-
#80 by Jim on 08 Oct, 2006 01:47
-
Quote
R&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice. -
#81 by R&R on 08 Oct, 2006 02:05
-
Quote
Jim - 8/10/2006 7:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
Eventually yes. They had to sign letters of intent to remain when the venture was anounced. They were frozen at that time from transfer within the parent for two years from the close. The long approval means that freeze will be closer to three and half years. Those that said they will not move agreed to transition their jobs to the new sites after which they can go back. The ones that stay can go back after the freeze. Anyone who said flat no way had to quit. -
#82 by Dexter on 09 Oct, 2006 04:42
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised"
savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
-
#83 by Nick L. on 09 Oct, 2006 04:52
-
Quote
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:25 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised" savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
Yes, final manufacturing will be consolidated. That means the bolting together of all the parts. Those parts aren't all built in Decatur - some of them will have to be sourced from outside places. Atlas parts that can't be built in Decatur will be sourced from other areas, including Harlingen, just like parts for Delta IV that can't be built in Decatur are sourced elsewhere.
Nick -
#84 by Dexter on 09 Oct, 2006 04:53
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
-
#85 by Nick L. on 09 Oct, 2006 04:58
-
Quote
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
Nick -
#86 by Dexter on 09 Oct, 2006 05:01
-
Quote
Nick L. - 8/10/2006 11:35 PM
QuoteDexter - 8/10/2006 11:25 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 10:12 AM
Harlingen is not shutting down. It will continue to supply Atlas components
PS. It is Lockheed Martin. The LVs come from the Martin side
The ULA party line is that all manufacturing will relocate to Decatur and this will result in the "promised" savings.
Now you are saying not all will be consolidated. What gives?
Yes, final manufacturing will be consolidated. That means the bolting together of all the parts. Those parts aren't all built in Decatur - some of them will have to be sourced from outside places. Atlas parts that can't be built in Decatur will be sourced from other areas, including Harlingen, just like parts for Delta IV that can't be built in Decatur are sourced elsewhere.
Nick
The premise behind ULA is to consolidate all manufacturing under one roof to consolidate overhead costs as presented to the public. Now John Q. Public is being told that we might not have all the consolidation we spoke of earlier.
And the DOD doesn't believe the savings will be realized.
As stated previoulsy in this thread, I should not believe everything I read, especially a press release. -
#87 by Dexter on 09 Oct, 2006 05:04
-
Quote
Nick L. - 8/10/2006 11:41 PM
QuoteDexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
NickSounds like two options to me.
-
#88 by Nick L. on 09 Oct, 2006 05:07
-
ULA never said that ALL manufacturing was going to be in one place - it just won't happen. Decatur doesn't have the space or the capability to build some of the parts that are needed. For example, Decatur obviously can't build RS-68s and RD-180s for the rockets, those need to be sourced from elsewhere.
ULA is hoping John Q. Public isn't so ignorant as to think that everything can be built under one roof. Judging by your responses, it seems, sadly, that that might not be the case. -
#89 by Nick L. on 09 Oct, 2006 05:09
-
Quote
Dexter - 8/10/2006 11:47 PM
QuoteNick L. - 8/10/2006 11:41 PM
QuoteDexter - 8/10/2006 11:36 PM
QuoteJim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.Employees always have choices. Kenneth Krieg in his letter to the FTC is concerned that people will make the choice not to relocate. Perhaps this is why he is concerned that reliability will go down.
This is an interesting article for your consideration
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/03/01/focus3.html
No doubt that in Los Angeles with a high cost of living, most, if not all employees' spouses also have a career.
As a NASA employee, you should be concerned about the potential issue this presents to your launch vehicle procurements. Kenneth Krieg is.
I think you've misread. In the case of e.g. transition of manufacture from Pueblo to Decatur (which was within Boeing), the employees had no choice - it was either move to Decatur or get out. With ULA, the employees affected by the closings can (according to Jim) stay with their respective companies (Boeing or LM).
NickSounds like two options to me.
Splitting hairs.
