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.
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?
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
All of that change is in response to spacex? I'm nobody, but it seems to me that it is quite an over-reaction.
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.
...amid assertions from critics that they are doomed dinosaurs.
Quote from: sdsds on 08/16/2015 04:36 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: rpapo on 08/16/2015 07:22 pmThey 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?
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.htmOf 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.
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.
Quote from: savuporo on 08/17/2015 04:17 pmI 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.