Offering severance like that doesn't seem like a retaliation. The owners of the company decided that the culture of the company was going a route they didn't like and made a decision that was overall very generous. It's both professional and how managers should act. I'm baffled that this is viewed so harshly, or that anyone outside of Basecamp even really cares about this.

> I used the word deliberately. They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one

Feudalism:

"the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."

Got it. Wait. No, lost it.

> They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not.

Does this square with offering people half a year's salary if they wanted to leave rather than continue working there?

I think it does, in that it's doubtful they'd have offered this unless they thought they were in a much stronger position where a far smaller number would have considered it enough to decide to leave.

You don't do something you expect to lead to a third of your company leaving. Even if you were actively planning a round of redundancies, you wouldn't do this as you risk losing your best performers.

The cost they'll face in fixing this loss of company knowledge, hiring and training replacements will be several times the cost of just the severance.

Noblesse oblige.

"They mistook their relationship with their employees for a feudal one, they have now discovered it was not"

This kind overly dramatic rhetoric demonstrates the lack of perspective on the part of the antagonists which is possibly at the root of the problem.

There is no reason for leadership to risk the company and all of their time and investment over 'fake rhetorical wars over the meaning of words' which have very little substance on either side.

Of all the ways for a company to fail, having internal resurrections over nothing is at least something that can be avoided.

They company executives acted as though they were owners managers of the company - which they are - and gave their staff an option, which some of them took.

That's it.

" gentle disagreement with this graphic would have been completely fine "

It wasn't just a disagreement over a graphic, it was a group of people forming an alliance to shape the nature of the company in their social view.

That's going to require some restructuring.

Aside from the tone of the communications, the company did what any other company would do, and now they're more or less situated as most other companies.

A lot of people are here in for a rude awakening in life; questioning some actions the company is making and having them addressed is reasonable, but forming alliances, challenging the leadership is suicidal unless there's a high degree of legitimacy, which there isn't.

If the company refuses to stop dumping chemicals, then yes, you can form an alliance. If you're worried the company has a doc floating around with crude jokes - but they stopped it ... and you want to restructure the company in your social terms because you think there's something existential at foot ... you're going to be fired.

Even if the tone was off, the company acted within reason.

"it was a group of people forming an alliance to shape the nature of the company in their social view."

The only time employees at any company don't do this is when the status quo serves them just fine.

Yes, but are people upset with the status quo due to a legit grievance, or a political orientation?

I suggest that the status quo at Basecamp was probably in any reasonable reality just fine. The movements to 'eradicate systematic racism' seem to be afoot mostly in the places that are already the most self-aware and tolerant.

This is the interesting paradox and it's why I believe that the social organizers at most of these already tolerant places are antagonists out to enforce the worldview they 'read in a book' in the workplace, out of a misguided attempt at moral justice.

Contrast this with blue-collar union formation, which is almost always in good faith in the sense we would expect, not that unions are perfect either.

I don't doubt those trying to start a union at Amazon, but I do doubt highly paid white collar workers thinking we all need some kind of 'major overview' of workplace conditions to ensure their view of the world is put in place.

I'm sure there is always a kernel of truth in demands (i.e. no making fun of names!) but that doesn't necessarily justify broad social action.