Well, I'm talking about number of options involving staying with the company. In Pueblo, you moved - that was your only choice to stay with Boeing. With ULA, you can move to wherever you need to go, or you can stay with LM or Boeing. -
#90 by Dexter on 09 Oct, 2006 05:17
-
According to R&R:
"Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent."
The path back to the parent is not so easy and automatic as is being suggested here.
Who is right? -
#91 by Nick L. on 09 Oct, 2006 05:25
-
I won't profess to know the answer; as I have already stated, I don't work for LM or Boeing so I don't know the details on how it works. I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge of the matter to respond.
It seems though from what R&R said that the process is fairly straightforward. You transition your job to someone who is willing to move to the new site, and then you can go back to your home company.
That's just my interpretation of what he said, I'm not 100% sure.
Nick -
#92 by bombay on 09 Oct, 2006 05:37
-
Quote
Jim - 7/10/2006 8:30 PM
QuoteR&R - 7/10/2006 9:01 PM
Jim's correct. The soon to be ULA folks didn't get a choice either. It was stay for at least 2 years after the close or leave. Also they were not allowed to leave during the FTC approval process. Those that won't move can transition their job to someone else at the new site and then be released to go back to the parent.
The ULA have a chance to go back to the parent companies. The people affected by the San Diego or Pueblo closings had no choice.
The ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after a two year freeze as "new" employees whereby there benefits (pensions, etc.) will no longer be under the current plans. There pension for example, will be based on a contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan, which it now is.
So lets assume you had 20 yrs with Lockheed upon day one of ULA and you went back to Lockheed after 2 yrs. You wouldn't get the huge accumulation effect of the pension plan that kicks in between 20-30 years with the company. It ended at 20 yrs under the old plan upon day 1 of ULA and will begin anew upon your first day back with Lockheed under the new plan.
GD people were not frozen for even one day after the sale. They were free to seek another job within GD at their choosing. They were not held hostage as is the case with ULA. The time to bail out of ULA and hook up with Boeing and Lockheed is now being that everything is still Boeing and Lockheed. This would enable people to continue there time of service uninterrupted with the parent companies under all existing plans, which would amount to alot upon retirement. Unfortunately, they're not allowed to do what many would like and should be free to do.
Everything about ULA stinks from the head on down. -
#93 by Propforce on 09 Oct, 2006 07:08
-
Quote
bombay - 8/10/2006 10:20 PM
The ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after a two year freeze as "new" employees whereby there benefits (pensions, etc.) will no longer be under the current plans. There pension for example, will be based on a contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan, which it now is.
Let me be specific, the ULA people will have the chance to go back to the parent companies after finish a "transition period", in which that length of period is determined by your manager depending on your value on the program, after you teach someone in ULA how to do your job. After that, you will be "released" from the ULA and return back to your functional organization. After a reasonable period of time, say 60 days (the standard layoff notice grace period), you will be laid-off if you're not able to find a job within the parent company. However, keep in mind that starting day 1 of ULA, you will no longer be an employee of the parent company. You will not have the access to company internal e-mail, job postings, etc. You will wear a different badge and will have retrictive access to a certain buildings only. You will be effectively applying a job as an "outside person" and have as good chance of accessing company's job posting as someone who works at Walmart.QuoteEverything about ULA stinks from the head on down.
The biggest loser of this ULA deal is the employee, not the management, of both Atlas and Delta. I think the employees at Boeing Delta got the short end of stick, because they are forced with the decision of leaving their homes, neighborhoods, friends, and sometime aging/ sick parents for others to take care of.
As a result, several key senior technical guys in Delta have already left the company. More will be leaving, and even more will choose to retire, or do the "tranisition" instead. Last time when Boeing moved the Space Shuttle program office to Houston, in order to get closer to the customer, only about 12% of key technical personnel chose to go. As a result, the new and inexperienced thermal and TPS analysis guys in Houston were partial to blame on the Columbia tragedy. Several senior engineers who used to support the shuttle program were so angry with the way company handle the Columbia issue, because if they were consulted perhaps the issue could have been elevated and no astronauts had to die from this, that they've spoken publically of willing to testify on this issue in front of Congress.
The young engineers who can not afford to buy a house in Southern California will go to the ULA. Those who are in management positions and/or support functions who can not find another job equal or better will go to the ULA. But the overwhelming majority of competent senior technical engineers (age 40+) who already have a home on so. cal. will NOT go to the ULA.
