Slashdot Mirror


MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

Jason Koebler writes MakerBot fired roughly 20 percent of its staff Friday. Figures from 2014 placed the company's ranks at 500, meaning the cuts could equate to roughly 100 employees. The orders came from new CEO Jonathan Jaglom, Motherboard was told. Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today. "It's about 20 percent of staff," a MakerBot representative, who asked not to be identified because she had not received approval to speak to the press, told Motherboard. "Everyone suspected that something would be coming with the new CEO, and that there would be restructuring coming."

177 comments

  1. Predictable by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Funny

    They obviously they printed replacements

    1. Re:Predictable by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      You may want to check the STL file for that sentence.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  2. Print a 3D job by ls671 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just found out MakerBot was a 3D printer maker.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Print a 3D job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been for the last decade?

    2. Re:Print a 3D job by ls671 · · Score: 3, Funny

      working on 2D jobs...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  3. In Other News by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And in other news, MakerBot CEO Jonathan Jaglom will receive a bazillion dollar bonus, and another ten bazillion dollars in stock options. It's predicted he will end his term as CEO by urinating and defecating and the smoldering corpse of MakerBot before seeking greener pastures to assrape and pillage.

    When asked for comment, Mr. Jaglom replied "I'd just like to say fuck you all very much!"

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:In Other News by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Well, that's what makes America such a great country!

    2. Re: In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In capitalist America, job quits you!

    3. Re:In Other News by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think it's just an American phenomenon... how naive of you.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      as long as the shareholders are happy on the ride down, who cares?

    5. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No news here. Please move along.

      That is the typical action of nearly every tech founder/CEO. Period.

      To Makerbot employees, Maker lucked out at being 1st to use patent tech that's been around for 25yrs (orignally Stratasys). It's wasn't 'invented' by RepRap--it was made cheaper by them and that's it... and Makerbot exploited it. So, if you got hired for the startup excitement, well, the roller coaster ride is over. If you got hired for the riches, ya'll got exploited by the CEO and he gets a payday from it-- too bad for you. Stratsys's going to scuttle Makerbot.

    6. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, 3D-printing was in a bubble and MakerBot had to adjust to something more realistic now that the first wave 3D-printers are beginning to gather dust at the early adopters.
      "3D-printer for sale - only used once."

    8. Re:In Other News by msmonroe · · Score: 1

      CEO Manual ---
      Preface
      Some studies have shown that CEO’s are typically Psychopaths, that seems like a really derogatory term and we may not know its definition. The important thing
      is that this is not an English class and we don’t care about definitions. The one thing that you need to remember as you transition into your new role is to detach
      yourself from the needs and wants of those who work for you. This way you can insure that you are only doing what is best for the company.
      Chapter 1 – Let’s get going
      Congratulations on getting a new Job as CEO! This is a big accomplishment in your life. Part of this new Job will be to optimize profits. The easiest way to
      increase profits is by cutting costs and the quickest way to do this is to lay people off. Don’t worry you don’t need them anyway.
      Pareto’s principle says that 20% of your employees do 80% of the work and that is exactly how many people you need to let go is 20%. This is because the lazy
      80% aren't pulling their weight and by letting the productive 20% go you will empower those 80% to pull their own weight.
      Don’t know who those productive 20% are? It doesn't really matter, any 20% will do.
      You can even make a game of it. First start by making a list, then draw a polygon on it, where the lines meet the names, you have your 20%, maybe more if you lucky.
      Chapter 2 – Go East young man
      Outsourcing to India is the craze nowadays. Besides India being a type of food you can also send work there. Before picking up the phone and calling your local
      Indian restaurant answer these questions first. Do you have programmers or a customer service number that people need to call? Great then you can outsource to India.
      You are actually doing your employees a favor by outsourcing them. If they have been working at your company more than a few years, then chances are they
      have gotten lazy and need to find a new job.
      Your employees should have no problem training their replacements. This will also bring a multicultural flavor to your company.
      You will also expose your customers to new people from countries where they will probably never travel. This will enrich their lives.
      Chapter 3 – Go even Easter
      India is not the only type of food that is good. Have you ever eaten Chinese? Chinese food comes from China which if you do any manufacturing is where you will
      send it. If you haven’t heard by now, China is world known for manufacturing products that are higher quality and lower cost than anywhere else in the world.
      Your customers will also thank you and since they are getting a far superior product, you will need to raise your prices by the same 20% that you used in Chapter 1 to cut your staff.

    9. Re:In Other News by msmonroe · · Score: 1

      You know honestly it's a circle of life thing. Once the US becomes a third world country they'll start hiring again.

    10. Re: In Other News by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Very well said, sir! This is precisely why I stepped out of corporate America. My lifetime threshold for bullshit has been reached. The corporate life is vastly overrated,

    11. Re:In Other News by OneSizeFitsNoone · · Score: 1

      This made my day.

    12. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'We can be more efficient than such-and-such a program...' Blah blah blah, it's all bullshit, Graham, soup to nuts. It's code, for mass firings and low quality. Just melt the market dry, and get out. I mean, if our system wasn't any good, why did they take us over in the first place? Christ!"

  4. Lets use correct terminology. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office). But this summary seems to use the terms interchangeably.
    Since a reason has not been given for the workers losing their jobs, either one could apply. But they aren't the same.

    1. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When you layoff 20%, it's just business (insert whatever reason that gives the top manglers bigger bonuses.) When you _FIRE_ 20%, it's big f_cking deal; a company has to be pretty screwed up to be firing 20% of its head count.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    2. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by crgrace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If 20% are going at once, it is most certainly a layoff. It could be they are focusing on dead wood, or, and this is most likely, they had a mandate of 20% from each group, regardless of how strong each group was. I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.

    3. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

    4. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes.

      Laid off workers are not usually any happier losing their job than fired workers (even if there is a payout.)

    5. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    6. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.

    7. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between being fired and laid off

      Not really. Historically, "fired" meant you permanently lost your job, while "laid off" means you were furloughed but would be called back when more work was available. Today, "fired" is generally used to mean "terminated for cause", while "laid off" is generally used to mean terminated as part of a head count reduction or, in C-speak, "right-sizing". But mostly the two terms are used interchangeably. People use "fired" when they are being blunt, and "laid off" when they prefer a more euphemistic phrase.

    8. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Funny

      keep in mind that these ex-employees could be printing firearms...

