←back to thread

Restructuring Announcement

(automattic.com)
261 points markx2 | 6 comments | 02 Apr 25 18:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.584s | source | bottom
Show context
gregoryl ◴[02 Apr 25 22:01 UTC] No.43562178[source]▶
Huh.

>> There are no layoffs plans at Automattic, in fact we're hiring fairly aggressively and have done a number of acquisitions since this whole thing started, and have several more in the pipeline.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1hxnh73/automatt...

replies(3): >>43562817 #>>43563275 #>>43568844 #
pityJuke ◴[02 Apr 25 23:06 UTC] No.43562817[source]▶
How infuriating for anyone recently hired caught in this trap.

It seems to me the obvious, from both a business & human perspective, is to stop hiring at first signs of trouble, before layoffs. To do so otherwise is cruel.

I doubt Matt had zero idea about this possibility two months ago.

replies(7): >>43562884 #>>43563150 #>>43563392 #>>43563702 #>>43564003 #>>43564766 #>>43570872 #
paradox460 ◴[02 Apr 25 23:46 UTC] No.43563150[source]▶
This will continue until there are actual consequences for those responsible.

I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down.

replies(2): >>43563451 #>>43570192 #
alvah ◴[03 Apr 25 00:37 UTC] No.43563451[source]▶
>I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down.

Oh, to be young and idealistic again! So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first?

replies(8): >>43563819 #>>43563848 #>>43563963 #>>43564216 #>>43567686 #>>43569476 #>>43569706 #>>43589044 #
1. mathgeek ◴[03 Apr 25 01:54 UTC] No.43563848[source]▶
> So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first?

If they are needed to continue leading, they should consider cutting their own salary until the problems are fixed. Let them take their entire compensation in just their equity for a time.

However we all know this won’t be the norm, and that’s OK. Not great, just OK.

replies(3): >>43563931 #>>43563978 #>>43564797 #
2. dboreham ◴[03 Apr 25 02:08 UTC] No.43563931[source]▶
Jim Barksdale enters the room.
3. ted_dunning ◴[03 Apr 25 02:15 UTC] No.43563978[source]▶
Been there and done that. One startup I was at instituted a 50% pay cut for senior execs, 25% for the level below that and no cut below that. The CEO took a 100% pay cut.

This let us get through a short rough patch without layoffs.

replies(1): >>43565493 #
4. hinkley ◴[03 Apr 25 04:36 UTC] No.43564797[source]▶
I do know of one guy who took a pay cut because unless he hamstrung his own team badly he was looking at needing to lay off about 2.3 people and so he cut his own salary to make it 2 instead of 3.

That's one story surrounded by a hell of a lot of shitheel stories.

5. leosarev ◴[03 Apr 25 06:23 UTC] No.43565493[source]▶
I worked at middle-sized company that instituted a pay cuts, cutting all bonuses and stopping raises. After year, company lost almost every person in tech managenent and most of team leaders, their clients actively executing forking rights and no one believes in company future now.

I once heard wise words from some CEO. In harsh times, clients do not want cheaper and worse services from us. They want less services. So we are moving out headcount down, while keeping pay and even execute raises for those who stay.

replies(1): >>43570256 #
6. pdimitar ◴[03 Apr 25 14:32 UTC] No.43570256{3}[source]▶
Can you explain why this is wise? I'd say most execs leaving is usually a net positive. You are framing it as a tragedy and I am just not seeing it.

From where I am standing, leeches that are only there for fat bonuses left. Where's the loss?

And the measure you described also doesn't follow. Bad times always end and then you have a worse product. Will the execs pick up the new tech work?