Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

Posted by timothy on from the new-ones-being-printed dept.

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."

5 of 177 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.

  3. 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!?
  4. 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.