[HN Gopher] Restructuring Announcement
___________________________________________________________________
Restructuring Announcement
Author : markx2
Score : 104 points
Date : 2025-04-02 18:34 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (automattic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (automattic.com)
| refuser wrote:
| Not especially surprising, but there's an awfully large elephant
| in the room that likely directly contributed to this necessity
| that goes completely unmentioned.
| uoaei wrote:
| Is the elephant in the room with us now? (Mind filling in?)
| maccard wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2y7eyp3zpo
| 65 wrote:
| Matt Mullenweg is the elephant.
| wiether wrote:
| Since Matt regularly comments here, and given the
| expression chosen; I'm pretty certain that they know who
| the elephant is.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Matt commenting here was part of the reason he is in the
| mess he is in.
| foobarchu wrote:
| His account has been inactive for almost all of 2025, I
| think his legal team must have taken away the password.
| alphager wrote:
| The legal threats against WPEngine and their customers, the
| lawsuits between WP/Automatic/WPF and WPEngine, the banning
| of several contributors, the takeover of WP Plugins on
| WP.org, the shenanigans with several check boxes on the login
| pages of WP.org.
| xd1936 wrote:
| https://mullenweg.wtf/
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20241026031947/https://bullenweg.
| ..
| stevage wrote:
| Holy moly.
|
| I never heard of this drama before.
|
| This was crazy:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/WPDrama/comments/1hlp08d/what_dram
| a...
| ornornor wrote:
| That was wild.
| mgdev wrote:
| Matt's only real problem is not owning his ambition openly.
|
| Trying to publicly argue the moral high ground was a stupid,
| unforced error.
|
| It didn't need to be moralized at all. Just make the changes
| you want to make, piss off a vocal minority, then get back to
| winning and making boatloads of money by executing
| exceptionally.
|
| The problem, I suspect, is that Matt values how certain people
| perceive him more than he values winning. It's unfortunate,
| because he's clearly a very good executer and strategist. He's
| getting in his own way.
| zem wrote:
| on the positive side, it's a small thing monetarily, but
| retention of company laptops is a nice goodwill gesture
| bmulholland wrote:
| Eh, from the company's perspective this is logistically easiest
| --the laptop's value is hardly worth the effort.
| zem wrote:
| a lot of companies ask for equipment to be returned due to
| security concerns, or just on principle
| igleria wrote:
| klarna allowed us to buy our work phone and macbook paying
| only the tax value. We had to give them the devices so they
| would be wiped out by a third party, then they mailed them
| to my home.
| runako wrote:
| This is a G move, without a doubt the best way I've heard
| of this being done.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| MacBooks and iPhones are amongst the easiest to wipe
| remotely.
|
| You can wipe them fully (which would be the
| recommendation for MacBooks) and remove just work-
| installed apps on an iPhone.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Absolutely. I was in charge of that at a previous job,
| and telling Jamf to nuke the device did the job the next
| time it was turned on.
| deelowe wrote:
| When I left microsoft, I kept everything EXCEPT data
| bearing devices. I got the sense they REALLY didn't want to
| have to collect the laptops either, but the VPs were forced
| to by compliance.
| jelder wrote:
| A company which is even moderately "OK" at IT will already
| have the means to instantly lock and securely wipe devices
| of any employee at a moments notice. Doing this during a
| RIF is a hell of a lot better than making the mail room
| deal with a bunch of filthy laptops.
| oblio wrote:
| A large bunch of big companies, including some of the
| biggest on the planet don't even sell past-end-of-life
| laptops to their current employees.
|
| Let that sink in. They're not even willing to <<sell>>
| old laptops, they would rather scrap them and contribute
| to pollution and overall waste.
| preinheimer wrote:
| If you scrap a laptop you get a nice, auditable, chain of
| custody from the end user to the company that will
| certify it's been destroyed. If you sell someone their
| old laptop you need to ensure that it's actually been
| wiped, not just "I copied my files over and started using
| the new one". I've seen a few IT departments be not great
| at "Sam got their new laptop two weeks ago, someone
| should follow up now to see if the wipe on the old one
| happened".
|
| One choice won't get you fired, the other might save you
| a bit of cash.
| oblio wrote:
| I'm talking about some companies that should have the
| best IT departments on the planet.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| If they sell to (ex-)employees they sell to consumers.
| This then includes consumer warranties etc.
|
| However what large companies do is to get an agreement
| with a refurbishing company, which will collect and
| refurbish them and and pay the corporation some share.
|
| This works in some mix calculation - the well treated
| machines can be sold well, some machines can be used to
| reuse some parts and some machines are nothing but cost
| for disposal.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| One former employer had this policy, and also refused to
| provide a way to ship said equipment back. No one was happy
| with my alternative solution: leaving it at the police
| station instead.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Is that what you proposed or what you actually did? I
| want a story!
