Author Topic: Reorganization at ULA  (Read 37637 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #20 on: 08/14/2015 08:58 pm »
The R&D jobs should be safe as they are essential for developing Vulcan. Launch pad, production and head office jobs will be where layoffs are most likely.

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #21 on: 08/14/2015 11:36 pm »
It really is a mix of morale.  People excited about changes, but upset about benefits that have been taken away.  It's not like those benefits are available at Brand X, but they may be available at Brand B or Brand LM.  Trend is definitely towards a younger work force, which some of the more experienced folk understand, and others don't.  There are a LOT of changes that COULD be made (probably even more that SHOULD be made), if only some people would get out of the way.

No doubt we are losing some good people, both at the executive level and below, but there are a few on that list I won't miss.  And there's some obvious nepotism going on (not necessarily those announcements upthread) - so we (I'm hoping I stay) will have to work around a whole new set of people.

Obviously, everything in this post is personal opinion and does not reflect the position of my employer.
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #22 on: 08/15/2015 12:06 am »
It really is a mix of morale.  People excited about changes, but upset about benefits that have been taken away.  It's not like those benefits are available at Brand X, but they may be available at Brand B or Brand LM.  Trend is definitely towards a younger work force, which some of the more experienced folk understand, and others don't.  There are a LOT of changes that COULD be made (probably even more that SHOULD be made), if only some people would get out of the way.

No doubt we are losing some good people, both at the executive level and below, but there are a few on that list I won't miss.  And there's some obvious nepotism going on (not necessarily those announcements upthread) - so we (I'm hoping I stay) will have to work around a whole new set of people.

Obviously, everything in this post is personal opinion and does not reflect the position of my employer.
Bringing in new younger work force is good but not at the expence of loosing some of the older work force with  their experience and work ethics.

Benefits of the existing work force should not go down, very bad for morale and PR. Hiring new people with less benefits at least at first but if the company improves ( profit ) then they should be rewarded. How to keep good workers and attract new people?

My opinion, not what might be going on in the company.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #23 on: 08/15/2015 07:35 pm »
Quote
Benefits of the existing work force should not go down, very bad for morale and PR. Hiring new people with less benefits at least at first but if the company improves ( profit ) then they should be rewarded. How to keep good workers and attract new people?

The playing field suddenly changed and now ULA is competing with a company charging less than half of what ULA is charging for a similar service (F9 @ $100m vs. Atlas V at $200+m) so they are in a real bind. "Benefits should not go down" is a nice thought, but the marketplace is what rules, and ULA is evidently in severe cost-cutting mode.

Offline .gif

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #24 on: 08/15/2015 09:20 pm »
That's interesting, because what I've seen from the employees I interact with has been the exact opposite. Admittedly I'm here in the Denver are and not in Decatur, so I have no idea about how people there are taking it, but most of the ULA employees I know and interact with have been really excited by the changes Tory's trying to make happen. If anything I'd say that their morale is as high as it has ever been.

This may very likely just be due to which groups you and I interact with--I'm mostly interacting with folks in the advanced concepts group (and have some friends in a few other groups like propulsion), and a lot of the moves Tory's making are ones that heavily benefit their specific group. But you're the first data point I've seen that morale was low at ULA.

~Jon
I think morale was high after Tory Bruno first joined the company.  He brought a lot of energy and optimism for the future of ULA.  People were excited and expected positive changes.  One of the changes he implemented was to eliminate the yearly RIFs (aka layoffs), which tended to be on the small side but had been a drain on morale.

However, Tory needed to cut costs to be competitive with SpaceX.  As part of the plan to achieve this goal, he began drastically cutting employee benefits.  People were not happy.  Sick and Personal Time went away and got lumped in with Vacation into what's called "Paid Time Off."  The maximum amount of PTO/Vacation an employee can accrue was significantly reduced as well.  Pensions were frozen for everybody.  Benefit costs were raised significantly, especially health care costs.  Budgets allocated for employee promotions were reduced.  Paid overtime for salaried exempt employees went away entirely, even for those who are mandated to work a certain amount of overtime.  After eliminating pay for mandatory overtime, many employees were put on mandatory overtime.  Some of those employees have been working mandatory OT for over a year and are burning out.

We were essentially told we should be grateful in spite of all the benefit reductions, because ULA is getting more in line with how the rest of industry does things and at least we aren't moving to Alabama (consolidation of facilities in Decatur had been on the table), and we now have more schedule flexibility with the implementation of a two-week pay period.

