Perhaps not - asking honestly, What did I miss? Other than people saying they didn't love working for the founders (and that seems to predate this issue). I said that in another comment, that it seemed the internet beat up is at cross-purposes: employees not loving the employers and founders asserting control (with repercussions) are both reasonable positions.

I read the first third-party piece about this and nothing sounded outrageous. Read Jason and DHH's pieces, and then DHH's follow-up entry. I read Jane Yang's bit. And I read some Twitter threads from employees.

Obviously employees are well within their rights to want a workplace where they form HR policy and the founders can want another scenario if they think it's to the detriment of their product. Former can move on to another workplace. Founders can wear the blowback of their decision.

You have a problem. I know lets ask HR to get involved. You now have at least two problems.

IMO Cutting benefits is more unacceptable than cutting politics talk (which IDC about). Replacing it with an equal amount of money doesn't necessarily shore up because I'll need to pay income tax on any direct payments, and if they only give me the money that they would pay (companies get bulk discounts on gym memberships and the like) then I will be given less money than the service was actually worth.

eg. if Basecamp got bulk gym memberships at 20$/employee but each employee would have to sign up at 40$ per person, Basecamp paying each employee 20$ would not be the same as giving each employee a gym membership.

Unless you qualified for each and every benefit, replacing them all with money might end up being a gain instead of a cut. Anyone who doesn’t have a gym membership or isn’t currently paying tuition would come out ahead this year at least on their new plan.

Fair enough that it might not work so well in subsequent years due to taxes.