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

Predictable

[DumbSwede]

They obviously they printed replacements

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

[RabidReindeer]

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

Re: In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalist America, job quits you!

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.

[Lead Butthead]

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.

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.

[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.

[Lead Butthead]

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

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.

[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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

[cdrudge]

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.

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.

[kencurry]

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.

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.

[Obfuscant]

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?

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[rahvin112]

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.

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[Mike Van Pelt]

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.

Re:Lets use correct terminology.

[jklovanc]

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.

they were pretty scummy.

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:they were pretty scummy.

[Kagetsuki]

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.

Peak 3d printer

[TWX]

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.

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Hognoxious]

Looks like we've hit peak 3d printer

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

Re:Peak 3d printer

[Lead Butthead]

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

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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[nblender]

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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[spire3661]

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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[spire3661]

"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.

Re:this pisses me off about modern business

[Knee Patch]

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

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.

Fucking bots

[NotDrWho]

They took yer jobs!

Maybe if their sales guys would follow up...

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Their machines are WAY too expensive

[Lucas123]

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.

Print the Legend (Documentary)

[nazrhyn]

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.

Re:Print a 3D job

[ls671]

working on 2D jobs...

never trust new ceos/ctos

[cheekyboy]

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.