Slashdot Mirror


SCO Layoffs Begin

StevisF sends us to the Salt Lake Tribune for this news: "SCO Group Inc. says it is planning to lay off 16 of its 123 employees and has asked a federal bankruptcy court to keep their identities secret because it fears they could be harassed."

30 comments

  1. What? No comments...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zzz...

  2. Re:What? No comments...? by xorbe · · Score: 1

    Very strange! A bug in /. code?

  3. What is there to say? by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

    This is proof of the adage that it's better to have a horrible ending than horrors without end.

    Laying off about 15% of the workforce is never a good sign, and asking that they be kept anonymous (did they ask the employees to sign non-disclosure agreements about their employment status? I hope they'll be able to get unemployment if they did!) would be funny if it didn't seem so pathetic.

    --
    Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  4. Start? They never stopped. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't the beginning of the layoffs.

    Not too long ago, the SCO Group (Caldera) had hundreds of employees in several offices in the US and overseas. The SCO Group has had many layoffs since 2001. Someone even went to the trouble of graphing the history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SCO-2001-2006-headcount-by-department.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group#Charts

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Start? They never stopped. by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      Ouch, look at that first R&D hit.

    2. Re:Start? They never stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see that against a graph that shows their legal expenses.

  5. They actually HAD employees ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    123 employees ? No way ! What for ?

  6. slashdot front page record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 posts?

  7. Re:What? No comments...? by belmolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that this is anti-climactic. They haven't laid off everybody but the book-keeper. They're still technically in reorganization, not terminal bankruptcy. SCO hasn't yet been delisted. No criminal charges have been filed. SCO has been so bad, we want blood. To paraphrase Conan, we want "to crush SCO, to see them driven before us, and to rejoice in the lamentations of their women".

  8. Re:What? No comments...? by gerrysteele · · Score: 1

    Its happened..... finally everything that could have been said about the SCO debacle has been said.

    It's over.

    We're free...

    FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  9. Harassment by TWX · · Score: 1

    Harassment would only really be a concern depending on what those employees did for the company. If they were some of the few legitimate tech people then if anything people would be more inclined to pity them, maybe buy them a beer...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Re:What? No comments...? by cez · · Score: 1
    you insensitive clod.


    I ce that.

    --
    Walk with Music;
  11. Wow. I'm about to comment on. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    the most un-read story on slashdot, ever.

    But something did strike me about this story which I wanted to share. . .

    I find it amazing that such a small group of people, 123, could cause so much trouble for so many years. Luckily they were few enough to fall beneath the tide of the collective free-time efforts of the entire good-will internet. Job well done. I hope none of that 123 get hired ever again. --But that's a slim hope in this world. Typically, bombing out in a psychopathic organization is like passing a sort of evil initiation test; it proves you're one of the boys, so to speak. I see lucrative government posts in the future. Somebody should post a list of all of SCO's employees for future reference, (if it hasn't already been done). Keep your eyes out!


    -FL

  12. would YOU hire them? by v1 · · Score: 1

    has asked a federal bankruptcy court to keep their identities secret because it fears they could be harassed."

    More likely this is simply a nice move to try to protect the ones that get laid off. I mean, "ex-SCO employee" is not exactly a gem on your resume. Anyone considering an ex-SCO must consider two things... (1) you were involved with SCO and all their crap till the bitter end, and (2) you were too stupid to get while the getting was good.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:would YOU hire them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't this information be available via a standard background check? How can a bankruptcy court censor that?

  13. I kinda feel sorry for the employees. by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I tagged this as "burnbabyburn". If you are an employee of SCO this has to be scary for sure. Most SCO employees probably have kids and families and are good people. We have and continue to blame the management. Employees don't control this situation and never did. They are probably helpless, and clueless. Hopefully our community can look past these things, and recognize this. At least I hope we can. We all have to eat.

    Don't blame employees for managerial fuckups.

    1. Re:I kinda feel sorry for the employees. by merc · · Score: 1

      I must strongly disagree with you sir. I might have bought into this argument in 2003 but the current staff and employ of SCO are perpetuating a lie -- a scam of defraud and deceit that would give satan a boner.