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    9. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

      It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.

    10. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

      Escorting people out is just STUPID. It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees. If your employer does it you should find another job because management is a bunch of inhuman scum.

    11. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already made it clear than they don't care about their employees, and that they're incompetent managers, by laying 20% of them off. The escorting out isn't all that significant at that point.

    12. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.

      I'm sorry, I find that justification a load of bollocks. No company should treat its employees in this pathetic a manner.
      If an employee wants to pick up a box cutter and slash people, they can do that at any time during their employment. What happens when employees get a bad review? Or an employee has any other kind of disagreement or conflict at work.

      You either treat your employees as adults or you don't. A company's behavior towards its employees is a reflection on the company and especially its leadership. There are also many other companies that handle layoffs with respect and dignity and maturity. In many cases, the HR departments actually help the about to be laid off employees look for work, help them with referrals, or at least give them a few months' salary.

        Simply put, the new CEO is one of the worst examples of a leader that I can think of. In an ideal world, other employees would also vote with their feet and quit.

    13. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on, if you don't already have copies of the companies "confidential information" and/or "incriminating information/emails" then you don't deserve a job.

      I make sure anything that crosses my desk that is incriminating or embarrassing to the company gets copied to a thumb drive and a copy gets sent to my personal e-mail for later.

      They come in handy when negotiating the severance package.

    14. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by rockmuelle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As others have pointed out already in this thread: in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.

      I'm sure there are other legal differences, but as an employee, this is the important one.

      If you are planning on leaving a job under good terms, it's always worth scheduling it around a layoff. You can tell your boss (discretely) and see if you can be laid off instead. The win for your boss is that two employees won't be lost (you plus the person who'd be laid off). The win for you is that you get severance and can collect unemployment.

    15. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

      It is. There are fewer people in parking lot and fewer improvised weapons available. It also does not give time for the frustration to build while in the office and explode which could end badly. Someone screaming and yelling in a parking lot is much less of a danger than doing the same thing and attacking people in the office.

      It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees

      The opposite is actually closer to the truth. It is about protecting the remaining workers from the laid off workers. No one can predict what someone will do during a traumatic experience like being laid off.

    16. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between being fired and laid off (just ask your local unemployment office).

      AFAIK, the unemployment office treats fired and laid off the same way. What they might treat differently is a voluntary resignation. The resignation would have to be truly voluntary, i.e., you were not forced to resign in some way, otherwise it would be the same as being fired.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    17. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?

      Assuming they're going to do it, yes. In a parking lot it is easier for people to run away, and it won't cost the company millions of dollars and put everyone else's job or life at risk.

      It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees.

      The company has a responsibility to the remaining employees, too. Once the disgruntled employee is off the premises the company can do nothing to stop his rampage, but while he is on-site they can -- which is to have security escort him off-site.

      Since it is hard to tell who is going to be disgruntled enough to do something like that, and the result of getting it wrong for one who is is very serious, it's better to err on the side of caution.

      If your employer does it you should find another job...

      You're free to make your employment decisions based on whatever criteria you choose. The 80% of employees stuck in a building with one or more potential knife-wielding nuts shouldn't have to suffer from your freedom.

    18. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      It all depends on how you define fired. If fired is used to indicate termination with cause, such as you were showed up drunk, fighting in the workplace, looking at porn, habitual late/no show, something with significant misconduct... then unemployment probably will be denied.

      If you're terminated for no fault of your own, you likely can still collect unemployment. "No fault of your own" can still include things that were directly associated with you, such as low job performance, inability to perform the job, "just not working out", etc. It requires a deliberate misconduct that could have been prevented and is beyond an isolated accident or minor incident.

      A little more detail...and things can change if you're under contract, a part of a union, or specifics in local labor laws.

    19. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That smells too much of the zero-tolerance, total-fear climate that typifies the USA these days.

      If you have enough unstable employees that you need to be that worried, you were doing something major wrong long before "firing" time.

      In any event, laid-off people aren't known for running amok in the parking lots. They come back later, heavily-armed and lay waste to the remaining employees (and customers).

    20. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ask your local employment office anything. They are a bunch of liars. They will try to intimidate you and even file paperwork that you were fired for cause, even if the company does not. They are counting on you not to know unemployment insurance is a paid for benefit contract that must be paid. Tell the minority minimum wage cocksuckers to suck your dick. Never talk to government employees about your affairs. That is what lawyers are for.
      Just make sure you file the afternoon you get laid off. They will try to blow that off on you to. The government has very little time to follow the law. File your paperwork, and then talk to a judge, it's that easy.
      oh, and don't work for assholes and you won't have these problems.

    21. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by kencurry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was modding but your post needs commenting on:

      There are two sides here. The "laid off" worker is still a human being, and it may be that he will have a better career and life ahead than those left behind. To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.

      So, what I am saying is that karma is a bitch, to treat those you are letting go badly will come back on those who perpetrate it.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    22. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's suggested the new CEO has something to do with it. Perhaps he's doing a house-cleaning of folks who should have been fired for unrelated reasons long ago.

    23. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep in mind that these ex-employees could be printing firearms...

      What difference would that make.

    24. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep in mind that these ex-employees could be printing firearms...

      Not on a Makerbot... they'd have to use someone else's 3D printer that actually works!

    25. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      To be treated with total lack of dignity at such a moment leaves an indelible impression; I know because it happened to me once.

      How security treats you is a different issue than having them there to prevent trouble. This may sound like a 'zero-tolerance' afraid of your shadow approach, but since we already have a term for such reactions ("going postal") I think the precedent for trouble clearly exists and appropriate caution is justified. (We didn't have security at the place I worked, the task fell to a coworker, so it's happened to me, too.)

      Once you can understand that, then thinking that the use of security is because they don't trust you specifically can be dealt with. You don't think that someone who locks the doors on their house is scared you are going to come rob them, do you?

      It isn't about you. It's about the people who still work there who the company has some responsibility to protect.

      I think there is a defining question here: were one of your fellow workers fired and the company allowed them to wander around the building, and they "went postal" and killed a couple of your friends, would you join in the lawsuit against your employer for failing to provide adequate workplace security? Would you think "Bob had a right to be in the building and the company isn't responsible in any way for allowing his rampage to happen", or would it be "they should have escorted him out"? If the people who Bob killed couldn't determine Bob was a danger (and stay away from him after he got fired), why do you expect an HR manager who doesn't know him very well to be better at guessing right?