So, people were not too happy about any of this.  Now add in the fact that instead of doing yearly incremental RIFs, there is going to be one fairly large RIF in the near future.  Level 4 salaried exempt employees (career level, or the equivalent of "Staff" employees at LM) will be hit the hardest.  Currently, Level 4 employees are the most represented salaried level at ULA.  The plan is to have the distribution skewed toward the younger side, i.e., more Levels 1-3 than 4.  What this means is almost half of current L4's will be RIF'd (prior to about mid-2017 or so).  Many L5 employees will be eliminated too, as well as a smaller number of L3 employees.  A week or two ago, an email went out offering Level 4 and above employees the option to volunteer for an October layoff.  Mind you, there is no extra benefit for volunteering for a RIF vs. getting involuntarily RIF'd.

ULA will be losing a significant portion of its knowledge base with the upcoming RIF.  Already many people are leaving for jobs at other companies.  I have not seen such a mass exodus of employees since around 2000 (when people were leaving in droves to work at dot coms).  That should be a significant concern for the future of the company.

Take a look at ULA's glassdoor reviews and you'll see some common gripes:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/United-Launch-Alliance-Reviews-E146300.htm
Of course, this is just a smattering of reviews, but it's worth noting that CEO approval was somewhere in the upper 70's just a couple of months ago.

Offline Gordon C

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • East coast
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #25 on: 08/15/2015 10:04 pm »
All of that change is in response to spacex?  I'm nobody, but it seems to me that it is quite an over-reaction.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #26 on: 08/15/2015 10:30 pm »
All of that change is in response to spacex?  I'm nobody, but it seems to me that it is quite an over-reaction.

ULA just went from being the only game in town to suddenly being over 2x as expensive as the new guy in town. Their whole world is turning upside down and if they don't re-invent themselves they won't be in business much longer. At the very least, drastic downsizing is well in order. So no, it's not an over-reaction, they're suddenly in a fight for survival. The monopoly gravy train ride is over.

Corporate America is littered with business cases where the ground suddenly shifted and companies did not recognize the game had changed and didn't react fast enough or drastically enough. Fortunately ULA leadership quite evidently recognizes the game has changed, based on the elevation of Tory Bruno and given his public comments. ULA won't be roadkill, but they have a big job ahead of them to adapt to the new world.
« Last Edit: 08/15/2015 10:44 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Gordon C

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • East coast
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #27 on: 08/15/2015 10:43 pm »
Falcon has to go through the whole rtf thing.  That and from what I've seen with respect to the proprietary nature of cost, not to mention the utter complexity of these contracts, I'm not convinced there's all that much savings... given the issue of reliability.  If I had been spawned from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, had all that history, delta and atlas, I'm not sure I would be nervous.

That and being among those people, I would probably know more about the competition than it knows about its self.  But like I said I'm nobody.  And I do want to be off thread or in violation of anything else give enough that I'm new.

Still, I've watched ULA since the DIV Heavy demo.  They seem groovy to me and I hope they hold it together.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #28 on: 08/15/2015 11:39 pm »
Falcon has to go through the whole rtf thing.  That and from what I've seen with respect to the proprietary nature of cost, not to mention the utter complexity of these contracts, I'm not convinced there's all that much savings... given the issue of reliability.  If I had been spawned from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, had all that history, delta and atlas, I'm not sure I would be nervous.

That and being among those people, I would probably know more about the competition than it knows about its self.  But like I said I'm nobody.  And I do want to be off thread or in violation of anything else give enough that I'm new.

Still, I've watched ULA since the DIV Heavy demo.  They seem groovy to me and I hope they hold it together.
Welcome! As you're probably aware, there's dozens of threads and thousands of pages wrt ULA and SpaceX. Their past, present and futures. And filled with excellent insight and knowledge from many in the industry.

Overall and staying on topic with the purpose of this thread, the only opinion and judgement that matters is ULA's parents and current leader Tory Bruno. 4 pads down to 2. 2 launcher families reduced and then eliminated  to make way for a new one...Vulcan. Massive infrastructure and workforce realignment.

