Author Topic: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs  (Read 89570 times)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #60 on: 04/02/2011 01:40 am »
If you're uncivil, you lose your post. If you respond to an uncivil post, you lose your post.

It's not rocket science.

Right then, no one's taken on my post, and with respect, RE's post "didn't do it for me" ;) So..........it's just about some people being anti-NASA, anti-Shuttle.

Anyone want to prove me wrong?

PS RE's post did remind me I need to write up that presentation!

For me the only reason I am "anti-shuttle" or "anti-hlv" is because I strongly believe that the long term budget trend for NASA is a downward slope.  I fear that in an environment of budget overruns and shrinking budgets that the HLV will consume an ever larger part of NASA's budget till earth sciences and unmanned exploration all but cease to exist.

If congress came out with a 22 Billion dollar budget and added 1-2 billion a year for the next 10 years I would be the 1st one cheering HLV development. 

I trust ULA because they have a history of on time delivery on budget, I have faith in SpaceX because they have only been given fixed cost contracts, and even though they are behind schedule, the over budget part does not effect NASA.

I think this last year has shown us who runs NASA, it's not Bolden, it's Senator Shelby et all.  I have ZERO faith that Senator Shelby and the others see HLV as anything more than campaign donations and clout for their district.

If you in this forum, your 99% likely pro space flight, I just wish the pro Ares 5, Ares 5 redux, Shuttle extension crowd could at least see that the ones that are not pro HLV are not anti HSF, we are just worried HLV is driving NASA's Ford Gremlin into a brick wall.

I am concerned over HLV as well, but I also know that there are those within Congress who will demand such a vehicle.  So rather than fight against the idea of an HLV, I focus on how to *make* an HLV that fits in the budget restrictions.  I am with you in that I expect budget reduction, so I have worked accordingly.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #61 on: 04/02/2011 01:51 am »
"Jobs Program"

Seeing this a lot of late, and I've got to be honest, I really, really don't get posts complaining about "job's program". So, rather than moaning about it, let me ask you about it :)

A person may be a strong supporter of space exploration and also unhappy about how that money is being spent. Some taxpayers have the perception that politicians will do what's right for their career at the expense of the country as a whole, that the huge prime contractors have too much political clout, and that new smaller companies aren't being given a seat at the table when they've earned it ...

1) congressmen will try to protect jobs and bring new jobs to their district. It's one of the reasons they got elected. When representatives vote for space funding bills, they are sometimes put in the position of choosing what's right for their district at the expense of the best choice for the country. Nothing evil or devious about it.

2) the prime contractors are corporations. They exist to make a profit. They are huge and have enormous political influence. When NASA hires them to build a rocket, they will carefully strategize how to make the most money, even if the project never flies. I'm not talking about the lowly design engineer, but the executives. It's their job, it's what they do - nothing evil or devious about it.

3) it's up to the public and the individual taxpayer to make as much noise as possible to keep 1 and 2 in check, to demand results and accountability, and to demand that healthy competition is alive, thus the comments about corporate welfare, jobs programs and pork.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 01:56 am by pummuf »

Offline spacetiger

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Inside the NASA ranks
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #62 on: 04/02/2011 01:55 am »
To the original article and post...I will caveat my response first.  I have sympathy for our contractor friends who have or will lose their jobs from the changes going on with our space program. I have personally lost contractors on my team over the last year due to the pending cancellation of Ares.

What some/most people who will read this article do not realize is the situation could have been avoided to some extent.  Hiring workers either direct or through subs doesn't make business sense on a contracted program that has been announced for termination.

Yes..that is correct.. As soon as a month ago Boeing was hiring contractors to work Ares. I expect they were planning to transfer those folks to HLV eventually.  And to be fair they are under contract for manufacturing and assembly for the Upper Stage until October.  However I'm sure the contract milestones they do have to meet under program of record don't require an increase in manpower.