    26. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Last+Warrior · · Score: 1

      Laid off workers sometimes get a severance package.

      I've know people who opted for a severance package rather than staying with a company.
      Id rather get some extra money on my way out the door than nothing at all.
      I'd have to call bullshit on that.

    27. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      True - though most states usually sort that out at the unemployment office as either being fired "for cause", or just being fired. The latter means you can collect a check, while (in most states) the former means that you cannot.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    28. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know they were doing something major wrong long before "firing" time because they are cutting 20% of staff. That's not something that a company that's doing the right thing does.

      Also, the quantity of unstable employees for this to be a problem is 1.

    29. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy. You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job. That's like finding urine on the floor in a bathroom and accusing the entire office of doing it.

      It's wrong on every facet. But it does help people get used to the police state! Anyone that would support a policy like this is a jack booted thug loving bootlicker.

    30. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all your attempts to justify it, the simple fact is the vast majority of these incidents of violence occur after the employee has been fired for a few days and comes back armed and with the intent to kill. There has never to my knowledge been an employee that shot and killed people at their work without first going home to retrieve the weapon.

      By treating a dismissed employee as a "security threat" you are only debasing them and encouraging them to take the very action you are trying to prevent. It's this wrong headed view of things that is what is destroying major American companies. As I said this attitude is evidence of significant and far reaching problems with management in the company and any sane individual should move to new employment if they can. Because the stupid MBA's running the companies don't understand this the only way to help them understand it to vote with your feet. Eventually the best talent will congregate elsewhere and the stupid management will be the ones without jobs.

    31. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1, Informative

      Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

      Depends on location. In the US, it's extremely common, potentially due to their more violent nature and the second amendment.

      In a lot other countries, layoffs can take different schemes - they may provide notice of layoff - as in you're going to get a severance and all that, but it's a 2-week notice, and no, they're not going to buy you out, you're going to work those two weeks. Seems incredible, but a lot of companies do it because they want an orderly transition, and they do trust their employees enough to not be burning bridges. Some even go out of their way to help them find a new job (instead of just giving them the number of the employment agency) - and that includes counseling services. Heck, even benefits often continue for a few months after the layoffs (health insurance).

      I don't know what it is about the US - perhaps their proclivity towards violence leads to basically shoving them out the door after the meeting is over - if you need any personal belongings, they'll fetch it for you and pack up the rest of your stuff.

    32. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.

      Assuming no one is a threat is worse policy. In the worst case scenario when security is present an ex-employee feels slighted. In the worst case scenario when security is not present someone dies. If someone does get killed due to inaction by the company then the person is dead and the company is liable.

      You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job.

      No the company are telling people that there exists people who are capable of hurting others and the company does not have the ability to differentiate. The company will do everything to protect remaining employees and protect itself from litigation.

    33. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.

      Assuming you're talking about a member of a flight crew, I'm not sure that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. FEs were layed off because they were no longer required on newer aircraft, not because of an arbitrary mandate.

    34. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      If it were me, having security escort me out would piss me off considerably more than just being laid off. Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.

    35. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes

      I've rarely seen that happen, but they could theoretically give you a severance package. In my experience that happens only if they think you have grounds to sue them, and the severance package includes wording about how you won't do that.

    36. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you work in the US. If you are fired or laid off, you can file for unemployment. The government then decides if you can collect.

      If you quit, you cannot collect unemployment, period. Also, the employer pays into the unemployment fund, not the employee.

    37. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Doesn't a layoff imply that you still have a job to come back to when business improves? As another poster mentioned, the question is not firing, but whether it was for "cause" or more to the point, whether it was for misconduct.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      I see, I'm old enough to remember the older version of "layoff" -- in modern times, it just means fired not for reasons of misconduct.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    38. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.

      It might will at least slow them down but not having security will definitely not stop someone. It is all about the company's due diligence. If things get to court the company has to show they did everything to avoid violence. In court, not having security present would be seen as lack of due diligence and the company would be held liable. Blame the issue on our litigious society.

    39. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      Heh... yeah... One job, there were layoffs coming, and I had found employment elsewhere. When I handed my boss my notice, he handed it back and said "I never saw that. You're on the layoff list. You'd rather be laid off."

      I'm in the US. I've been laid off a few times, not counting that one. One was "Here's a box, pack up your stuff and go", but no security escorting me anywhere. One was "You're going to be laid off three months from now, help get your tasks transferred to the people in the group who are staying." (They were getting rid of all Unix mail servers and transferring it all to MS Exchange, and I was the Unix mail guy, so...) The other was a ... really impressive severance package, if I signed the "I promise not to sue for age discrimination" letter. Oh, yeah, sure, no problem... there was an offer from another company, doing pretty much the same thing, in my personal email account before I got home. No guards or anything there, either, just come by the office and get my stuff whenever, I was "officially still employed" there for a couple of weeks, again getting appropriate knowledge transfer done. They did cut off my access to the network.

      It's just business. Handle this stuff professionally, because you are a professional.

    40. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      For want of a hyphen...

    41. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      He didn't ask how smart it is...he asked if it's a common practice, and it is.

    42. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These actions inherently make society even shittier than it already is, fostering distrust and animosity. But I'm guessing you don't understand that, being of the mindset that "as long as we cover our asses at this point in time, who cares what happens down the road."

    43. Re: Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right: if you're employer lays you off and throws you out of the building, you probably ought to go work somewhere else.

    44. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many workplaces, HR flags employees who are likely to leave (discussing it would definitely get you flagged). If it's expected layoffs will take some time, employees who are likely to leave are put at the end of the layoff list (unless, of course, the entire department is leaving, or your performance warrants you being the first to go). The company wants to make you sweat so you'll quit and they can save the severance pay. Also, in some jurisdictions, when a company lays off enough employees, they have to pay extra severance. Employees leaving of their own accord do not count towards that count, thus providing double incentive to encourage employees to quit.

      In other words, take the advice to talk to your boss only if you're certain you have a very honest workplace.

    45. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame it on people with attitudes like yours. You don't give a shit about people, it's all about dotting i's and crossing t's, making sure you are in the clear as far as some bureaucratic paperwork is concerned. Your attitude is the reason this litigious society exists and wasn't put down like the rabid dog it is decades ago.

      Start standing up for what's Right, not for what's written in a law book or considered status-quo.