These are very smart people, they understand the changes that are driving this industry. And are responding in kind. Not out of nervousness perse but out of a very logical and realistic evaluation. Just observe what's happening across the pond.  And that history you speak of is a double edged sword. Experience, absolutely. They'll need to retain a balance of old/new to get this transition done. But legacy infrastructure and workforce not repositioned for dynamic commercial engagement is not an option. The landscape is littered with once dominant companies either extinct or living out their days as a niche player.

And we should all remember, it's not just about price. People are willing to pay a premium for a superior product and/or service. So they don't need to be the cheapest, just competitive. This they can do, this they must do.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #29 on: 08/16/2015 04:36 am »
The challenge facing Bruno seems so easy. All he has to do is continue flying Atlas while maintaining its prior schedule and success record, fly out Delta IV M likewise maintaining schedule and success, continue to fly the rare DIV-H as long as the customer wants it to serve those incredibly valuable payloads, design/develop/manufacture/fly Vulcan's core, and then do the same for ACES. All with an underpaid workforce amid assertions from critics that they are doomed dinosaurs.

How hard can it be?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline rpapo

Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #30 on: 08/16/2015 10:49 am »
...amid assertions from critics that they are doomed dinosaurs.
It reminds me very strongly of the transition that IBM has undergone, steadily, since they lost their virtual monopoly back in the 1970s.  They are still around.  They aren't the dominant force in the computer world they once were, but have survived by concentrating in the upper part of their market... something ULA may wind up doing.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #31 on: 08/16/2015 03:02 pm »
...amid assertions from critics that they are doomed dinosaurs.
It reminds me very strongly of the transition that IBM has undergone, steadily, since they lost their virtual monopoly back in the 1970s.  They are still around.  They aren't the dominant force in the computer world they once were, but have survived by concentrating in the upper part of their market... something ULA may wind up doing.
Actually, they did out-innovate the rest of the industry. They are leaders in microchip manufacturing technology, where the first big company to exit the hardware market, embraced open source and internet technology before anyone else, they even bought a big consulting company.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #32 on: 08/16/2015 06:34 pm »
Actually they sold off the semiconductor business last October. The heart of the XBox 360 and Playstation 3 has been sold.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2015 06:39 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline rpapo

Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #33 on: 08/16/2015 07:22 pm »
Actually, they did out-innovate the rest of the industry. They are leaders in microchip manufacturing technology, where the first big company to exit the hardware market, embraced open source and internet technology before anyone else, they even bought a big consulting company.
But they are only a shadow of what they once were, back when they were virtually a monopoly (1960s), at least in the North American market, and dominated the Western market even more completely.  There was once a time when people said "you'll never get fired for buying IBM."

Essentially, they gave up the lower end of the market entirely, and instead concentrated on the less competitive and higher margin top end of the market.

They still do some incredible things, and are still important.  And I think ULA may wind up following a similar path: extremely high quality for very high prices.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2015 07:25 pm by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #34 on: 08/16/2015 07:28 pm »
They still do some incredible things, and are still important.  And I think ULA may wind up following a similar path: extremely high quality for very high prices.
How do you see that as different from what ULA is doing now?

Offline rpapo

Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #35 on: 08/16/2015 07:29 pm »
They still do some incredible things, and are still important.  And I think ULA may wind up following a similar path: extremely high quality for very high prices.
How do you see that as different from what ULA is doing now?
The difference between being a near-monopoly charging near-monopoly prices, and being a high end vendor charging what the market will bear, losing more of the low and middle range business.  Good profit margin, but lower revenues and lower profits in total.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2015 07:33 pm by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12094
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12155
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #36 on: 08/17/2015 07:15 am »
I think morale was high after Tory Bruno first joined the company.  He brought a lot of energy and optimism for the future of ULA.  People were excited and expected positive changes.  One of the changes he implemented was to eliminate the yearly RIFs (aka layoffs), which tended to be on the small side but had been a drain on morale.

However, Tory needed to cut costs to be competitive with SpaceX.  As part of the plan to achieve this goal, he began drastically cutting employee benefits.  People were not happy.  Sick and Personal Time went away and got lumped in with Vacation into what's called "Paid Time Off."  The maximum amount of PTO/Vacation an employee can accrue was significantly reduced as well.  Pensions were frozen for everybody.  Benefit costs were raised significantly, especially health care costs.  Budgets allocated for employee promotions were reduced.  Paid overtime for salaried exempt employees went away entirely, even for those who are mandated to work a certain amount of overtime.  After eliminating pay for mandatory overtime, many employees were put on mandatory overtime.  Some of those employees have been working mandatory OT for over a year and are burning out.