In my mind this article as well as the editorial in the Huntsville times a few weeks back represent scare tactics and political games being played out in the media. Should Congress get off the dime and pass a budget? YES. Does NASA need to define a mission and vehicle to support that mission ? YES. Should layoff threats be used to influence gain for sole source contracts? No.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #63 on: 04/02/2011 02:10 am »
To the original article and post...I will caveat my response first.  I have sympathy for our contractor friends who have or will lose their jobs from the changes going on with our space program. I have personally lost contractors on my team over the last year due to the pending cancellation of Ares.

What some/most people who will read this article do not realize is the situation could have been avoided to some extent.  Hiring workers either direct or through subs doesn't make business sense on a contracted program that has been announced for termination.

Yes..that is correct.. As soon as a month ago Boeing was hiring contractors to work Ares. I expect they were planning to transfer those folks to HLV eventually.  And to be fair they are under contract for manufacturing and assembly for the Upper Stage until October.  However I'm sure the contract milestones they do have to meet under program of record don't require an increase in manpower.

In my mind this article as well as the editorial in the Huntsville times a few weeks back represent scare tactics and political games being played out in the media. Should Congress get off the dime and pass a budget? YES. Does NASA need to define a mission and vehicle to support that mission ? YES. Should layoff threats be used to influence gain for sole source contracts? No.

Scare tactics?  With all due respect to you, I assume you are NASA.  It is easy to say "we need to define a plan", etc when your job is not at risk. 

You know you will have a job. 

You know you will have a paycheck your family can count on. 

You know that you will remain in this industry. 

You know that you don't have the strain of having to finish a job and then compete with thousands of others (assuming one stays in this industry at all) for a reasonably few number of jobs. 

You know that you don't have to sell your home or if you will be able to sell your home.

You don't have to worry, if you do get a job somewhere in this industry somewhere else, if your family will be happy there.

So scare tactics, no.  Reality?  Yes.  We're ready to face and create the future for you as your "contractor friends" if, again, someone would actually do something.  After all, NASA will take a year or so to actually grant a contract. 

Why?  And this speaks to your other point.  I presume you are familar with the large amount of importance and clauses NASA places in contracts for small businesses, minority-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, etc and that "X" percent of the work must be performed by them. 

I also presume that you are familar with the obligations of the contract.  That the contractor must meet the goals, objectives and requirements of the performance period of any particular contract.  That those requirements, etc are set forth by the NASA customer for that particular performance period.   
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #64 on: 04/02/2011 02:41 am »

Scare tactics?  With all due respect to you, I assume you are NASA.  It is easy to say "we need to define a plan", etc when your job is not at risk. 

You know you will have a job. 

You know you will have a paycheck your family can count on. 

You know that you will remain in this industry. 

You know that you don't have the strain of having to finish a job and then compete with thousands of others (assuming one stays in this industry at all) for a reasonably few number of jobs. 

You know that you don't have to sell your home or if you will be able to sell your home.

You don't have to worry, if you do get a job somewhere in this industry somewhere else, if your family will be happy there.


No a lot of the people I know don't work in that kind of place. I have worked at places with constant lay offs and places that laid off worker. IMHO the closing down of the shuttle gave NASA contracter more warning that I and all of the people I know who have been laied off have had.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #65 on: 04/02/2011 02:51 am »
I have my own opinions about SLS, but I must say one thing:

It sucks for the average worker. I know how hard it is to find a job these days. I heard a statistic this morning that the average time for a job hunt is now 39 weeks.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #66 on: 04/02/2011 03:00 am »
For a significant number of people, "jobs program" means expenditure with no wealth created.

Something along the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make-work_job

An example.

You pay people to dig holes. You plant trees in these.

Thats not a "jobs program", as there is some value/wealth created as an outcome.

You pay people to dig holes. You pay them some more to fill them in again.

Thats a jobs program. Even though people get paid, there is no wealth created.

So when someone says government-run HSF is becoming a "jobs program" they usually mean its a make-work program with no useful output ( like scientific knowledge ) or wealth created in the process. Or that the expenditure dwarfs the value created.