    46. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was extremely sick one day at work and could barely function and afraid to walk out of my office or away from the garbage can. I called the local IT manager and HR to ask for help, the HR manager called me a cab, packed my jacket and backpack, gave me some garbage bags with paper towels in them, and escorted me outside to wait for the cab. I saw a few co workers on my way out and they passed me without saying a word or turned around and went the other way, I saw people outside coming back from lunch. That is the same thing they do when you are fired or laid off. HR escorts you outside to a cab. I had 15 text messages in the next few minutes from people asking why I was let go. Comical.

    47. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 0

      No, you're an idiot. Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time. If you think that it's better to be on the safe side when laying them off, then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    48. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just waving his dick around. Everyone knew it was coming. There's been a steady outflow of staff since previous CEO Lawton was let go.

    49. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company has to be pretty screwed-up to be laying off 20%, too. Either that 20% was useless and there was a huge failure in management, or the new CEO is trying to pump up his bonus/stock options at the expense of the company (or both!).

    50. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laid off workers can pick up up to 1600/month in unemployment for a couple of months or so. Not that 1600/month will pay for even a 1 bedroom apartment, but still.

      Fired workers do not get anything.

    51. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The CEO being new doesn't narrow things down much in this case.

      Maybe the new CEO is getting rid of the bottom performing 20%.
      Maybe the new CEO is reducing headcount by 20%.

      Either case is common for new management, but both cases are handled very VERY differently from all sorts of legal perspectives.

    52. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by lgw · · Score: 1

      in the US, if you're laid off you can collect the unemployment insurance you've already paid for. If you're fired or leave voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment insurance.

      Can you point to a single state's laws that use that terminology? I've never heard of one. It's all about "fired for cause" vs "fired without cause". You may prefer the terms "fired" vs "laid off", but that's a newish meaning for "laid off".

      What really matters to me is "do you get a respectable severance package?" You don't necessarily get one even if you're 'laid off", as some companies are really broke, and some are complete assholes.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    53. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      No need to be a dickparade.

    54. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time.

      True but being laid off is an exceptionally stressful time which increases the chance of violence. There are many reported instances of people going off during or soon after being let go. It is much more frequent than a during normal work. To compensate for the increased danger there is increased security.

      then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.

      No, at regular times you have security at their regular posts ready to respond to incidents.

      You still refuse to see the liability angle. A company is going to do everything possible to avoid paying out millions of dollars for not following a simple procedure. It is not about making the ex-employee feel bad it is about reducing liability.

    55. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant dick-parade.

    56. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

      It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.

      Have you seen my red swingline stapler?

      --
      ~X~
    57. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they are using a unit they got from work, I don't think there is much need to worry. However, if said employee had purchased a formlabs or printrbot unit.........

    58. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.

      Not everyone. Just the ones who lost their job.

      And their morale doesn't matter a whole lot to the company, anyway, since they're no longer employed there.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    59. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Management in a tech company can't identify the "bottom 20 percent", because every engineer does different work. And besides, they don't want to piss off their key employees. So what it amounts to is identifying a 20 percent who they think they can afford to lose.

    60. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Management in a tech company can't identify the "bottom 20 percent", because every engineer does different work.

      Isn't that, like, exactly how Microsoft used to run things? There was always a "bottom performing" person or persons, and it didn't matter if the worst was better than the industry average, they weren't good enough and got penalized for it.

    61. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ironic thing is, when a company treats its employees like this, the remaining employees will copy confidential information beforehand to use when they are inevitably treated the same way.

      It seems that MBA's have a complete lack of understanding of human relations. I guess that happens when you get trained to treat everyone like an excel sheet cell.

    62. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are right on. For those who don't know, Stratasys bought out a bunch of other companies recently including the one I work for. Since the new year, they've been rebranding and merging about 9 different companies into one. They also own Makerbot and Thingiverse.

    63. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Is it really common practice now to have laid off workers escorted out by security?

      It's common practice to get invited in to chat with your boss, and to return to your desk to find that your id and password have been inactivated and you have like half an hour to clean out your desk before you are escorted to your car by security. there are some crazy folks out there.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    64. Re:Lets use correct terminology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to say you are wrong, not all companies see this as a necessity. Extremely large ones included, I've worked for Electronic Arts for over 7 years and I've survived a great many waves of layoff. They have NEVER, EVER had security present or had person escorted off, that's when they did layoff for ranging from 40 to 200.

      On the other hand, since they weren't total assholes people always got extremely generous packages so no one was going to go crazy and jeopardize their golden parachute. When my number finally came up, I very nearly got half a year of salary in severance plus various bonuses for helping shutdown the place over the next weeks. It wasn't fun but it was very human and fair.

  5. Bots are taking our jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But perpetual leisure is our future!

  6. So, where's the future now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You brainless cheerleading gullible fools?

  7. they were pretty scummy. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They patented things that other people in the community designed and claimed them as their own. Makerbot may have been one of the first, but they ended up as scumbags.

    Now there are a ton of other companies out there doing it better, Good luck to the new CEO, he's captain of a sinking ship.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:they were pretty scummy. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They also closed-sourced all the things they had open-sourced. I got one JUST before they did that and I've been not-so-happy with it ever since.

      They betrayed "makers", open source, and their customers. They deserve a worse fate.

    2. Re:they were pretty scummy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I was furious about these upperclass douchebags when they first started out claiming any and all work they could get their hands on as their own. They even had the nerve to play the struggling startup card when their garage was better equipped than the hackerspaces that created the tech they copied and called their own.

      It would be a fine day to see karma make an appearance, but not at the expense of their employees just going in to work for an honest paycheck.

  8. Peak 3d printer by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like we've hit peak 3d printer, at least as far as the near-term is concerned.

    I'm wondering if this will be analagous to the daisy-wheel printer. For certain applications it's the best choice, but those are very few and far between, and are entirely based on fixed fonts and software made to do a standard set of rows and columns with fixed-width characters. They work great for printing multi-part forms and for where one wants text that's more readable than dot-matrix, but that's about it.

    These first generation consumer-grade 3d printers are like that, but worse, because there's not much in the way of a business market compared to those paper printers. They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Peak 3d printer by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Looks like we've hit peak 3d printer

      If we hit peak 3d printer articles then that'd be a good result.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Peak 3d printer by Nexzus · · Score: 1

      We (the IT department of a regional government org) just got one, a Makerbot, incidentally. It was pretty pricy, about $8,000.

