Why should we give any credit to a "company culture" where employees freely shared lists of customers' PII in order to ridicule them, while proclaiming their supposed commitment to privacy? If that's the outcome of "employees deciding if the company culture is good", I'd much rather trust the CEO.
Note that I'm not invoking a slippery-slope argument here - we know that privacy was being violated here, we're not merely predicting that this could happen in the future.
I'm very confused by this thought process. It wasn't the CEO who initially said this was wrong. It was employees who did, and the CEO initially pushed back and said it was fine.
The employees were the ones to change that negative aspect of the culture after the CEO had failed to do so for years. What about that gives you confidence that the CEO values privacy?
The employees were also the ones to create that negative aspect of culture, and maintain it through out the last decades.
It is unclear currently if the employees leaving are the same ones who supported the old culture or those who lobbied for the new, or if both groups are the same. I've seen one report that a person called Basecamp culture akin to 'genocide' when that person had been an active supporter in the 'genocidal' culture themselves. It may have been a genuine change of heart, but their hyperbolic language couldn't have lead to good discussion making nor made it clear what kind of punishment that person should get for their past admitted misdeeds.
> The employees were also the ones to create that negative
Yes and? This doesn't explain why you should then trust the CEO, who took longer to come around, more than the employees. Yes they both did a bad thing. One group began addressing it first. Why trust the other group more?
> I've seen one report that a person called Basecamp culture akin to 'genocide' when that person had been an active supporter in the 'genocidal' culture themselves.
Right so this isn't what was said. They posted a diagram that contained the word genocide as a potential (very) long term outcome of not taking more minor forms of racism seriously.
The CEO took this as this person accusing him of genocide, when that isn't what happened.
Yeah, that diagram is problematic. It’s like the anti drug ads that said if you smoke pot, you find gangsters who pay out to Colombian drug lords, who also finance other parties who handle the money for terrorists so at the end of a long chain of events college stoners fund terrorism.
Even if such a tenuous connection is true, it’s unhelpful to point it out.
Note that I'm not invoking a slippery-slope argument here - we know that privacy was being violated here, we're not merely predicting that this could happen in the future.