Ultimately, in all but most trivial examples, it becomes a question of values.

EDIT: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/11/space-isnt-a-jobs-program/

key quote
Quote
In the long run, with a vibrant, new space industry that generates actual wealth, the jobs will be real, productive and sustainable, no longer reliant on a broken budget and a fickle Congress for the opening of a new frontier.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 03:03 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline SkyKing

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #67 on: 04/02/2011 03:02 am »
If it is just about "jobs" then the question is "do the Taxpayers get the value for the cost that they put into creating the jobs?"

I am a conservative and what that means is that I dont like the government taking my hard earned money UNLESS there is some value in it for The Republic.  Fund the ATC system there is value.  We are a completely different nation, everyone's lives change if there is no Air Traffic Control system where passengers freight and other things can fly and fly pretty efficiently.  I think we need a US Marshals Service, an FBI, a National INsitute of Health and a lot of other things...but the question always has to be "do we get value for that?"

In the 60's a lot of money was spent on human spaceflight and the sole value came from the politics of it.  There were some spinoffs but all the spinoffs could have been built or discovered for a lot less money...we spent some tax dollars on Syncom and its pretty clear we got our moneys worth. 

Building a heavy lift (or really any human spaceflight program) has to be measured against the dollars it takes vrs the value those dollars give...particularly when a chunk of the dollars are all deficit spending.

It is one thing to spend money that the nation taxes for...but it is another thing to spend money that we borrow...and when we are borrowing the questions ahve to be asked even harder.

Sorry, I dont care if people "love their jobs" or "wow this is a talented work force"...one has to ask specifically "if we stop spending the money how does it change the folks lives who actually pony up the money". 

Human space exploration right now just cost to much and doesnt give all that much value for cost.  Flying the shuttle ...how will The Republic change when its done?  Particularly when there are cheaper ways to do what it does.

I am sorry that 800 Boeing folks will be out of a job, but that doesnt even come close to the number of folks who will lose their job in the CAL/United merger...and that is a non taxpayer supporter effort. 

The reality is that no one can give a good reason to build a Shuttle HLV that comes anywhere near close to the cost of the effort.  Explain why we should build a Shuttle HLV instead of using that same money to modernize the Air Traffic Control system or finish Hwy 646 in Santa Fe TX or ....if you can you have something.  As it is "American greatness" or "keeping people employed" isnt it.

Sky King

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #69 on: 04/02/2011 03:31 am »
pathfinder,

Why do you assume those of us in the aerospace business have never faced lay-offs before? 

This is not a simple lay-off, simple business cycle, etc and as much as you would like to try to spin this goes way beyond shuttle. 

So let's have an analogy:

You say you have worked for these places where there were "constant layoffs".  What if one of these places you worked for was basically shutting down most of the company?  But, this company decided to leave one subsidiary open and untouched, in fact they even said the subsidiary will grow to new levels of business development.  However, the other subsidiaries that are being shut down were integral to the survival of the one being left open. 

The Board of Directors for your company has for two-plus years said they would reorganize and everything would become clear.  In fact, through this reorganization, there would likely be more jobs and the business as a whole would reach new levels of profit never before seen.  However, still today, they have not told you how this reorganization was going to be implemented. 

They say that the key to the one remaining subsidiary and to the business as a whole is to start some new joint ventures with other companies.  The subsidiary that will remain open will now be critically tied to these new joint ventures in place of the ones that your company has decided to shut down for whatever reason.  However, for these joint ventures to succeed, this subsidiary must remain viable and profitable, even though that viability and profitability is dependent on these joint ventures being established first.  In other words, circular logic.  Most concerning is these joint ventures do not yet have a business plan in place or even really what capital will be required to form these joint ventures and therefore have no idea about when these joint ventures will be able to begin business operations.  If the joint ventures don't work out, they'll just outsource the production of an inferior product to Mexico to try to support the only open subsidiary.