      It's currently printing a model of the Willis Tower.

      *facepalm*

      --
      Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
    3. Re:Peak 3d printer by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      I knew we were at the peak when I saw a 3d printer for sale at Home Depot. Oooh - I can make a crescent wrench out of plastic. How ... useful?

    4. Re:Peak 3d printer by Wing_Zero · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one am happy to have a physical location to bring a defective device back and get a replacement that day.

    5. Re:Peak 3d printer by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2

      You can then print nuts and bolts to use with that printed crescent wrench.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    6. Re:Peak 3d printer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more like an Atari that failed even before the home/smb PC became really big.

        3d printing is a general term for all sorts of printing. A daisy-wheel printer was just a particular type of printer. It's like saying that the entire printing industry failed because the dot-matrix printer makers went out of business.

      3d printing is still just too expensive, and some manufacturers aren't worth the extra price and go out of business. It's like those expensive NeXT computers that might have been better computers than those of the competitors, but where just way too expensive to be a success. The same job could be done a lot cheaper.

    7. Re:Peak 3d printer by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That way you can play the exciting and suspense-filled game of "what's going to break first while I tighten all of this down... the nut, the bolt, or the wrench?"

      Or maybe you buy the $5 forged steel wrench, the 25 cent steel bolt, the 10 cent nut, and just 3d-print a fake penis.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Peak 3d printer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're very helpful for prototyping conceptual hardware, particularly when your headquarters is nowhere near your manufacturing facility or design shop

    9. Re:Peak 3d printer by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      They were bought by businesses that specifically needed rapid prototyping, or they were bought by hobbyists that got into it as the latest craze. There's only so much of either, so once that small market is saturated there's less need for companies supplying whole printers.

      I'll disagree. They are getting to the point that they are moving from fast prototyping to small batch manufacturing. I'll probably never buy one, but I find myself using one more and more as I realize that when I want one of something for myself, I can have it made fairly easily. Another friend has a business out of designing jewelry and having it 3D printed out of sinistered metals. The tools and skills needed to create the needed designs to use them will probably prevent household adoption anytime soon, but I can see them getting more popular if only as a service.

    10. Re:Peak 3d printer by smaddox · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Peak 3d printer by anagama · · Score: 1

      I keep going back and forth on whether to buy one, but I'm tending toward "no" -- a makerspace opened up near me and they have half a dozen different 3d printers but it usually seems that at most, two are ever working at the same time. Despite that, I recently needed an object printed, paid $50 for the membership fee for a month, then spent 13 hours babysitting a print. On the first try, it jumped 2mm on the X axis about 15 minutes into the print. Stopped, restarted, and after spending all day watching it, it jumped 2mm on X axis again with about 30 minutes left on 12 hour print job. Then I had to pay $15 for my scrap plastic.

      I was pretty non-plussed, so I tried one of the online printers -- the type which use the very expensive powdered plastic machines -- my piece cost $65 which is pretty pricey, but they came out exactly like I expected. About 20 of those prints would buy a printer, and it is hard to resist that logic, except when I think back to spending an entire freakin day to get garbage and the fact that most of the printers at the makerspace are usually offline because a needed part is on order.

      I'm not really sure what my ultimate decision will be, but the promise of consumer 3d printing seems to be more than it delivers at present.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:Peak 3d printer by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      3D printers are not too expensive. You can buy a 3D printer for $300. How much cheaper does it have to be? No, price isn't the problem- they're too cheaply made. Why does it take some much arcane knowledge to get quality 3D prints? Is it because 3D printing is difficult, or is it because 3D printers suck? Every company in the business is trying to make them cheaper, as if THAT is what holds consumers back from buying printers. They keep taking things out and making them cheaper and cheaper and the result is that it takes a lot of tweaking to get a good print.

      Why is autotramming such a hot topic among 3D printer hobbyists? Because they're getting tired of having to adjust the machine every time they start a print. Why is autotramming necessary? Because the printers are built like crap using stupid mechanical designs that cantilever all the axes and the print bed and/or they make the frames out of laser cut plywood or similar cheesy stuff. Adding an inductive sensor is cheaper than building the printer so that it doesn't require adjustments all the time.

      Why do some designs use two motors to drive screws that lift the X axis? Because a second motor is cheaper than adding a belt, pulleys, and bearings that will ensure that the X axis will stay in alignment. The result is that people have to realign the X axis because it is easily knocked out of alignment.

      How often is the cheapest solution to any problem the best solution? Consumers don't need printers to be cheaper. They need them to work. A lot of people pay $1500 for a machine to wash their clothes. If they'll pay that much for a stupid, uninteresting appliance, what would they pay for something as awesome as a 3D printer, if they could buy one that works?

    13. Re:Peak 3d printer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this considered first generation? There was a 3D printer at my workplace back in he mid 90's. I first heard about them in the late 80's (laser polymer), almost 30 yeas ago.

  9. this pisses me off about modern business by crgrace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Employees are apparently being led out of the company's Brooklyn office by security today.

    This has always rubbed me the wrong way. These people worked hard for the company and then they get thrown away like garbage, or worse potential threats. Why can't we treat people with respect and understanding. It is a serious personal trauma to get laid off... I always thought the way security escorts you from the building was kind of a "kick-em-while-they're-down" dick move.

    I got laid off from a company during the financial crisis (10% of my company was laid off). I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day. Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff (our logins were already disabled). I guess they thought they would catch whatever it was the killed us.

    1. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Christ, there goes one of those lepers..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think they probably wanted to give you some privacy.

    3. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.

      Put yourself on management's shoes. If security was not around and a laid off employee did go ballistic the company would be liable for any injuries. The court case would come down to the company failing to protect their employees from attack.

      It is not about you. It is about some other person who is less stable and you just get treated the same. You get treated the same because managers are not psychologists. Even psychologists can not predict what a person will do during a traumatic experience like getting laid off.

      I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day.

      That is caused by a resource issue. The first part was to get it over with as quickly as possible. It also gives you time to absorb the implications. The second part was to ensure that security personnel were available to escort you to and from your desk in case you do go balistic.

      Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff

      That is probably "survivor's remorse". They don't want to see you because they don't want to think about why you got laid off instead of them.

    4. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Least You Got To clean out your Desk.
      They Mailed me Most of my stuff.