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I actually did it. This was back in the times when you
| could get a job the next day, and my new employer didn't
| want me keeping anything from the old employer by the
| time I started. Old employer was dragging their feet on
| the shipping label and made it clear that failure to
| return the equipment would be considered theft. I gave
| them a week of daily reminder emails with an approaching
| deadline (no response), then handed it to the cops as
| abandoned property. Got a few HR calls immediately
| afterwards asking how to pick it up, and an annoyed
| police call asking me not to do it again.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I love this. Bravo.
| javawizard wrote:
| And yet only one company I've ever worked for went this way.
|
| I wish more did; it really is such a small goodwill gesture
| to departing employees.
| etchalon wrote:
| We always let our ex-employees keep their laptops because a.
| why not? and b. I don't need laptops for positions that no
| longer exist.
| gopher_space wrote:
| "Welcome to your new job at HighSpeed TopFlight. Here's an
| old, used laptop."
| ornornor wrote:
| I've had that happen to me at a new job. It disnt make my
| new employer shine.
| MDGeist wrote:
| I was at a company that let people keep laptops (after they
| were wiped) largely because the severance was so meager it
| seemed they expected people to sell the laptops for some
| extra cash. :p
| slt2021 wrote:
| companies that collect their laptops from laid off => where do
| these laptops go? how they recycle them?
| viraptor wrote:
| It's a huge "depends". Different areas have different
| recycling opportunities. Some hardware providers have their
| own buyback/replacement programs. Also some companies may
| want to reimage and reuse the returned hardware. Finally you
| want some stock of temporary laptops available for people who
| are waiting for repairs so some functioning used ones are
| great for that.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Yeah at the BigCorps I was at, old laptops (as long as they
| weren't more than 3-4 years old) were usually reimaged and
| kept on hand as spares or for interns, etc. But I imagine
| after a large layoff they ended up with way more than
| they'd ever actually need.
| icedchai wrote:
| Many of them are fully depreciated and worth nothing, or nearly
| so, on paper anyway. Any new employees won't want an old
| laptop. And it will cost time and money to deal with shipping,
| storage, cleaning, re-imaging, etc. On average, the bean
| counters must figure it's cheaper to let people keep them.
| sidcool wrote:
| This is well handled.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| Tough break for Matt Mullenweg, who unfortunately was caught up
| in this reduction in force. I am sure this unexpected change will
| afford him new opportunities. Wishing him the best!
| swyx wrote:
| for others who took this at its word, this sarcasm. matt is
| unaffected.
| jsheard wrote:
| As a great man once said: _" some of you may die, but it's a
| sacrifice I am willing to make"_
| anthomtb wrote:
| > This restructuring will result in an approximately 16%
| workforce reduction
|
| Probably the most salient detail for non-Automattic employees.
| Everything else was generic fluff.
| blatantly wrote:
| Plus severance will be paid but didn't say how much.
|
| I was thinking this is a boilerplate firing email though!
| duskwuff wrote:
| I wonder if it's better or worse than the voluntary
| termination deal they offered to employees last year (first 6
| months, then 9 months pay).
| Jare wrote:
| > how much
|
| With so many countries and legal frameworks to comply with,
| there's never going to be a single answer for this.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| > non-Automattic employees
|
| non- _Automatticians_. Yes, they literally used this term in
| TFA.
| munificent wrote:
| I know this really bugs some people but every tech company
| these days has a demonym for its employees.
|
| It doesn't mean that employees have some cultlike adoration
| for the company. It's just very convenient inside the company
| to have a single short word to refer to all employees of the
| business.
| rchaud wrote:
| Just say "all employees" then. Lots of companies use
| contractors who don't have employee benefits, do they count
| as "Googlers" or whatever the stupid stand-in moniker is?
| jihadjihad wrote:
| I get it, it's just kind of a meme at this point after a
| couple years of these boilerplate RIF announcements. Cmd-F
| for "difficult decision" + whatever the demonym is and
| you're basically guaranteed hits.
| tylerrobinson wrote:
| > a single short word
|
| > "Automattician"
|
| The word you're looking for is employee.
| munificent wrote:
| I checked my list, and the fact that employees of
| Automattic are called "Automatticians" did not make my
| list of things to be outraged about. Maybe next week.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Some companies even have a name for people after they left
| the company, like "xooglers" for Google and "outfluxers"
| for InfluxData
| eppsilon wrote:
| get hired back to become a refluxer, train as a hardware
| engineer to become a flux capacitor...
| FlamingMoe wrote:
| Mentioning "our revenue continues to grow" seems quite out of
| place in an announcement like this.
| Arainach wrote:
| I disagree - it's not properly addressed, but it's nice to see
| it at least brought up.
|
| Layoffs are always awful, but seeing companies talk about
| "changing economic realities" amongst continuing revenue and
| profit growth - often all time highs - is a real morale killer
| for those who are left behind.
|
| Microsoft/Amazon/Alphabet/Google are trillion dollar megacorps
| who are insanely profitable, but they're firing people because
| they no longer have to pretend we care about you at all and
| will instead try to cater to Wall Street (who will never be
| happy - if I had $10000 for every quarter where a big tech corp
| "beat expectations" and the stock dropped anyway I'd retire).
