian to simply accept mistreatment.
Depends on if you believe it's mistreatment or not. If I view it as consensual and positive, who are you to say otherwise?
>You deserve better; what incentive do you really have to settle? Unless you’re a CEO shitposting under a throwaway … you aren’t going to get what they have. Like you admit, they don’t care. Why roll over and accept a raw deal?
I'm fine with not making as much as a founder, CEO, etc., I'm not a jealous classist. I live a life that 99.999% of humanity could only dream of living, make a solid income, great benefits, etc. I don't view it as a "raw deal".
>The company is nothing without your labor.
Your labor is nothing without the company. Again, we agreed to work where we work.
>No employer would ever agree to that in a contract. In fact, most employers would never let you put anything in a contract, actually. That’s risky from their view. So this whole line of thinking is self-defeating: you and I both know it’s not a viable option. Why bother debating it? I mean, hell, Coinbase just said they won’t even negotiate salary anymore, the one thing you could actually negotiate for. It’s not an option, practically speaking; it’s just a way to shut down discussion.
Then don't apply to that company, find another company that is more inline with your ideals/morals, or contract, or start your own company. Also, vote so that you get the benefits that you think you deserve by law. Just don't complain the way you have when not everyone sees eye-to-eye with you.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/math-suffers-white-supremacy-accord... [2] https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-a... [3] https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/17/smithsonian-a... [4] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/marginalize