    5. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were doing pretty well until you exposed your insane racism. Time to cut the ethernet cable until you grow out of the derp.

    6. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they forgot to mail you your knowledge of English capitalization.

    7. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by LazLong · · Score: 1

      The policy of escorting employees off the property is SOP nowadays due to HR's fear of vindictive ex-employees causing havoc/damage to the company. Sure it is somewhat humiliating, especially if you've been employed for a long time and put alot of yourself into the organization. However, I understand the reasoning. And while I haven't had this happen to me exactly, I have had my admin privileges revoked when I was laid off. Sure it pissed me off at the time, especially as I'd been there for a long time and people should have known better than fear my retaliation. But, had I been vindictive, I could have caused a great deal of damage and idled a large number of people given a couple of minutes continued admin access to the systems, so I understand the reasoning and the necessity.

    8. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It is not about you.

      We need a car analogy. I know ... I lock my car doors every time I park. It's not about you. It's about the criminal who would walk off with some of my stuff that I have in the back seat if I didn't. And "The Club" on the steering wheel? Also not about you.

      Unless you're a crook. Then it is about you, just like having security escort you out is about you if you tend to go postal on your coworkers.

    9. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by nblender · · Score: 2

      It's fairly common for the company to let you grab your coat and lunch and accompany you while you walk out of the building. It's an awkward situation all around... At the place I'm currently working, they make appointments for you to return to clean out your desk during the evening hours, when nobody else is around.

    10. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by spiritplumber · · Score: 0

      I was supposed to be escorted out by security one time at a best buy (I won a bet against the store manager and he was trying to slip on it). I refused the escort. When they told me that it wasn't an option, I fireman-carried both the manager and the security guy outside and explained that if you can't take it don't dish it out. Americans are weird sometimes!

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    11. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Do you think any company can reliably predict how someone will react to being laid off?

    12. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Americans are weird sometimes!

      So let me get this straight. You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass. Then you picked up two employees and carried them out of the store. That would be assault and battery since you actually touched someone. I think you are the one that is weird.

    13. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a stupid and dickish thing to say. Other possibilities is that he just didn't get on with his boss, so his boss picked him as one of the ones to go, or maybe all the employees in his department are good and they just had to pick someone to go. Those two alternatives were just off the top of my head.

    14. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      If you're firing a single individual, that might work. When you're letting go of 20% of your workforce, or around 100 people, you probably are not doing it all at once. Making them do the employment walk of shame could be very demoralizing throughout the day for a very large layoff, not to mention tipping off the next guy to get called down to HR to go postal on his way down.

    15. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Rastl · · Score: 1

      When I was let go the HR person walked with me back to my desk; watched me shut down my computer (no doubt my accesses were already gone but I never checked); watched me pack up my personal stuff; and walked me to the door.

      Was it pleasant? Of course not. But she was doing her job and I wasn't going to get upset about that. Had they made me come back to get my personal possessions I would have been much less than pleased and probably sent them an invoice for my time since I was doing work required by the company when I was no longer an employee.

      Employers have to err on the side of caution. They have to protect their assets be they intellectual or physical. People who have been fired/laid off/let go can be upset and act in irrational ways. Better to be safe than sorry.

    16. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      "But she was doing her job and I wasn't going to get upset about that."

      If we cant blame those that personally execute the policy, who can we blame? She did it, its hers to own. Companies cant do this stuff if the employees refuse to comply with shit orders like this.

      --
      Good-bye
    18. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Knee+Patch · · Score: 2

      I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.

    19. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any other country in the world, no cop would arrest you, no lawyer would take the case, and no judge would find you guilty.

    20. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When I see a Club on a steering wheel, i feel sorry for the owner. When i see security escort employees out like this, i feel sorry for the employer. They have lost their humanity.

      That you think someone who has tried to make his car a bit less likely to be stolen has "lost his humanity" is ridiculous. I would feel a lot sorrier for the people who weren't protected against a disgruntled ex-employee because the employer wanted to be "humane" to the killer instead of the people he employes.

      Get over it. Security is there to keep anything from happening, not because they expect you specifically to go ballistic and start a rampage. They're there to meet a legal responsibility of due care that the employer has towards his employees.

    21. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the project shkle was involved was finished or interrupted.

    22. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      When I see a Club on a steering wheel, it's always some old PoS car that's at best one step up from a junker. And in those cases where I've seen the owner, they're the same.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    23. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.

      Picking someone up in a fireman-carry and carrying them outside the building is what the law would consider assault and battery. It's much more than "touching" them.

    24. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's weird that you think that "touching someone" is assault and battery.

      Must be American. Not sure where they got the "You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass." from either... GGP said he refused the escort, not that he refused to leave.

    25. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The reason I mentioned "touching" is that threatening is "assault" and actually coming into contact is "battery".

    26. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.

      Great, then lets see pictures of CEOs and other senior executives being escorted out of buildings.

    27. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by spiritplumber · · Score: 0
      Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor.

      This is a universal law that every child understands.

      Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight, we could fight away from expensive/fragile things, I was if anything, too forgiving.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    28. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      So what happens if you beat someone up using, as a blunt instrument, a series of power cells that share a casing?

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    29. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor.
      This is a universal law that every child understands.

      How does being given an escort imply laying on hands? Are you allowed to fight a police officer putting you in handcuffs while arresting you? I believe that is called resisting arrest and illegal.

      Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight,...

      All I see is them wanting you off their private property as is their right under the law. You have no right to be there and therefore were trespassing the instant they told you to leave.

      I was if anything, too forgiving.

      You really don't understand the law do you?

    30. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Yes the English language is strange sometimes.

    31. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.

      Ballistic is an OK word, but in *general* a lot of the worry is about going ballistic on company property and causing a terrible scene of crying at their desk.

      A distraught server admin doing a rm -rf /, or even a secretary junking her reports or something can cause a looooot of hassle. Things get way messier when someone goes back to the group of cubicles and says they've been laid off and is crying and everyone is comforting them... and then the next comes in.

    32. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Knee+Patch · · Score: 1

      This thread is stale now, but I wanted to let you know that after I posted I went and looked up the legal definition of assault and battery. I now understand the context of your post and no longer think you are weird.

    33. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    34. Re:this pisses me off about modern business by Rastl · · Score: 1

      She was following company policy. I don't think her job is worth getting worked up over basic security on employee termination. If it were my company I would want that same kind of thing.