When both companies and the government, made it clear that the employee's welfare is the lowest of all priorities in the ULA joint venture. When this happens, the employees will voice their opinions by walking out the door with a "one-finger salute".
So when you read that this joint venture will produce "cost savings" "synergy" while maintaining "mission assurance", keep in mind who's talking. These people think workers are like light bulbs, when one burns out they simply replace it with another, and that anyone can do another person's job (except their own jobs, of course). These people's greatest contribution on a job is making powerpoint charts and have no clue how a real task is accomplished. These are the same people who'd like to capture engineers' experience on a computer, so they can just click on mouse instead of relying real individual's judgement and experience (other than their own) to make things happen. -
#94 by edkyle99 on 10 Oct, 2006 03:50
-
Quote
Propforce - 9/10/2006 1:51 AM
When both companies and the government, made it clear that the employee's welfare is the lowest of all priorities in the ULA joint venture. When this happens, the employees will voice their opinions by walking out the door with a "one-finger salute".
As they should. This is the 21st Century. If you want loyalty, get a dog. No company exists for its employees, unless they happen to be shareholders.
- Ed Kyle -
#95 by Dexter on 10 Oct, 2006 04:33
-
AMEN!
This is the kind of focus on shareholder value that results in people no longer wanting to pursue jobs with large corporations. Who wants to be an engineer when you can be a lawyer or own your own business.
For your consideration on the matter of brain drain.
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_060717.html
When Kenneth Krieg is concerned about critical people not wanting to relocate and potential remedies and Propforce paints a very vivid picture that the (40+ age) engineers will not relocate inspite of said "HB list", you have to start wondering exactly how much risk will be placed on our ability to launch critical national assets.
Sounds like ULA will create exactly what it was advertised to avoid.
I think we should start looking at outsourcing this work too. It will be cheaper to do it in India. Shareholders will love it! -
#96 by lmike on 10 Oct, 2006 04:55
-
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents. -
#97 by Dexter on 10 Oct, 2006 05:12
-
Quote
lmike - 9/10/2006 11:38 PM
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents.Agreed. And that is exactly why this is a risk to National Security. The lightbulb metaphor Propforce uses where experienced engineers are seen as commodities is making them look at other outlets to apply their talents.
-
#98 by lmike on 10 Oct, 2006 05:21
-
Quote
Dexter - 9/10/2006 9:55 PM
Quotelmike - 9/10/2006 11:38 PM
Why don't these "out/insourced" folks form their own companies or join the existing. It's as good as any a proposition. The best propulsion brain in the Delta leaving for Kistler? Well, I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with it.
[edit] brain drain be ... There is always an outlet in this country to apply ones talents.Agreed. And that is exactly why this is a risk to National Security. The lightbulb metaphor Propforce uses where experienced engineers are seen as commodities is making them look at other outlets to apply their talents.
I don't agree with the point of this (if I understand this correctly). scamlogy (software) engineers have been far and wide picked out of the "general pool". This actually has contributed to National Security. Experienced engineers are a valuable commodity. No question. Why is the affiliation such a big deal? They more often than not form their own companies or persue their own interests that further our nation's knowledge in new areas. And spawn off new technologies. Where's the problem? That they leave LM or Boeing specifically? -
#99 by Dexter on 10 Oct, 2006 06:18
-
The problem, as I see it, is that ULA is packaged and sold as the only means necessary to preserve national security requirements by consolidating everything under one roof.
In laying out the plan and seeking approval, both companies forgot to ask their employees how they felt about the whole situation. You can relocate factories and offices but if the people are not willing to go what was the reason for doing ULA in the first place.
I have no problem with employees leaving to start their own companies, but in the launch industry, SpaceX as an example, will find it very difficult as a small start up to compete with the ULA monopoly because of the capital requirements involved. These experienced engineers will no doubt be able to find gainful employment elsewhere.
What concerns me is that 5-10 years from now in the midst of another failure investigation, the USAF will site the loss of experienced personell as a reason for launch failures just like they did in 2000 with the Titan IV failures.
savings.