Following the longish thread on printers, perhaps some will be interested in the latest news:
"Attempting to improve profitability and further shift toward laser printers, Lexmark disclosed plans on Tuesday to exit its inkjet printer business and slash 1,700 jobs... As part of its effort to exit the inkjet business, Lexmark said it plans to close a manufacturing facility in Cebu, Philippines by the end of 2015.
formatting link
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. As I recall, Lexmark was the first to put the accursed chips on their toner cartridges.
Do you actually think that the 1700 workers who will be laid off are the ones who made the decision to put the chips in the ink cartridges?
If you're "lucky", perhaps the engineer(s) that designed the accursed chip system will get laid off because they are part of the inkjet division, but you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of the
1700 who are about to lose their jobs are just innocent bystanders, trying to earn a living so that they can support their families.
No, but they made their own decision to work for a rascally company.
"Innocent?" The employees made their decision and decisions have consequences. They reaped the rewards of working for Lexmark and when, for whatever reason, Lexmark has to re-trench, these folks got caught. Surely it dawned on at least SOME of the employees that if Lexmark was willing to screw with its customers, what loyalty would the company have toward employees?
As I remember it I was one of the first to buy Lexmark when they first came= out. It broke down about a year later and when I called them they wouldn= =92t help me fix it but insisted that I ship it to Texas. So I did, and all= they did was clean it and ship it back to me. The cost to me was almost th= e price of a new printer at the time. If they had been a little more consum= er friendly and told me WHAT to do to fix it I wouldn=92t have switched to = a different brand.
You have to be kidding. Maybe a dozen of the 1700 fall into the category you describe. The other 1688 work there because there were job openings and they needed a job.
The 1688 made no decisions on chips, many have no idea what the chips do, what the company policy for them is. They go to work, they perform their duties, they get a paycheck. They have no choice in the decision of products to make. Some will be working across the street tomorrow, some will go to flipping burgers, some will do better, some won't find another job for a very long time. They are collateral damage of boardroom decisions.
And it is a business model choice. Lots of people want to think they are getting a deal when they find $39 dollar printers stacked up in a pile at the bigbox store so the manufacturers provide that "experience" . Then somehow you actually need to pay for the printer.
Do you really think that the secretary for the lady in the purchasing department that negotiated the contract for the boxes that the ink cartridges will be shipped in played any role in the decision to use chips in the cartridges? Do you really that the lady in the purchasing department herself played any role in that decision?
I could list so many job functions in the Inkjet department that played no role in the decision, yet will be eliminated when the layoffs occur.
Another way to look at it is that the company attempted to ensure that the inkjet department was profitable by ensuring that only their cartridges were used in their product. You can't sell printers as loss leaders and then not take steps to make the money back on ink. This could be interpreted as showing loyalty to the employees by trying to be a profitable as possible. The fact that it didn't work out doesn't change the fact that they tried.
Besides, even you used the words "SOME of the employees ". Fine, call it "retribution" for those that actually played a part in the decision, but the vast majority of the 1700 workers were simply doing their jobs.
out. It broke down about a year later and when I called them they wouldn?t help me fix it but insisted that I ship it to Texas. So I did, and all they did was clean it and ship it back to me. The cost to me was almost the price of a new printer at the time. If they had been a little more consumer friendly and told me WHAT to do to fix it I wouldn?t have switched to a different brand.
Do you really think that the secretary for the lady in the purchasing department that negotiated the contract for the boxes that the ink cartridges will be shipped in played any role in the decision to use chips in the cartridges? Do you really that the lady in the purchasing department herself played any role in that decision?
I could list so many job functions in the Inkjet department that played no role in the decision, yet will be eliminated when the layoffs occur.
Another way to look at it is that the company attempted to ensure that the inkjet department was profitable by ensuring that only their cartridges were used in their product. You can't sell printers as loss leaders and then not take steps to make the money back on ink. This could be interpreted as showing loyalty to the employees by trying to be a profitable as possible. The fact that it didn't work out doesn't change the fact that they tried.
{{
Based on the business plans/models I've read I expect the end game was exactly as it played out. Too many towns and counties get played by MBAs for what they are worth. End up investing in facilities and accommodations in the hope of long term employment for their citizens with the result that both employees and the citizens are well screwed.
out. It broke down about a year later and when I called them they wouldn?t help me fix it but insisted that I ship it to Texas. So I did, and all they did was clean it and ship it back to me. The cost to me was almost the price of a new printer at the time. If they had been a little more consumer friendly and told me WHAT to do to fix it I wouldn?t have switched to a different brand.
The beginning of the end was before that. IBM wouldn't have sold off the division (a management buyout, actually) if it weren't already a loser.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.