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."

Comments

In Other News

[MightyMartian]

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!"

Re:In Other News

[Penguinisto]

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

Lets use correct terminology.

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[crgrace]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[JackieBrown]

Yes.

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

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rockmuelle]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[RabidReindeer]

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).

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

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.

this pisses me off about modern business

[crgrace]

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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

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.

I was about to buy several makebot printers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.