←back to thread

WordPress retaliation impacts community

(lwn.net)
238 points chmaynard | 4 comments | 17 Oct 24 04:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kmeisthax ◴[17 Oct 24 05:03 UTC] No.41866568[source]▶
> Mullenweg had also asked Automattic employees to pick a side, shortly after banning WP Engine from WordPress.org. He wrote on October 3 that Automattic had extended an ""Alignment Offer"" to its employees. The company provided a buyout package of $30,000 or six months of salary (whichever was higher) to employees who wanted to leave because they disagreed with Mullenweg's actions. Employees who accepted the buyout were immediately terminated and are not eligible for rehire. According to the post, 159 people — 8.4% of the company — accepted the offer.

Hot take: it should be illegal to do these "agree with me or take a silver parachute" deals. This is the CEO blatantly forcing their political views on their workers and purging anyone who has a different opinion and wants to speak it.

And yes, just for completeness sake (and because he's tangentially involved in the Matt drama), that includes DHH's "no politics" rule at 37signals, which (if my fuzzy memory is correct) was also enforced by a similar "agree or parachute" deal. Yes, "no politics" is political, it's stopping the music after claiming a seat in musical chairs.

replies(7): >>41866576 #>>41866582 #>>41866597 #>>41866603 #>>41866775 #>>41866853 #>>41866930 #
1. primitivesuave ◴[17 Oct 24 05:05 UTC] No.41866576[source]▶
It's called freedom of association, a foundational principle of capitalism and free markets.
replies(1): >>41870240 #
2. amanaplanacanal ◴[17 Oct 24 14:53 UTC] No.41870240[source]▶
Within limits. Because it also allows all sorts discrimination against folks that as a society we have decided not to allow. The question then becomes where to draw the line, not allegiance to the principle at all cost.
replies(2): >>41871803 #>>41875094 #
3. jmb99 ◴[17 Oct 24 17:39 UTC] No.41871803[source]▶
In this case though, the “discrimination” is against people who don’t want to work for the company by offering them 6 months’ salary to no longer work for the company. I don’t really see how that really falls under discrimination.
4. primitivesuave ◴[18 Oct 24 00:05 UTC] No.41875094[source]▶
You're right that there are limits (just as there are limits on free speech), and I don't think any sensible person is advocating for freedom of association on the basis of religion/race/gender. The original comment was proposing that merely holding an ideological position should afford some sort of legal protection - this is akin to firing someone for political affiliations, which is allowable in most cases for private enterprise, with greater latitude for political activity afforded to government employees.