Beyond that, the Board of Directors at your company has said they will replace the subsidiaries with new subsidiaries that will be "better".  These new subsidiaries have, now for several years, been spoken about only in vague and nebulous terms.  Yes management walks around the halls saying lots of great buzzwords, but as an employee, you have seen no details about implementation of these great ideas that will fulfill these great promises.  You have been told you will have an opportunity in one these new "better" subsidiaries or maybe one of the joint ventures because they value your experience and there will be plenty of opportunities for everyone, but without any details, you wonder how that can be given the majority of the company will cease operations in just a few months.

But you love this company and you believe in the product it produces.  Would some of the questions above not cross your mind?  Would you not only be concerned from a personal standpoint but also that product it produces and if would still be viable?
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 03:42 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline SkyKing

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #70 on: 04/02/2011 03:36 am »



No a lot of the people I know don't work in that kind of place. I have worked at places with constant lay offs and places that laid off worker. IMHO the closing down of the shuttle gave NASA contracter more warning that I and all of the people I know who have been laied off have had.
[/quote]

This is accurate.

Three years ago a friend who I have known since college and flew with  was trying to get a job flying USA's Sabreliners.  I knew the then  Chief Pilot at Ellington pretty well and even though I was overseas did a pretty full court press to help this person get a job with them.  My friend got an interview (he was well qualified having a Sabre type rating and flew the T-39 a lot at Pens)...and when I asked him how it went he said that they were very clear that the job was likely going to end in 2010 or at best 2011.  They were clear to the point that they made him sign a written acknowledgment that he had been told that the job would "go away".

My friend was offered the job but in the interim found a job with a local oil company flying from Houston to Alaska every so often and still  has the job...but that was one of the things he took away from the interview...the clear statement that the shuttle program and USA's need for people was sunsetting.

Sky King

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #71 on: 04/02/2011 04:53 am »
Oh, I think there is enough blame to go around.  NASA, the President of the United States, the Congress...

Correct no one is without blame.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 04:53 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #72 on: 04/02/2011 12:50 pm »
I have my own opinions about SLS, but I must say one thing:

It sucks for the average worker. I know how hard it is to find a job these days. I heard a statistic this morning that the average time for a job hunt is now 39 weeks.
I know, OT but...
We have the same kind of polls here. It's broken into 3 categories

1) Person found work
2) Person gave up trying, and is no longer 'hunting'
3) Person no longer qualifies for Employment insurance benefits and falls off the radar

I'm sure it's not just a Canadian thing. People out there are hurting, and the true numbers would probably scare most.

Offline MP99

Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #73 on: 04/02/2011 01:52 pm »
To do anything but lay them off would be ridiculous.

You can't just demand for someone to pay you to begin building something/anything just to ensure your staff have jobs.

Those people embody a capability for their employer to undertake Aerospace work.

If they need to lay off that capability due to short-term politics, how much do you think it will cost them to build it back up when NASA comes calling with a new contract in a year or two's time? How much less competent will that workforce be until they've taken a year or two (??) to settle back into the swing of things. How long did it take NASA to reinstate capabilities lost when Apollo was closed down?

If their competitor has retained their capabilities, how would Boeing be able to compete against them for this contract? Basically, Boeing are out of that sector of the business semi-permanently and/or it costs NASA much more than was expected and budgeted for.

MSFC has been accused of doing a poor job in running the Ares I upper stage project because they had completely lost the capability, and were building that back up as part of this project.



While I can empathize with Mr Shaw, if this is a new vehicle (it is), isn't NASA required by FAR regulations to competitively bid the work?  Not trying to justify any "foot-dragging", just trying to ask a question.  Wasn't Aerojet recently making the claim that even the SRB contract (if they go SDHLV) would have to be bid competitively?

NASA was specifically instructed to novate existing contracts where possible in Public Law 111-267 (previously S.3729):-

Quote
SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
<snip>

(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—
In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
(My highlight).

"...shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to" [develop the Space Launch System].

Regarding Aerojet, ATK seem to get a shoe-in - "extend or modify existing ... contracts ... including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors".

cheers, Martin

Edit 1: can't believe we got to post #73 in this thread before someone brought up the contract clause in PL 111-267. Surely it applies here?

