←back to thread

Employees Describe an Environment of Paranoia and Fear Inside Automattic

(www.404media.co)
199 points orangeteacups | 5 comments | 17 Oct 24 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lapcat ◴[17 Oct 24 18:32 UTC] No.41872346[source]▶
> In July, before the latest WP Engine blowup, an Automattic employee wrote in Slack that they received a direct message from Mullenweg sending them an identification code for Blind, an anonymous workplace discussion platform, which was required to complete registration on the site. Blind requires employees to use their official workplace emails to sign up, as a way to authenticate that users actually work for the companies they are discussing. Mullenweg said on Slack that emails sent from Blind’s platform to employees’ email addresses were being forwarded to him. If employees wanted to log in or sign up for Blind, they’d need to ask Mullenweg for the two-factor identification code. The implication was that Automattic—and Mullenweg—could see who was trying to sign up for Blind, which is often a place where people anonymously vent or share criticism about their workplace.

> “We were unaware that Matt redirected sign-up emails until current Automattic employees contacted our support team,” a spokesperson for Blind told me, adding that they’d “never seen a CEO or executive try to limit their employees from signing up for Blind by redirecting emails.”

replies(4): >>41872397 #>>41872717 #>>41873208 #>>41873512 #
orev ◴[17 Oct 24 19:01 UTC] No.41872717[source]▶
> never seen a CEO or executive try to limit their employees from signing up for Blind by redirecting emails

I get that it’s creepy that this is being done, but I highly doubt that nobody at Blind has “never seen” this. Blind sends spam using multiple different domain names trying to get people to sign up. The domains are rotated so they can get around blocking on the email server, and the fact they do it means they already know that companies try to block them.

replies(2): >>41872951 #>>41874276 #
qgin ◴[17 Oct 24 19:29 UTC] No.41872951[source]▶
Blocking, sure. But literally sending the emails to the CEO might very well be a new one.
replies(1): >>41873287 #
rwmj ◴[17 Oct 24 20:12 UTC] No.41873287[source]▶
There are loads of terrible companies around, so I'd be surprised if none of them had ever tried to intercept Blind sign-up messages before now, and if you're a tyrant CEO at one of said terrible companies, getting the emails forwarded to you is merely the next logical step.

The next paragraph in the text is a lot more interesting:

Some of the most commonly discussed topics on Blind are protected speech in the U.S.—pay, job terminations, critiques of workplace conditions—which we believe workers should be free to access and discuss.

What are the consequences (in the US) of a company blocking that?

replies(1): >>41873411 #
0cf8612b2e1e ◴[17 Oct 24 20:26 UTC] No.41873411[source]▶
Zero. Protected speech is protected from government intervention. You can run your own forum that bans people from discussing <thing you hate> without repercussions.
replies(1): >>41873477 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 20:33 UTC] No.41873477[source]▶
Eh, discussing salary is a right, guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
replies(3): >>41873523 #>>41873535 #>>41873616 #
lmz ◴[17 Oct 24 20:40 UTC] No.41873535[source]▶
Blocking signups to a specific forum using company email is not blocking salary discussions.
replies(1): >>41873548 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41873548[source]▶
You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of "let's do this, because people are discussing salaries" was sent that might show up in discovery.
replies(1): >>41873625 #
Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 20:48 UTC] No.41873625{3}[source]▶
So what if it does? You are not prohibiting discussing of salaries - you are prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time. There is no problem here.
replies(1): >>41873710 #
kragen ◴[17 Oct 24 20:56 UTC] No.41873710{4}[source]▶
NLRB has ruled many times on companies "prohibiting discussing of salaries while using company property and company time", virtually always striking down the prohibitions and in many cases sanctioning companies for trying to impose them. Labor organizing activity is absolutely allowed to happen on company property and company time. It would be impossible otherwise at many workplaces. Think about auto factories, coal mines, offshore oil platforms, etc., especially before email.
replies(1): >>41873912 #
Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 21:19 UTC] No.41873912{5}[source]▶
You are misinformed.

The NLRB does not allow you to use company time and company property to do non-company things.

You can use your own break time to discuss salaries. There is nothing a company can do to prohibit that.

It's really that simple.

replies(2): >>41873948 #>>41874325 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 21:22 UTC] No.41873948{6}[source]▶
If work allows non-work conversations, discussing salaries can't be an exception to that. (Automattic definitely permits non-work conversations during the workday.)

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...

> You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.

If you consistently have - and consistently enforce! - a "no non-work conversations" policy, that can include salary discussions. Suddenly adding a new "no talking!" policy in response to people organizing wouldn't fly, either.

replies(1): >>41873960 #
Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 21:23 UTC] No.41873960{7}[source]▶
Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done?

There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work.

This is a silly discussion to be having.

replies(1): >>41873974 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 21:25 UTC] No.41873974{8}[source]▶
> Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done?

It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt.

> There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work.

If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.

replies(1): >>41874022 #
1. Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 21:31 UTC] No.41874022{9}[source]▶
> are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced

This is silly.

Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks.

> demonstrably enforced

Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement.

You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not.

These people literally:

1) Started their work day

2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working

3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website

4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies.

On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.

replies(1): >>41874063 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 21:35 UTC] No.41874063[source]▶
> You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not.

You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance.

> These people literally:

There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time.

Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.

replies(1): >>41874102 #
3. Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 21:40 UTC] No.41874102[source]▶
> You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance.

I'm glad you enjoy my work. No, unskilled labor should not be livable. It's literally, unskilled.

> Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.

That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? Sudden targeting of payment discussions? Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?

replies(1): >>41874109 #
4. ceejayoz ◴[17 Oct 24 21:41 UTC] No.41874109{3}[source]▶
> That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it?

No. Scroll up. I started with this, for context:

"You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of 'let's do this, because people are discussing salaries' was sent that might show up in discovery."

> Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?

https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up has the tagline "Real salary data from verified employees"; it's a pretty single-purpose site. Matt had Blind signup emails intercepted and sent to him instead.

What other possible purpose of targeting this specific site could there be, if not to impact disclosure/awareness of salaries within Automattic?

replies(1): >>41874131 #
5. Alupis ◴[17 Oct 24 21:44 UTC] No.41874131{4}[source]▶
Blind is not just a website where people discuss salaries. It's an alternative LinkedIn.

Your entire premise and the assumptions it's built upon are absurdly false and sensationalist.

There was no wrong doing here by the company - no matter how slimey their leadership may currently be.

Spending time on a social media website is not protected by any law.

Is there some sort of "remind my in 6 months" thing? I'd love to come back so we can discuss how nothing came of this.