      How can I blame her for doing her job? The blame (if there is blame) falls on the management for creating those policies. She has no input on those policies so I should personally blame her for them?

      You sound more like the kind of person who yells at their server when a restaurant won't do some special thing that you want. Or at the store clerk who won't take back a return outside of their policy. The front line people aren't the ones to take your abuse.

  10. Hope they don't have trouble finding new jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope they don't have any trouble finding other work, From the sound of people being lead out of the office by security it sounds like this was a show up for work "surprise" you've been laid off sorta day and that has to seriously suck :(

    The same can't be said for my feelings towards Makerbot, I can't say I've ever really cared for them.

  11. First on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the bubble begin to burst....!

  12. I was about to buy several makebot printers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not now. This company is going to fail hard with their drop in morale and the increased quality of competitors. No way am i going to buy from a company that looks like it's tanking.

  13. Fucking bots by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    They took yer jobs!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. It's ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MakerBot can print new employees for pennies on the dollar.

  15. NOT fired! Laid off. by LazLong · · Score: 1

    OK, it's a pet peeve, but I hate it when people use "fired" for people let go through no fault of their own. One gets "fired" for fucking up, one is "laid off" due to someone else fucking up.

    1. Re:NOT fired! Laid off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in so-called "right to work" states, you can be fired for no reason. So assuming someone actually was fired for no reason, it would logically follow they were fired through no fault of their own. Plus, let's face it, being laid off and fired are essentially synonymous these days. How often does a company offer first dibs on any open headcounts to "laid off" employees these days? Pretty much never. If the company has an open position, 99.999999999% of the time they'll hire someone new instead of someone they laid off.

      Another employment law fun fact: you can still get unemployment if you quit your job. The rule for determining whether you're eligible for unemployment is whether you lost the job through no fault of your own. So if you were ordered to do something illegal or were targeted for harassment and the company refused to act, for example, you could quit and still collect unemployment.

  16. Maybe if their sales guys would follow up... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I called Makerbot to get an education price quote on a printer & materials to compare with other 3D printer manufacturers. I had to call back 4 times before the guy actually sent me a quote, and all I wanted was a printer & 10 spools of filament. He was supposed to send me some sample prints as well, and never did. Needless to say, Makerbot lost any consideration for what is going to be our first of several purchases.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Maybe if their sales guys would follow up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our school just got a printer from a company called Polar 3D... they say they designed it specifically for schools to use. It's very different from all the other printers in that it has a round build plate that moves under the extruder. It's also very small but can make bigger parts than our old Makerbot and only cost us $600.

    2. Re:Maybe if their sales guys would follow up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's a standard business practice in Brooklyn, but my impression when dealing with their sales department was not good. First they wouldn't process an order until I'd sent them a photocopy of some form of identification and both sides of the credit/debit card I was using to purchase (I redacted everything on the ID except the name/address, as well as the security code of the CC [which was a burner I used once then canceled after the charge cleared]). Amazingly my order went through anyway, but then I had to remind them to send the rest of the order 5 weeks later (items that were "on backorder", but showed up the day after I'd pinged on them).

      Felt shady and had to remind them to do their job.

    3. Re:Maybe if their sales guys would follow up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a miserable douchebag.

  17. Their machines are WAY too expensive by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    Companies like XYZprinting are eating Makerbot's lunch with machines that have just as good resolution, but cost a quarter of what Makerbot charges. You can no longer afford to charge premium, exorbitant prices for consumer-grade 3D printers.

    1. Re:Their machines are WAY too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I really can't recall a time when there wasn't a comparable yet cheaper 3D printer available and still all you heard was Makerbot this and Makerbot that. The only real thing they seemed to have down from my perspective was branding/advertitisng.

    2. Re:Their machines are WAY too expensive by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

      In a few years, maybe they will follow the 2D printer business model: Sell the printer for $100, but the filament for the price of gold per gram.

  18. now to hire 50-100 H1-b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now to hire 50-100 H1-b to replace them.

  19. Even Crassus was nice enough... by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

    To decimate his soldiers to discipline them, meaning eliminating 10% of them; rather than get rid of 20% of them!

  20. I knew it would come to this by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "You've been replaced by your own robots"

  21. Print the Legend (Documentary) by nazrhyn · · Score: 2

    While unrelated to this actual event, the documentary Print the Legend focuses on several companies, MakerBot included, beginning near their inceptions and through their growing pains. It is an interesting commentary on 3D printing, business and the legal hullaballoo surrounding the 3D printing of gun parts. It's available on Netflix.

    By the end of the documentary, the direction MakerBot was headed seemed somewhat unhealthy; the remaining founder, Bre Pettis, had made several 180s at that point.

  22. New CEOs always do layoffs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's how they "make their mark".

    Doesn't matter if it's a good idea, the markets react positively to it, because everyone only thinks of this quarter, and maybe the next.

    I hear China is putting 3D printers in all schools and universities nationwide.

    Maybe if they picked up some Mandarin they might find a job?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:New CEOs always do layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. This guy is Israeli and has a massive chip on his shoulder. No matter what, by cutting labor costs the next quarter will already look better. There are already orders on the books and now there's no cost to offsel them.

  23. Sometimes loopholes can ease the pain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine got fired from his job when the new owner decide to bring his cronies in. It was supposed to be a secret thing but he got advance notice by a someone else.

    Before leaving he shredded all the documents he had created in his spare time documenting his work , and formatted and reinstalled NT on his workstation.
    Why? Something in his contract about leaving the equipment and desk as he had found them...in 1999.

    Thank you and goodnight.

  24. makerbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let me let you all in on a secret. I have seen what Makerbot has been doing. It is not right. I saw this coming a long time ago. You people who are trying to justify what has happened to the 100 employees that were all let go at once. I mean there were group meetings when this happened. You guys should know that you are defending a company that is knowingly selling a product that they know does not work. The developer informed them that it wasn't ready and they insisted on pushing the product out. Results are over 1000 returns only to be repaired and sent back out still in the same quality. Makerbot laid off their top workers. People who busted their asses in sickness and in health day in and day out. Yes some deserved the ax but many did not and they were the ones who refused to kiss management's ass who I must say could not nor had the knowledge of building the products. Sometime the ones that did messed up and blamed it on the subordinates. This was an unfair move because they weren't patient enough to perfect the products that were being sold to customers.

    Yours truly

    Fuck Slaverbot.