We were essentially told we should be grateful in spite of all the benefit reductions, because ULA is getting more in line with how the rest of industry does things and at least we aren't moving to Alabama (consolidation of facilities in Decatur had been on the table), and we now have more schedule flexibility with the implementation of a two-week pay period.

So, people were not too happy about any of this.  Now add in the fact that instead of doing yearly incremental RIFs, there is going to be one fairly large RIF in the near future.  Level 4 salaried exempt employees (career level, or the equivalent of "Staff" employees at LM) will be hit the hardest.  Currently, Level 4 employees are the most represented salaried level at ULA.  The plan is to have the distribution skewed toward the younger side, i.e., more Levels 1-3 than 4.  What this means is almost half of current L4's will be RIF'd (prior to about mid-2017 or so).  Many L5 employees will be eliminated too, as well as a smaller number of L3 employees.  A week or two ago, an email went out offering Level 4 and above employees the option to volunteer for an October layoff.  Mind you, there is no extra benefit for volunteering for a RIF vs. getting involuntarily RIF'd.

ULA will be losing a significant portion of its knowledge base with the upcoming RIF.  Already many people are leaving for jobs at other companies.  I have not seen such a mass exodus of employees since around 2000 (when people were leaving in droves to work at dot coms).  That should be a significant concern for the future of the company.

Take a look at ULA's glassdoor reviews and you'll see some common gripes:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/United-Launch-Alliance-Reviews-E146300.htm
Of course, this is just a smattering of reviews, but it's worth noting that CEO approval was somewhere in the upper 70's just a couple of months ago.

Oh boy... how times have changed. Your story sounds like ULA is trying to emulate the SpaceX corporate structure and attitude (young workforce, working-overtime-without-pay being the new 'standard').

Knowing that Jim has been one of the most vocal critics of how SpaceX runs it's business I can only imagine that those new developments within ULA will probably not go down too well with him.

What I fear is that the loss of experience and knowledge-base, by cutting loose the more experienced  folks, could became a potential threat to ULA's unmatched success record.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2015 07:16 am by woods170 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #37 on: 08/17/2015 04:17 pm »
I keep wondering about the what if scenario of FTC not approving the ULA formation in the first place, 10 years ago. There is a good chance that the launch customers, the companies, the workforce involved and the industry in general would be in much better shape and facing less drastic changes - through more gradual transitions sooner.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #38 on: 08/17/2015 04:51 pm »
I keep wondering about the what if scenario of FTC not approving the ULA formation in the first place, 10 years ago. There is a good chance that the launch customers, the companies, the workforce involved and the industry in general would be in much better shape and facing less drastic changes - through more gradual transitions sooner.

I think just the opposite.  Boeing would have sold the Delta program for pennies on the dollar.  LM would have eventually sold the Atlas program form dimes on the dollar.  Who knows who the buyers would have been.  Whoever they were, they would have quickly realized that space launch business is not a money-maker without government subsidies, unless you're willing to accept a failure every now and then.
I personally think it would have been a disaster for the government customers, that's why the government wasn't going to let it happen.  In the end, I think it was the right choice at the time.   Obviously things are different now, so need to adapt and change, which is whats happening.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Reorganization at ULA
« Reply #39 on: 08/17/2015 05:27 pm »
I keep wondering about the what if scenario of FTC not approving the ULA formation in the first place, 10 years ago. There is a good chance that the launch customers, the companies, the workforce involved and the industry in general would be in much better shape and facing less drastic changes - through more gradual transitions sooner.

I think just the opposite.  Boeing would have sold the Delta program for pennies on the dollar.  LM would have eventually sold the Atlas program form dimes on the dollar.  Who knows who the buyers would have been.  Whoever they were, they would have quickly realized that space launch business is not a money-maker without government subsidies, unless you're willing to accept a failure every now and then.
I personally think it would have been a disaster for the government customers, that's why the government wasn't going to let it happen.  In the end, I think it was the right choice at the time.   Obviously things are different now, so need to adapt and change, which is whats happening.

Yes, the government has to maintain a reliable manufacturing base in some industries for national security. Other examples are the Lockheed loan back in 1971 and the Seawolf submarine.

ULA has to reorganize to be competitive. If ULA can't compete in the future, SpaceX will take the lead in government launches and the government might not feel the need to give ULA a bailout if ULA ever needs one.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0