Edit 2: now I wonder if it does. The existing contract is Ares I upper stage, not directly applicable to a LEO-only SDLV by 2016.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 02:02 pm by MP99 »

Offline Calorspace

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #74 on: 04/02/2011 02:39 pm »
To do anything but lay them off would be ridiculous.

You can't just demand for someone to pay you to begin building something/anything just to ensure your staff have jobs.

Those people embody a capability for their employer to undertake Aerospace work.

If they need to lay off that capability due to short-term politics, how much do you think it will cost them to build it back up when NASA comes calling with a new contract in a year or two's time? How much less competent will that workforce be until they've taken a year or two (??) to settle back into the swing of things. How long did it take NASA to reinstate capabilities lost when Apollo was closed down?

If their competitor has retained their capabilities, how would Boeing be able to compete against them for this contract? Basically, Boeing are out of that sector of the business semi-permanently and/or it costs NASA much more than was expected and budgeted for.

MSFC has been accused of doing a poor job in running the Ares I upper stage project because they had completely lost the capability, and were building that back up as part of this project.



While I can empathize with Mr Shaw, if this is a new vehicle (it is), isn't NASA required by FAR regulations to competitively bid the work?  Not trying to justify any "foot-dragging", just trying to ask a question.  Wasn't Aerojet recently making the claim that even the SRB contract (if they go SDHLV) would have to be bid competitively?

NASA was specifically instructed to novate existing contracts where possible in Public Law 111-267 (previously S.3729):-

Quote
SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
<snip>

(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—
In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
(My highlight).

"...shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to" [develop the Space Launch System].

Regarding Aerojet, ATK seem to get a shoe-in - "extend or modify existing ... contracts ... including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors".

cheers, Martin

Edit 1: can't believe we got to post #73 in this thread before someone brought up the contract clause in PL 111-267. Surely it applies here?

Edit 2: now I wonder if it does. The existing contract is Ares I upper stage, not directly applicable to a LEO-only SDLV by 2016.

My point is that this is Boeings own problem. If they wish to retain those capabilities then they should not lay them off - saying "Give us this work or we will lay people off" is completely stupid.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #75 on: 04/02/2011 03:58 pm »
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here that is slinging mud on the term "jobs program" unadvisedly; and that is that unless you are running a business all by yourself, with no employees of any kind, then you are in a "jobs program". If you are an employee of any kind then you are benefiting from a "jobs program". I find it ironic that people with jobs complain about "job programs" as if they were bad things; they are not. Without "job programs" you would *all* be unemployed and impoverished. With the exception of my unemployed friends, *everyone* I know is benefiting from somebody else's "job program".

I am a beneficiary of a jobs program. I get paid to design the navy's nuclear submarines.
OV is a beneficiary of a jobs program. He gets paid to make sure Shuttle crews return home to their families safely.
Pathfinder is a beneficiary of a jobs program. I don't know what he does for a living but he is employed producing goods and services for somebody.

Everyone here, except the unemployed is a beneficiary of a jobs program of one kind or another. What is a jobs program? Nothing more than a company with a contract that has hired individuals to perform on that contract so that a profit can be made. And every one of those "job programs" are very, very good things. Without all those "job programs", the citizens of this and other industrial nations would be no better off than the impoverished people from Haiti, the most impoverished nation on earth. What's the difference between them and us? WE HAVE JOBS! We are all in "jobs programs". Without "jobs programs" there would be no industry. Without industry there would be no prosperity. Without prosperity there would be only dispair. What makes the difference? You guessed it: "job programs". They are all very good things.

Some people on here have been insinuating that the NASA contractors are engaged in trying to maintain a jobs program. They are right, because as long as there is a profit to be made, then the companies will continue to employ people in their jobs programs. Good for them, because that is good for the country - for all of us.

