> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.