      Any person investing in SCO or working for SCO, at this point (and in my opinion mind you), deserves any and all consequences forthcoming. It matters not to me their personal status as they had ample opportunity to consciously endure working for these small-minded greedy twits.

      Thousands of people in the United States are laid off every year. This is one small group of people I will shed no tears for.

      --
      It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    2. Re:I kinda feel sorry for the employees. by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Except the honourable thing would be to -long-ago- jump ship.

      "I was just working there" ain't much more convincing than "I was just following orders", neither of which gets you off the hook if you're helping evil.

      Unless you hold that it's reasonable to stay lojal to your employer no-mater-what the company is up to, and *then* later to turn around and claim "I was just working there, it's not my fault." That argument ain't particularily valid when working there is very much optional.

      I wouldn't hire an ex-SCOer that stayed until the bitter end. That's poor judgement, plain and simple.

  14. Re:Wow. I'm about to comment on. . . by daviddennis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see any reason to be vindictive against those who worked on a pioneering version of microcomputer Unix, from way before the time it got cool. For a long time, I'm sure this was a source of great pride, and it's tough to give up on a company that's been handing you your paycheck for eons.

    The lawyers, alas, have already gotten rich off this and I don't think destroying them is within our power. Darl McBride and the top executives have probably managed to funnel money out of the company by selling stock. Anyway, they'll be last to be laid off, for sure.

    D

  15. Hmm, how to express our sympathy... by straponego · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...pelvic thrusts, I think.

  16. Re:Wow. I'm about to comment on. . . by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Sure, but the people who are now at SCO are neither the original Santa Cruz Operation, which became Tarantella, nor the people from Caldera, which eventually turned into the SCO group. The people in charge, and as far as I know, pretty much everyone else at this point, are new people who had nothing to do with SCO Unix or Linux.

  17. Re:Wow. I'm about to comment on. . . by daviddennis · · Score: 1

    I'll bet most of the people laid off were in some way related to the actual product, though. The product's on life support - thanks in part to the litigation - and the litigation itself goes to the bitter end.

    D

  18. Re:Hmm, how to express our sympathy..A monkey HUG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sparkle Sco needs you.

  19. Everybody except... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
    the l*wy*rs.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  20. Re:Wow. I'm about to comment on. . . by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    I find it amazing that such a small group of people, 123, could cause so much trouble for so many years.

    The lawsuits were mostly handled by the SCO group's legal team, which was probably run by an external lawfirm working on contact.

    it proves you're one of the boys

    You're speaking about certain executives within the SCO group.

    Outside of the executive team, SCO Employees mostly maintained the legacy SCO products (Unixware, OpenServer), and probably had very little to do with the 'trouble'. Their mistake was not leaving SCO soon enough.

    With the vindictiveness of your post, can you see why some of the employees want to remain anonymous? What, are you hoping to prevent the receptionist from getting a new job?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  21. Harrassment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd harrass them if they were hot chicks.

  22. They are setting up Golden Parachutes by cworley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to be familiar with "Utah County Ethics": money made by any means is ethical.

    They are not just hiding the names, they want the compensation packages kept secret. Now Daryl and his cronies can place whatever cash the company has remaining into their parachutes before bailing, and the creditors (and public) will never hear a word about it, and that cash will be "off the table" for creditors to grab.

    Nobody goes after laid-off employees. How stupid do they think the judge is? Lots of people lost lots of money at Enron, but nobody attacked laid-off employees.

    It's just a smoke screen so they can "take the money and run". I hope the Judge can see through this, and tells SCO that he'll look into such anonymity on a case-by-case basis for each employee laid off: low level employees w/ reasonable compensation can be kept private... lavish parachutes for the execs will be hung in public.

    --
    When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
  23. Deja Vu? by shentino · · Score: 1

    "Darl McBride and the top executives have probably managed to funnel money out of the company by selling stock" ...Why does this remind me of Enron?

  24. Suddenly privacy is important again? by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 1

    "has asked a federal bankruptcy court to keep their identities secret because it fears they could be harassed."

    That's great. At least /somebody/ can get some privacy.

    --
    You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
  25. Re:What? No comments...? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    No criminal charges have been filed.
    Do you think this is possibly because nothing actually criminal has happened?
    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it