4 ms·

> In a blog post, Mullenweg said the package offered $30,000 or six months of salary, whichever is higher, but the employees who took it would not be eligible t

by tyingq 2y ago

> In a blog post, Mullenweg said the package offered $30,000 or six months of salary, whichever is higher, but the employees who took it would not be eligible to be re-hired by Automattic. Like never eligible? That seems kind of petty. I would understand some timeframe, like "not eligible for 3/4/5 years", but a permanent ban seems weird.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pavlov 2y ago
AFAIK this kind of permanent shitlist is common practice in American tech companies, including the MAANG. They may call it “non-regretted attrition” or something similar, but the purpose is the same.
rnweiher 2y ago
Serious question: What is the percentage of people intending to get re-hired at a previous place? Or at least definitely not rejecting that idea? Personally, i have never done so, be it because was always leaving by a "voluntary" "termination agreement", and the employers involved being either not attractive, not existent, or plainly incompetent. If you are residing in a major city, there are always other options. And given 100% remote seems to be a must for many people, even more so.
Aeolun 2y ago
Why would you want to go back there anyway? The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. I completely agree it’s petty, but it’s entirely in line with their behavior over the past few weeks. I guess at least it’s better than Musk?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. 30k probably has something to do with it.
- tyingq 2y ago
  > The whole reason you are leaving I imagine for at least some people "$30,000 or six months of salary, whichever is higher" was the main motivator, and may have stayed otherwise.
- yellow_lead 2y ago
  Just for the money? Why else?
- karaterobot 2y ago
  > The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. That doesn't make sense to me. People stay in jobs they don't like all the time, with leadership they don't agree with all the time. Here's the reason: it's because they pay you to go to work. Like, money. If everyone just pulled up stakes every time the thought occurred to them that their CEO might be a petty tyrant, there would be tumbleweeds blowing through every Slack channel in the world.

by tyingq 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pavlov 2y ago

AFAIK this kind of permanent shitlist is common practice in American tech companies, including the MAANG. They may call it “non-regretted attrition” or something similar, but the purpose is the same.

rnweiher 2y ago

Serious question: What is the percentage of people intending to get re-hired at a previous place? Or at least definitely not rejecting that idea? Personally, i have never done so, be it because was always leaving by a "voluntary" "termination agreement", and the employers involved being either not attractive, not existent, or plainly incompetent. If you are residing in a major city, there are always other options. And given 100% remote seems to be a must for many people, even more so.

Aeolun 2y ago

Why would you want to go back there anyway? The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. I completely agree it’s petty, but it’s entirely in line with their behavior over the past few weeks. I guess at least it’s better than Musk?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lupusreal 2y ago
> The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. 30k probably has something to do with it.
tyingq 2y ago
> The whole reason you are leaving I imagine for at least some people "$30,000 or six months of salary, whichever is higher" was the main motivator, and may have stayed otherwise.
yellow_lead 2y ago
Just for the money? Why else?
karaterobot 2y ago
> The whole reason you are leaving is because you think the CEO is worse at adulting than a grade-schooler. That doesn't make sense to me. People stay in jobs they don't like all the time, with leadership they don't agree with all the time. Here's the reason: it's because they pay you to go to work. Like, money. If everyone just pulled up stakes every time the thought occurred to them that their CEO might be a petty tyrant, there would be tumbleweeds blowing through every Slack channel in the world.