  25. For all of you folks in civilized countries... by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    The gun nutz will tell you our society will be more "civil and polite" when everyone is walking around with a gun. The "walk of shame" that is done in the US when employees are terminated is a direct response to the wide spread and easy availability of easily concealed firearms, and is a perfect example of that "civil and polite" society they predict.

  26. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no idea who MakerBot are. It's bad some people are losing their jobs I guess, but beyond that I couldn't care less.

    1. Re:Who? by cowdung · · Score: 1

      Check out this movie:

      http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie...

      Gives an interesting inside look at Markerbot and its main competition at the time.

  27. Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fraudulent patents that makerbot has filed will eventually end up in the coffer of Stratasys

    http://3dprintingindustry.com/...

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ra...

  28. never trust new ceos/ctos by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

    And guys remember, backup copy all IP/source code from companies weekly after a new ceo.

    Setup your desktop in such a way, you can walk out and make it not boot the next day, Change bios settings to something that will fry the cpu/ram, save & power off.

    Add backup admin accounts to all machines you can.
    Change all SSL certificates to expire on 4th July.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  29. sure, but a better model... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Sure they could do the inkjet business model. But why do THAT when they can charge you an arm and a leg for the printer, then chip the fillment and extort you for your first born?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  30. Apparently.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently NO ONE bothers to actually follow the 3D Printer market as a business. Cubify bought up all the small players and is now the 800-lb gorilla with NO REAL COMPETITION worth talking about. That includes Makerbot.

    Now Cubify isn't all that (we have a CubePro and instantly - i.e. within hours of using it - found dozens of bone-headed design features we'd do different and easily could if we wanted to get int that business) but they have revenues and product lines that make money. Makerbot is stuck on the ideology of OSH which while noble, simply doesn't pay the bills and any company that has employees can't afford to live on dreams at the expense of financial realities. Especially not companies that are doing hardware.

  31. How many H1B visas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy to guess. Oh yeah, you know how to count :)

  32. Escorted by security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Europe, the decent (legal) thing to do is give the employee some amount of notice, the same way an employee has to notice the employer. Marching the SS (read that shorthand to mean whichever service you prefer) into the cubicles and "escorting" people out isn't a procedure.

  33. This is how it goes by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Someone makes something great.

    They are first-to-market.

    Big Corp. buys them out, desiring only their IP.

    All of the engineers who actually made the product (& company) valuable are fired.

    Big Corp. squanders that first-to-market advantage to gain short-term profits.

    Customers who've bought prior-generation products versions beg to have important improvements made to the line of tools.

    Big Corp. ignores customer pleas while simply juicing the IP they bought, for every nickel they can get.

    Big Corp. refuses to implement any improvements, new features, etc. because they can't. They fired the innovators and implementers to save on salary costs.

    Yep, they essentially just find a ripe piece of fruit, and then juice it.

    This is what small businesses in the US have been reduced to: fruit trees. Small companies take the risk of being inventive. When something proves to be valuable, it is bought-out, everyone fired, and the market for the product stagnates. I have been on both ends of this stick. I pleaded with a certain company, who sold a $650k tool, to make two minor engineering improvements that would essentially double the market for the device (it would be a tool for two markets, not just the one). These changes would have cost about $500 per tool. The end result? Well, since they had bought-out the small company that originally designed it, fired all the engineers and control-system programmers, the Big Corp. was literally incapable of implementing any improvements (or even bug-fixes) to the system. Recall that they fired all the engineers and programmers, and simply bought the IP and the market the small biz. had cornered.

    To cap off this specific example — Another company that truly does innovate has, well, devised a tool that does "the thing" better, and costs 1/3 of what the Big Corp. is charging. They listened when I detailed to them engineering specs. for what customers needed in a next-gen tool. Well, the Big Corp. is about done juicing their piece of fruit, and this other company will soon take over the market . The Big Corp. made their millions, so they move on. I just hope that this "other company" isn't bought-out.

    The sad result of this cycle is that American innovation in products is stagnated by Big Corps. that choose to simply juice innovative products, rather than actually improve them to grow the market. In the end, the customer & consumer lose. Oh, and the US as a whole.

  34. in California, if you are FIRED "for cause" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you CANNOT get unemployment benefits (they reason that it's equivalent to quitting - if there WAS a diff between "fired for cause" and "quit", and you wanted to quit you'd just perform badly and get fired (which might endanger people and businesses)). This difference between "fired for cause" (NO benefits or unemployment payments) and "layed-off" (unemployment benefits and possible benefits) is why SOME companies have managers who are very good at generating the proper records over an employee's career so that anybody working for the company can be "fired fo cause" whenever management wants it.

    Remember: "unemplyment insurance" is NOT actually insurance (the employee does not make regular payments to an insurance company that invests the money and then pays-out to the relatively few who must file claims). UI is a scheme between employers and state governments that requires the employer to cough-up money every month after laying somebody off for a period of time as long as that person is sill unemployed. EVERY employee "fired for cause" instead of "layed off" saves a company THOUSANDS of dollars. I learned all this the hard way decades ago in California when I was layed-off from my first job (business went down and the company layed everybody off). I got my first unemployment check, but when it was time for the second, the agency refused to issue it saying that my former employer notified them that I had a new job (I did NOT yet and was not in contact with them, so the report they filed was clearly phony). I later found out that my former employer was finished shutting-down his business before the unemployment people finished investigating his false filing of my having a new job, and that this was not a tactic unique to that employer. I've never again been layed-off (which did not feel any better than I imagine being fired would have felt), but over the years dealing with operators of other CA businesses I learned about the "for cause" issue and the managers documenting everything tactic to convert lay-offs into firings (also now used in conjunction with H1-B visa tricks).

    Business in the US has become increasingly optimized over the decades, and companies with cash on the line have found all sorts of ways to save that cash. Given the amount of their own money that is on the line, those businesses will ALWAYS be one step ahead of the government regulators and lawmakers who do NOT have their own money on the line.

  35. Losers are America's lifeblood by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to do stupid human tricks for food, you have to move to a less civilized, more humane country.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  36. Sellouts, traitors to open source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makerbot sold out when they went from open source advocates, to "pay me now", about 2 years ago. No surprise here. Bre and friends pretended to be all open-source supportive, as long as the open-source community gave them talent for free. And then they got greedy, the end.

    It's a short story but it ends quickly, with a predictable result.