And here's a surprise for some of you: No company is going to hire people to get paid to stand around and do nothing, generating no goods or services on an expired contract. And yet that is exactly what *some* of you are insinuating a "jobs program" is. You could not be further from the truth.

If you want to talk about inefficient corporate work policy where employees are inefficiently used and the companies *could* get better value for their dollar, well that is a different subject all together.

I love the role I play in my jobs program and am proud of the work I do.
And I am tired of cringing every time I hear some of you slinging the term "jobs program" around as if it were a bad word. It's not.

What you are trying to describe, I think, is people being hired, and paid, to do little in the way of producing value. They are being hired for the sole purpose of making sure they can collect a paycheck. I have to tell you that nobody in their right mind would hire people to do that. And for folks to insinuate that is what is going to happen at NASA is just plain wrong and destructive to civil conversation.

Find another term - please - because what you are so deathly afraid of just isn't going to happen. There will *NOT* be a "jobs program" put in place to pay people to do nothing. That is not going to happen folks, so just get off it, ok? Please! Jobs programs hire people to produce value for their wages, and anybody hired to perform on any NASA contract is going to be earning their pay by actually working for it. There is and will not be any NASA welfare program.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 03:59 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #76 on: 04/02/2011 04:17 pm »

What you are trying to describe, I think, is people being hired, and paid, to do little in the way of producing value. They are being hired for the sole purpose of making sure they can collect a paycheck. I have to tell you that nobody in their right mind would hire people to do that. And for folks to insinuate that is what is going to happen at NASA is just plain wrong and destructive to civil conversation.

Find another term - please - because what you are so deathly afraid of just isn't going to happen. There will *NOT* be a "jobs program" put in place to pay people to do nothing. That is not going to happen folks, so just get off it, ok? Please! Jobs programs hire people to produce value for their wages, and anybody hired to perform on any NASA contract is going to be earning their pay by actually working for it. There is and will not be any NASA welfare program.

I disagree. I think there is a "jobs program" in the above sense (being paid while producing little of value) in NASA, in most government agencies and in many large private corporations.

This "jobs program" is better known as management, administration or overhead.

Management members collect (often very large) paychecks, while producing nothing of value. Administration and management cost a lot for little gain. I think it is this that most people who are fed up with NASA's current role and structure and who are calling for a radical downsizing mean. Cut the overhead.

Yes, I know, in the end it's always the poor guy on the assembly line who gets the shaft, while the fat cats stick to their padded seats in their cozy offices. I know it and I hate it. Because that is where the real waste of taxpayer money lies.

SpaceX has a lot of kudos from people like me because have much less administration. Less fat, more muscle.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2011 05:18 pm by aquanaut99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #77 on: 04/02/2011 04:35 pm »
Jobs program is where congress has more concern about the money spent in their districts than the actual benefit to the whole country.  Would TX, FL, AL, UT representatives support an SLS produced in CA, WA, CO, etc that provided the same service to NASA for the same cost?  EELV derived or RP-1 boosters options aren't supported because they don't employ the same number of employees or in the same states.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #78 on: 04/02/2011 04:50 pm »
SpaceX has a lot of kudos from people like me because have much less administration. Less fat, more muscle.

"and in SpaceX's case the majority of who they've hired of late being admin people, not engineers"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24653.msg717119#msg717119
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Boeing: SLS Rocket Work Needed To Avert Layoffs
« Reply #79 on: 04/02/2011 04:57 pm »
I believe, though am not sure, one issue is there are not going to be any NASA Civil Servant layoffs after the shuttle program concludes.

If this is true, then that is indeed a "jobs program" in which some people will likely be paid to sit around with nothing to do.  Afterall, if your job is to inspect the work of a contractor who is placing tiles on the shuttle, and there is no need to place tiles anymore, then the civil servant inspector should be laid off right after the last tile is placed.

There are some skills which NASA may need to maintain during the gap during which a new system is coming on line.  If the gap is <12 months, then it makes sense.  If the gap is >5 years, then probably not so much sense.  From 1 - 4 years may be a gray area of sorts.

Tags:
 

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