| It's a hard pill to swallow and will increase bitterness and
| cynicism in the remaining workforce and kill any chance of your
| employees caring about your vision or putting in any extra
| effort.
| fwip wrote:
| I might agree with you, if the "why we're making changes"
| section had listed even one reason to lay people off.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| When was anyone naive enough to think their company cared
| about them?
|
| On the other hand, why should a company keep people around
| that they don't need?
|
| And the last point, speaking more about
| Microsoft/Amazon/Google, if you have worked for either
| company for any length of time, there is no excuse for you
| not to have a nice nest egg to tide you over especially
| considering the severance amounts they give you.
|
| You might be forced to sully yourself and become an
| "enterprise developer" and make around what most of the 2.8
| million developers in the US.
|
| And yes, I did a bid at Amazon and within three years, I paid
| off some debt, saved a chunk of change, got my 3.5 months
| severance package and found another job quickly that was my
| target compensation (not enterprise dev).
| altairprime wrote:
| If opex is growing at a faster rate than revenue, and it's not
| a VC situation, then layoffs are a popular way to curtail opex
| -- typically business leadership cannot effect changes that
| would eventually impact themselves, so, the board and executive
| layer prefer to mass-layoff workers _and_ middle management
| first and then let the remaining leadership fight for their
| life to present optimized plans. This is of course a terrible
| approach, because -- as Taskmaster quite enjoyably demonstrates
| -- even the smartest people tend to make a lot of asinine
| judgment calls under duress and deadlines; but when the
| alternative is to admit weaknesses of _leadership_ , it's
| certainly a logical enough course of action.
| anon7000 wrote:
| I think it's just saving face. That statement could be true if
| revenue was growing at 1% or 10% or whatever.
| chris_wot wrote:
| This might not have happened if Mullenweg hadn't sued his
| competitor, then went off the deep end and hurt _everyone_.
| 1shooner wrote:
| Another interpretation would be a common cause for both this
| and the litigation, i.e. pressure to improve financials.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It may also have been part of his _reason_ for doing so. Panic
| /desperation.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Given what I know of the situation (which admittedly isn't much),
| wouldn't the best course of action be to shitcan the CEO?
| wmf wrote:
| With apologies to Louis XIV, Matt is Automattic.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| wait, did he put his name in the company name?
|
| if so, that's what we in the narcissist-identifying business
| call a "tell".
| duskwuff wrote:
| > wait, did he put his name in the company name?
|
| Yes.
| Jare wrote:
| Or it just sounded like a fun joke for a good company
| name... I mean you are not wrong, but pretty much any
| successful young entrepreneur must have some degree of
| excessive appreciation for themselves, and this one was
| already achieving that status at 19.
| dangrossman wrote:
| From Reddit discussions, if they can be trusted, there is
| nobody who can remove Matt from any position. It's a private
| company and the investors were given non-voting shares.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| he'd already be out if it was simple to force him out
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Let this be a lesson to anyone investing in a startup:
| don't give any cash unless there's real corporate
| governance.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Same with trading your time for stock options (that you
| hope are eventually negotiable shares); trust is earned
| in drops and lost in buckets.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| Dilution is a real problem. If they want you to act like
| a Founder, you should have protected equity like one.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _It 's a private company and the investors were given non-
| voting shares._
|
| My understanding is that the investors signed proxy voting
| rights over to Matt. They are mostly ordinary shares, and may
| be revocable. [1]
|
| [1] https://ma.tt/2021/08/funding-buyback-hiring/
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I wonder if the CEO throwing a tantrum that another company was
| using "their" open-source (thus, not theirs) code wasn't the real
| problem, but it made investors take a closer look, and they
| noticed that Automattic has less of a moat then they thought.
| Kye wrote:
| There's a parallel timeline where he admitted he messed up,
| stepped down, hired a real CEO, put someone else in charge of the
| nonprofit, and the downward slide he caused started to reverse.
| kstrauser wrote:
| > They also have our enduring gratitude for their time with the
| company.
|
| I hope the RIF'd employees can pay rent with that gratitude.
|
| If I were considering using Wordpress for anything, which I am
| not, this would end those plans. If they're laying off and
| keeping the CEO, they must be in dire financial straits. That
| message says "we're doing all the right things and have good
| leadership with a track record of making good decisions, but we
| have no alternative but to fire a sixth of our employees". That's
| not a good sign.
| melbourne_mat wrote:
| From an alternate universe:
|
| I apologize for my erratic behavior which has tarnished our brand
| and created unnecessary turmoil within our organization.
| Regrettably, we will need to implement a 16% reduction in
| headcount to address the financial challenges we now face. I have
| decided to step aside and hand over control to my deputy, who I
| believe will provide the steady leadership needed to rebuild
| trust and restore our company's vision.
| gregoryl wrote:
| 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...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-02 23:00 UTC)